1E Keep On The Borderline

ParanoydStyle

Peace Among Worlds
So, here's the thing. At first blush I thought that Keep On The Borderlands was a great introductory module to teach new players the game, but that was based on a very cursory skim of the actual module. Being in the habit of doing everything bass ackwards, apparently, I was about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way done translating Keep to 5th Edition when I realized...I actually really dislike this module.

Most of my complaints are the same as ones I've read online recently although I probably have a new one or two to add. For starters, the fact that neither the keep nor any of the many NPCs that live there have names is pretty off-putting. Maybe the intention was for the DM to customize the module by giving all of those NPCs names and personalities but as I started to do that for my 5E conversion I got frustrated pretty quickly: there are a LOT of largely fungible nameless NPCs. A complaint I haven't heard from others that I'll throw in is that the "Keep On The Borderlands" is actually a medium sized town. See, on my initial skim of the module years ago, I kind of got the impression from the text about the PCs using the Keep as a base of operations that it would be mostly deserted except for the PCs and the PCs could customize the keep as they saw fit but of course once I got into translating it was clear that that was REALLY REALLY not the case. With a bank and a guild hall and an inn and a tavern and multiple shops along with a seriously sizable army of defenders, the "Keep On The Borderlands" is actually a medium-sized or large town by D&D standards. Which actually makes it even weirder that it doesn't have a name.

And finally, and this is a complaint I've seen before, it feels like a nonsensical quagmire of anti-logic how literally 8-10 tribes of demi-humans/monstrous humanoids have chosen to live right on top of each other tenement slum style in the Caves of Chaos when they have the entire surrounding wilderness to find lairs in where they're not tripping over each other. Then there's the fact that they are all completely passive: largely, each tribe of humanoids is just there in their caves waiting for the PCs to come in and try to kill them. The two semi-warring orc tribes are a baby step in the right direction but the fact that neither the tribes or their leaders have names is sort of a roadblock to the roleplaying possibilities. There's a real lack of enemy variety as while there are at least five or six varieties of monstrous humanoids to fight, there really isn't much difference between fighting orcs and hobgoblins, between hobgoblins and gnolls, between gnolls and orcs, between kobolds and goblins, etcetera. And finally, yes, it really does seem to amplify some of the gross and racist underpinnings of early D&D, explicitly stocking these caves with non-combatant females and children, and then encouraging you to go in and make widows and orphans of them which is perfectly okay because they look different than you do.

So, personally, I have scrapped my plans to adapt KotB. I'm sure someone else has, or will, or both. As far as introductory modules go, I think I far prefer In Search Of The Unknown.

What's your take on Keep On The Borderlands?
 

Jacob Lewis

The One with the Force
"My take" is the 4th Edition take. It was a season for Encounters. Then it became a long series of short adventures in Dungeon magazine. The keep (Restwell Keep) was fully developed and detailed in an issue of Dragon. And it all tied together. Look up the Chaos Scar. At least they tried something different.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Some people really like it, and I'm probably going to run afoul of them by posting this (again), but...

Keep on the Borderlands sucks.

My complaints against it aren't exactly the same as yours, but they have some parallels.

My main problem with the module is that it is far worse as an introductory module for DMs than it even is as an introductory module for players. Sure, it's possible with a heck of a lot of work to imbed the module into a larger campaign scenario and make some sense of what it is about by detailing the geography and politics surrounding the Keep and the lands war with the forces of Chaos, but that's not at all something you'd expect a novice DM trying to run this module to do, nor does the module really make it explicit that you should. Indeed, even so much as generating floor plans and NPCs to inhabit the keep - something the module does suggest - is probably going to be a struggle for the novice DM.

