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

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I was just curious as to why those who had a problem with the NPC trick/betrayal in SSS didn’t speak up with a problem with the same scenario in KotB.

I'm not one of the folks who had issues with Ned, but my guess on this subject is that Ned seems to be set up as an unavoidable thing, while the KotB are things you might run into, or might not. That's just a guess, however.

 

[Mycanid]

Wow. This Ned sure is a controversial character! People go on and on about him in the Saltmarsh thread Quasqueton started a bit ago and they go on about him here too!

Whether you love or hate or can do without him, he sure seems to attract attention, eh?

Anyway ... back to the topic at hand of KOTB, eh?

 

[RFisher]

B2's purpose is to introduce new DMs to the game (beyond what is found in the Basic rulebook itself) & provide them with a starting setting & encourage them to flesh it out. In this, it does admirably well. It gives them a home base. Shows them how to detail it further. It gives them a bit of wilderness, a handful of side encounters, & opportunities to flesh them out. It gives them a pre-stocked dungeon with a lot adventuring potential. While the rulebook gave lots of advice on creating dungeons, B2 gave a concrete example orders of magnitude more useful than the example dungeon in the rulebook.

I agree with Dr. Holmes who said it was the best work Gygax had done ("for us") to date.

It's easy to find "illogical" elements in any module, especially one that intentionally doesn't bother to spell everything out for you. It's equally easy to come up with rationalizations for any such criticisms.

One of the best things about this module is how it encourages roleplaying. The module may be "about" hack & slash, but when people tell stories about B2, it's usually events in the keep itself that they highlight.

For me, this module has a lot of qualities that I wish designers would emulate. It tends to give me the stuff I need & leave out the stuff I'm willing to improvise.

Rumors! 'Nuff said.

It doesn't give me stupid NPC names (i.e. anybody else's idea of fantasy names except my own) that I have to choose to either suffer with or try to replace. For some reason it's much easier for me to add a name to the occupation used in the module than to substitute names. More importantly, I don't have to know the name of an NPC until it actually comes up in play. I find the way this module refers to NPCs by occupation instead of name makes it easier for me to follow when an NPCs is mentioned in other contexts besides where he's likely to be encountered. ("Blarth?" ...mad flipping through module... "Who was that again?") This is something I hope to emulate if I write any more modules intended for others to use.

It doesn't have pages upon pages of prose that I have to sift through looking for the relevant nuggets. I don't have time for that these days.

As for the home base & environs aspects of the module, these are good things to emulate, but I don't think every module needs them.

While I find a lot in the module to be exactly what I look for in a module, I recognize that somebody else's needs may be different.

 

[RFisher]

I was never very clear on the armor. BD&D armor was pretty much leather armor, chainmail, or platemail. So my interpretation was that the elf was wearing leather armor (or had chainmail underneath his outer covering), the human was wearing plate mail, and the dwarf might have been wearing a leather breastplate we can't see or is wearing no armor at all.

Yeah, my attitude towards depictions of armor & classic D&D AC is much like my attitude towards classic D&D encumberance. Look at the "canonical" points of no armor, leather, mail, and plate & mail. Look at the armor in question. Pick the point on the scale that seems most appropriate.

 

[arwink]

I used to think that Keep on the Borderlands was a well-designed module. Then I ran it as the introduction to my campaign and watched it kill the interest of 80% of the people around the table. The sole person who was keen to return to the Caves of Chaos after the first session largely wanted to go for nostalgia reasons.
\
Interestingly enough, I was still using information from the module nearly a year after the characters walked away from it. I think it makes a far better setting than it does an adventure.

 

[Hussar]

One of the best things about this module is how it encourages roleplaying. The module may be "about" hack & slash, but when people tell stories about B2, it's usually events in the keep itself that they highlight.

Really? That is so far removed from my experience. Nobody really even bothered with the keep any time I ran or played this. It was all about whacking the baddies. The keep was where you went to heal and that was about it. Mileage may certainly vary.

Overall, I would say this is a well designed module. I'm just not sure about the lessons being taught though. I wonder if the rather large number of hack and slash adventures with zero role playing that I played in over the years can be attributed to this module. The lack of guidance in the module on how it should play out may be a strength for those who appreciate it, but for those who maybe could have used a nudge or two onto the path of actually doing more than rolling dice, it might not have hurt.

 

[Sunderstone]

While this module wasnt as "focused" as a Sunless Citadel, Sinister Secret, Crucible of Freya, etc. It was well enough designed for its time.
It left alot of development up to the DM, back then this wasnt a burden because the rules were Basic enough. The whole idea of so many different humanoids living together might be a tad out of whack by today's standards, but back then this was also not a big deal.

The module was fun as hell when we first started playing D&D, so in that sense it was well designed. Would I play it again? "Hell Yeah!" But..... I would change some of the residents of the Caves of Chaos (though not all).

 

[Delta]

Ned in U1: Tied up and gagged, alone in an open room with wandering monsters. Time limit to reasonableness --> a few hours? Plan acceptability: Very low.

Priest in B2: Living comfortably in an apartment, in a well-defended castle, directly next to the tavern. Time limit to reasonableness --> many years? Plan acceptability: Very high.

 

[Hussar]

Priest in B2: Living comfortably in an apartment, in a well-defended castle, directly next to the tavern. Time limit to reasonableness --> many years? Plan acceptability: Very high.

You forgot one very important part of that equation: Probability that he will meet the party unless the DM contrives it? Very, very small. Chances he will see play unless the DM forces it? Zero.