Is The Keep on the Borderlands a well-designed adventure module?

[Melan]

Reverse my question then: why was Ned Shakeshaft complained about/mentioned as a bad design element in SSS?

Quasqueton

That makes more sense. My answer is "beats me". Although I am no fan of U1, I had no trouble with Ned and don't consider him a bad design decision - maybe when I go home and take another look at the module, I'll be able to say more.

[edit]U1, not N1! Dammit![/edit]

 

[gizmo33]

Reverse my question then: why was Ned Shakeshaft complained about/mentioned as a bad design element in SSS?

My recollection of the thread is that the complaint about Ned was not that he turned on characters. It was that tactically he didn't make any sense. How long was he supposed to sit there tied up when he would probably be just as effective (or more) as a look-out who could warn the slavers without ever having to join the PCs?

I can't say that's everything everyone has ever said about Ned, but I can say I can see that point and it might be a reason why the "NPCs who betray" in KotB aren't comparable.

 

[BluSponge]

I voted yes! Enthusiastically so.

Has there been an introductory adventure published in recent years with the same depth of play, interesting locales, and evocative ideas? Seriously, I wanna know. I need a few for my game.

Tom

 

[Quasqueton]

I agree with others that Ned is the one flaw in an otherwise nearly perfect module. I don't object to his presence (as that is indeed covered in the module), but I object to the fact that he punishes the players for their good deed of freeing him with a (probably) lethal backstab attack. Now, 1e was a different time, when player-vs-DM was more prevalent and backed into the culture, but I didn't like it then and I abhor it now.

Yes, the players need to learn that you can't trust everyone, but they probably don't need to learn it so early and in such a harsh fashion.

Shady characters are good in an adventure, but only if the vast majority of people are not shady. If every "prisoner" stabs you in the back, you'll soon start preemptively stabbing the prisoners!

Ned is fine so long as the DM doesn't assume that Ned's appearance in the module means that every good adventure has an NPC stab you in the back.

The real problem, IMHO, is that this is a first level module. Therefore one of the, if not the, first adventure(s) the characters will go through. If they are newbies this teaches them to never trust strangers! Our group, even though we weren't newbies, would debate for quite some time about letting new PCs join the party because the characters had no reason to trust them. And quite a few innocent prisoners got the "he must be another Ned, kill him!" treatment.

So either you deliberately metagame after meeting him, or the game can fall apart because the first thing the players learn is that you can't trust anyone!

I do think Ned is a poor adventure design element because, as others have said, he potentially teaches newbie players not to trust anyone.

Quasqueton

 

[Storm Raven]

My recollection of the thread is that the complaint about Ned was not that he turned on characters. It was that tactically he didn't make any sense. How long was he supposed to sit there tied up when he would probably be just as effective (or more) as a look-out who could warn the slavers without ever having to join the PCs?

How would he do that? He doesn't know how to contact the smugglers. Neither did the merchant who planted him as a set-up. How, excatly, is Ned supposed to warn the smugglers about the party?

 

[Quasqueton]

I realize I'm possibly the most blamable for derailing this to a SSS discussion, but let me redirect such to the proper place:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166720

Quasqueton

 

[painandgreed]

Reverse my question then: why was Ned Shakeshaft complained about/mentioned as a bad design element in SSS?

I brought up Ned but mostly because I forgot why he was there. My remaining objection is that it was just a bad plan. Tied up and waiting in a house indefinatly till PCs show up is just a strange and near suicidal plan (considering there were some possible wandering monsters that could have just eaten him). If he had been in the town and approached players (as one DM had him do) or simply shadowed players, I wouldn't have a problem with him.

The prisoners in B2 are actual prisoners.

 

[lukelightning]

My favorite parts about Keep on the Borderlands were lots of little touches. One of my favorites was the bit about bugbears liking catnip. The fact that nobody in town had a name never bothered me. As a novice player I had trouble remembering NPCs in other adventures ("I go see Bob to get healed." DM "Bob is the blacksmith. You need Barbara the cleric."). Sure it's simplistic, but what's wrong with saying "we to talk to the captain of the guards" and just assume the actual PCs refer to him by name?

As for the bathroom facilities question, remember that orcs poop in the woods. Or in the corner. And at least most of the tribes had easy access to the outside, so they didn't need an entire ecosystem in their caves.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Arnwyn]

Why has no one complained about these?

I don't know. How many are the same people responding?

By the way, Numion, what the HELL does this have to do with rose coloured glasses?

His statement still makes no sense - for example, my only experience with both U1 and B2 were less than a year ago when I converted them to 3e. In any case, the 'nostalgia' argument has already been proven wrong in many threads at ENWorld over the past few years. Numion doesn't know what he's talking about.