But aside from that, the DM that taught me how to DM when discussing this module brought up one of its major flaws when he described how when it was run for him, they spent most of the game robbing the Keep. In other words, they invented their own fun and played a 'Bank Heist' game, based on the problem that the best treasure and perhaps most interesting challenges aren't associated with following the path the module expects you to follow, but in robbing the good guys. And this is a further intellectual problem because the Keeps inhabitants are vastly better prepared to fight the force of Chaos than the PC's are, and have vastly more motivation to do so, and the module does really nothing to give the PC's motives. Why do they care about banditry on this road? Why do they care if there is an evil temple operating in the cave? An experienced DM can answer these questions and provide hooks, but the module itself does not.

Finally, for me the really startling problem with the caves as a lair is that there is no really evident economic activity going on in the caves. What about the caves makes them so attractive that all these different tribes are willing to fight over them, and what do these tribes do to support themselves when they are there? How do they feed themselves? How do they arm themselves? The only labor we see in the whole module is a small number of goblins foraging, but this foraging wouldn't represent a particularly potent bandit threat to as powerful of forces as we see defending the keep. Six goblins could scarcely threaten more than a tinkerer or a vagrant, and not a merchant caravan with real valuables. Yet only the goblins are really doing anything other than waiting in their lair to be killed. The problem with the tribes as villains is less that they are faceless or racist than that they are never active or proactive, but only reactive.

(You might could argue for racist if in fact you didn't have a lot of human foes - bandits, evil priests, etc. - among the forces of chaos that are equally expected to be slaughtered, or if the humans themselves were depicted in racist terms. I think that seeing racism here is reading way much more into this than is intended. A much simpler explanation here suffices and that is that 'men' were listed in the monster manual alongside 'owlbear' and 'minotaur'. Truly complex interaction between the PC's and the monstrous foes wasn't expected or considered by the writer. There is no reason to think that kobolds, bugbears, ogres or gnolls are stand ins for any human race or that orcs or goblins are here meant to be anything but other monsters. Just because it is a bad module doesn't make it racist, and I think to see racism in it says a lot more about the viewer's perceptions than the writers.)

But the complaint I would make against the foes in the caves is that they are just cartoonish villains in that they don't really seem to have a motive. We got these evil priests of evilness (or chaos, or whatever) and they have somewhat lurid depictions of their evil - demonic wall hangings depicting horrid rites, torture chambers, Cthullan temples, etc. - but its left up to the DM to give these villains in sort of depth or purpose beyond being XP bags and largely simplistic tactical obstacles. It's a really grindy module as written that will come down to a large number of mass combats in choke points in the dungeon as the party masses on one side of a door or in a narrow corridor to neutralize the numbers advantage the tribes have. As soon as the PC's get a couple suits of plate armor or can afford them, the whole module becomes fairly easy and pointless.

I've ran the module twice. The first time I was 12 and neither I nor my players really knew any better or demanded much more from the game than what you'd get from a game of risk - 16 hours of dice rolling and not a lot of gameplay. The second time I was 17 and I started to realize the module had problems and needed some adaptation. I addressed a lot of what I mentioned above, and it went pretty well. But now that I've been doing this for 30+ years, the amount of adaptation I'd need to make this module truly worthwhile, I might as well just write my own stuff. I started working on it once before, and even then I ran into problems because really the caves of chaos end up being the chaotic counterpart to the keep, and the whole thing starts becoming a more militaristic campaign which isn't anything I'm really interested in running and which isn't really suited for low level play, which means you have to develop side quests to support the endeavor and turn it into a mini-campaign, and that's just way too much work.
 

Jer

Adventurer
What's your take on Keep On The Borderlands?
My take is that when I was 12 I thought B4 - The Lost City - was a much better adventure than KotB was.

Now more than 30 years later I not only continue to believe that, but I also think that B5 - Horror on the Hill - is the much better version of B2. Both as an introductory module and as a classic dungeon crawl, B5 is just a better experience overall.

I've run B2 a few times over the years but the last time I did was over a decade ago with a 3e conversion that had me realizing that it just was a whole lot of work to convert for not a whole lot of fun. I don't think I've even thought about running it since, though I pick it up and thumb through it periodically to see if perhaps I've changed my mind. So far I haven't.
 

ParanoydStyle

Peace Among Worlds
"My take" is the 4th Edition take. It was a season for Encounters. Then it became a long series of short adventures in Dungeon magazine. The keep (Restwell Keep) was fully developed and detailed in an issue of Dragon. And it all tied together. Look up the Chaos Scar. At least they tried something different.
Like a lot of D&D fans, I spent most of the 4th Edition era either playing 3.5 or not playing D&D, so I would never have known about this if not for you. Thanks! I'll try to check it out.

But aside from that, the DM that taught me how to DM when discussing this module brought up one of its major flaws when he described how when it was run for him, they spent most of the game robbing the Keep. In other words, they invented their own fun and played a 'Bank Heist' game, based on the problem that the best treasure and perhaps most interesting challenges aren't associated with following the path the module expects you to follow, but in robbing the good guys
Apparently nothing has changed between 1980 and 2019 because THE SECOND the PCs heard there was a bank, they wanted to rob it. Fortunately, we'd decided ahead of time that one of the PCs was already in the keep, but I hadn't had a chance to establish why she was there, so since she was a wizard I replaced the magic user guarding the bank with her and explained to everyone that it was actually her job to guard the bank. Fortunately, this headed the bank-robbery off at the pass...

Incidentally, the Keep's defenses and defenders are written up in SO MUCH DETAIL that one almost gets the impression that Gary WANTED the PCs to fight/rob/raid the Keep. "Assault On The Keep On The Borderlands" might be a better module. Hmm...and if the party were demi-humans coming from the Caves of Chaos...that might be interesting to write some day.

And this is a further intellectual problem because the Keeps inhabitants are vastly better prepared to fight the force of Chaos than the PC's are, and have vastly more motivation to do so, and the module does really nothing to give the PC's motives. Why do they care about banditry on this road? Why do they care if there is an evil temple operating in the cave? An experienced DM can answer these questions and provide hooks, but the module itself does not.
This, so much this. I tried when I was DMing to somehow make it into a positive thing, trying to double down on the fact that the PCs had just come here "to adventure", for adventure's own sake, and the sake of being adventurers and this wasn't like the 5E AL games they'd played where an NPC was going to come up to them and give them an errand to run, that they were free agents out for themselves, but yes...there is no motivation or hook whatsoever for the PCs to a) go to the keep in the first place, b) leave the keep once they're there, or c) fight the monsters in the caves of chaos.

I also REALLY don't know how Gary wanted or expected the wilderness crawl leading up to the keep to work. Like, I had no idea how to play that section so as soon as I found an excuse to fastrack the PCs to the caves I took it (they met a pegasus in the woods that took the ranger above the tree cover so they could see where the Caves wee in relation to them, at which point I just gave the party the wilderness map).

Since I've been DMing this for playtest purposes, I tried to give the PCs an out last night to take the campaign elsewhere (namely the free city of Greyhawk), but they opted almost unanimously to stay in the caves. Fortunately, I have made the caves more interesting: there's a barrier on the door to the temple of evil chaos that can only be opened by finding three mcguffins hidden throughout the rest of the caves, all of the bugbears in the bugbear cave are bugbear statues now because a mated pair of basilisks moved in, the labyrinth of the minotaur is now a young black dragon's lair, and I changed the hobgoblin complex into a svirnfeblin community (because I don't know why EVERY SINGLE kind of non-human living in the caves has to be evil, and because I like deep gnomes and have never gotten to use them before).
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
Incidentally, the Keep's defenses and defenders are written up in SO MUCH DETAIL that one almost gets the impression that Gary WANTED the PCs to fight/rob/raid the Keep.
Gygax's 'Havens' are consistently weird and I've never fully understood the design of them. I suspect that they are gamist in design (that is to say some metagame considerations guides the design), but exactly what game that they are intended to support I've never been sure.

The village of Hommlet in 'T1: Village of Hommlet" shares with the Keep similar features:

a) There is a lot of attention lavished on the items of value to be found, and relative to their HD and combat capabilities many of the villagers have more stuff than the bad guys do. That seems weird unless the game is explicitly "rob the villagers".
b) The village leaders on the other hand are vastly more capable of facing the threats and being the heroes that the party is expected to be than the PCs are. This only makes sense of if the purpose is explicitly to deter a game of "rob the villagers", because otherwise, why does the Castellan need to be a 6th level fighter with magical plate, a magical shield, and a magical sword? See also the 6th level cleric, 8th level M-U, 6th level fighter, 4th level thief, and 7th level Druid that lives in Homlett - who are described as greedy and desirous of adventure but who don't apparently decide to form up and check out the abandoned moathouse despite the low risk and high reward such an adventure would have for such puissant of a group. Who needs the PCs? Why not cut out the middle man?
c) The two together inherently create a situation where PC's expect "friendly NPCs" to act illogically and even hostile to not only the PCs but to their own interests as NPCs. My guess is that this is to deter the PCs from seeing anything but the dungeon as where the game happens. Yet ironically, this encourages the PCs to see the NPCs as worthy of robbing (because they are hostile idiots) and all the treasure possessed by the NPCs rewards that, so is this in fact some sort of double fake where Gygax indeed expects the party to "rob the bank"?
 

pemerton

Legend
I think worrying about PC or NPC motivations in B2 is a category error - the module rests on the premise that (i) the players will take their PCs on the adventure, and (ii) that the rest of the world is largely a backdrop to that adventure.

That said, here are two very different takes on B2, one closer to the OP's post, the other closer to the first paragraph of this post: Mike Mearls and Luke Crane.
 
Last edited:

Monayuris

Explorer
Keep on the Borderlands will always be one of my favorite modules ever. I recently ran it for a bunch of new players (never played D&D before).

The thing about Keep on the Borderlands is that it is intended to be an environment that you need to make your own. NPCs don't have names because it is up to you to name them and develop them. The context of the PC's relationship with the denizens of the keep is left up to the DM and the group and is not prescribed by the author. This gives you an incredible amount of freedom to make the keep and its environments work for you.

I can come up with my own reasons why the various monstrous humanoid tribes are gathering and why they are a problem and why the PCs are needed to deal with them... when I'm using a module I just need the dungeon stocked for me... I don't need the author to tell me a story, I just need the busy-work done for me.

It doesn't lead the players into any prescribed course of action. It presents a Keep, the Caves of Chaos, and a couple other wilderness locations and lets the group determine what to do about it... and yes... I do think the players uniting the monstrous humanoid tribes to assault the Keep for its treasures is a valid approach to the module.

In my game, the players ventured to the caves and started exploring the caves. They ended up approaching the goblin cave, first, and after a frontal assault that left nearly all of them dead, they started instead to open parley with the goblins. They ended up ingratiating themselves with the goblins by helping them against the hobgoblins but ended up sabotaging that relationship when they failed to kill the ogre.

Very early into the game (after they realized a straight kick the door and fight approach wasn't going to work), the players ended up getting deeply involved in the various power struggles of the different tribes. It was fantastic and exciting.

This is the key to B2... its not a quest type adventure, it is an environment that has no clear goal but leaves it up to the group to make of it what they will.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
The thing about Keep on the Borderlands is that it is intended to be an environment that you need to make your own.

This is the key to B2... its not a quest type adventure, it is an environment that has no clear goal but leaves it up to the group to make of it what they will.
I agree with your post here, and I believe that these are the primary points that I would like to highlight. I think that it lends itself well to both Sandbox and Story-Now play. I seem to recall that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a campaign diary somewhere about him running KotB with either Dungeon World or Burning Wheel.
 

Celebrim

Legend
The problem with the statement that "Keep on the Borderlands" is a great module because you can make it your own is that the same can be said of absolutely every adventure. There isn't an adventure out there that can't be filled out, clarified, rearranged or rewritten into a great adventure.

Claiming that an adventure is great because you can make it your own is equivalent to claiming that a game's rules have no problems because you can always house rule them.

I have no problem with the idea that you ought to make a module your own. If you read through my posts on the boards you'll find that I consistently advise new DMs that no module really should be run out of the box without prep.

What I have a problem with is the idea that something is good because it needs more prep and DM input than usual, and especially when that module is included in a box set for a "basic game".

[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]: I put it to you that something is suited well for Sandbox and "Story Now" play, if and only if it is internally coherent. B2: Keep on the Borderlands is not internally coherent out of the box. It is in fact one of the least internally coherent modules ever published. Can it be made internally coherent? Sure, but only with great effort and imagination.

By internally coherent, I mean that a player is rewarded for imagining the environment and making assumptions based on the environment, because there is an underlying reality being simulated. But B2 in fact does not describe a setting with an underlying reality. It describes a setting which is largely incomprehensible and which requires major acts of subcreation to turn into anything which actually made sense, like explaining what motives the tribes have for living in close proximity despite hating each other, or explaining what economic activity allows the situation described to continue (how do the tribes eat, get drink, obtain weapons, pay for goods), or explaining really how the caves came to be in the first place. Why does each tribe occupy 'cave area' that seems to only have rooms suited to their needs and little or no extraneous rooms? Who built the caves and why? Etc.

As such, B2 does not support either Sandbox or "Story Now" play. All the answers to the questions are "Because it is a game." What it actually supports is only "Step on Up" game centered play, and while there is nothing wrong with that, the game it creates of taking down the different tribes is largely repetitive and uninspired.

So for "Story Now", I've always found that term to be ridiculous. Here is the official take on it by "The Forge":

"Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances."

So, after all that Sokal affair word salad, what is "Story Now"? Depending on how you interpret that load of crap its everything or nothing.

Seriously, B2 as a module is meant to address "one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence"? Seriously? Which one is it? How does the map of B2 fix that idea in the game world, and really is even having a map a "Story Now" concept? Isn't B2 really addressing Basic's limited range of published content (practically ever monster in the basic set appears at least one, as does practically every magic item), dropping them into a kitchen sink environment, and setting up the players to obtain the XP and treasure they need to level up? Any "problematic feature of human existence" you end up addressing will be tangential to the design and content of the module. You might invent one, but it won't be found in text itself. In no fashion does the module really even meaningfully set up an ideological conflict between Law and Chaos. The players choices are almost certainly going to address things like, "Left or Right?" in a dungeon where left or right have a different outcome, but not a side or purpose you can meaningfully choose. There may be stratagems and role-play that take place, but it won't be addressing story in the sense that "Story Now" means (to the extent that I allow it means anything at all).
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
I seem to recall that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a campaign diary somewhere about him running KotB with either Dungeon World or Burning Wheel.
The two times I've used B2, the Keep itself has always been a bigger focus of play than the Caves. And in my BW game, when I ended up using the evil temple in my game it was not in the Caves near the Keep, but rather in the catacombs beneath the town of Hardby.

Here're the play reports.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
The problem with the statement that "Keep on the Borderlands" is a great module because you can make it your own is that the same can be said of absolutely every adventure. There isn't an adventure out there that can't be filled out, clarified, rearranged or rewritten into a great adventure.

Claiming that an adventure is great because you can make it your own is equivalent to claiming that a game's rules have no problems because you can always house rule them.

I have no problem with the idea that you ought to make a module your own. In fact, if you read through my posts on the boards you'll find that I consistently advise new DMs that no module really should be run out of the box without prep.

What I have a problem with is the idea that something is good because it needs more prep and DM input than usual, and especially when that module is included in a box set for a "basic game".
I actually disagree with this statement. The more detailed and precise an adventure is, the harder it is to make it your own. Take, for example, the current crop of WoTC adventures for 5E. These are so detailed with story elements and narratives, and plots that it is harder to make a change... because I have to reconcile any change I make with the exacting detail of the adventure. Something I change in the first chapter, can possibly have a dramatic effect on the later chapters. Add to this, that I have to read the entire (massive) book to understand the adventure, before I make the adjustments I want to make... These require much more prep.

It is easier to modify and adjust an adventure that has less moving parts and less detail.

Also, the DM input required of Keep on the Borderlands is the 'good kind'. It provides the stats and stocks the dungeons. It gives you details that are mechanically important and tedious to come up with on your own. What it leaves open to interpretation is what you should be doing on your own (and in a "basic game" is part of the lessons in teaching new DM's).

The act of figuring out what is going on in these caves is, at least in my opinion, the primary lesson to be learned from the module.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]: I put it to you that something is suited well for Sandbox and "Story Now" play, if and only if it is internally coherent. B2: Keep on the Borderlands is not internally coherent out of the box.
Your self-indulgent ranting aside, I believe that your central thesis reflects your own play preferences (particularly in regards to simulationist play) and opinion more than anything else.
 

Celebrim

Legend
[3D][/3D]
Your self-indulgent ranting aside, I believe that your central thesis reflects your own play preferences (particularly in regards to simulationist play) and opinion more than anything else.
In other words, I wrote a whole essay worth of questions, but rather than address any of them, you're going to say, "Well, that's just your opinion man." Nor are you going to attempt to counter my assertions. Ok, fine. Consider the rest of this "self-indulgent" rant addressed to someone that wants to talk.

What isn't my opinion is that even the evidence you site, such as pemerton's game that name drops the keep, bears little relationship to the text and the game he is playing doesn't even require the text. He doesn't really treat the Keep as a site based adventure, but is running a character driven and event based adventure. By his own admission, the Caves which are so central to the text, plays very little role in the adventure he actually made. Even NPCs which are very loosely drawn from the text such as the cleric who is an evil spy, on whom the adventure lavishes comparatively large attention, do not have the motivations or behavior in pemerton's hands that they have in the text.

What he may be running is a good game, but what he isn't running is "B2: Keep on the Borderlands" except in name. And this is what I tend to find about people who defend the module. They aren't actually defending the module. They are defending the unique game that they ran which the module played a comparatively small role in. In pemerton's case, the size of this role is extremely small. There is a Keep, and a Bailiff, and an evil cleric, but of the two sessions of play almost none of it is drawn from the text. A generic map of a Keep would have served him just as well, but as with most 'urban adventures' even the map could have probably been dispensed with, since urban adventures tend to occur on a single stage and the GM tends to just change the drapes between scenes.

Now, there could be a really interesting discussion of the processes and inputs that lead people to not play the game provided according to the text of it, and how those other processes developed them as DMs, and why they still reference the Keep - [MENTION=6859536]Monayuris[/MENTION] suggests that for him the Keep gives him the part of a game that is tedious to come up with which is interesting. But defending a module by saying that it is good for what not is in it, and that in play they made little use of what is in it and a lot of use of what is not, is not defending the module.

My play preferences are not so clear cut as all that - for one thing I deny the categories of simulationist/gamist/narrativist and the primary tenets of the GNS big theory framework that surround them. My ongoing campaign featured bits and pieces of 'Of Sound Mind' (in a game world without 'psionics'), 'The Whispering Cairn' (as an adventure location for 6th level characters), 'Mad God's Key' (with no Greyhawk specific lore), and 'The Isle of Dread' (with almost no content from the original module beyond the general setting). But why would I attempt to defend the quality of those modules by saying I didn't run them according to the text, that I altered them extensively, and that in some cases large portions of the module's plot simply didn't pertain to play as it happened in my game? Instead, I can defend those modules based on what is in the text, as modules that provide important instruction and good varied play if played as written, and which can also in more experienced hands be mined for useful content and played in ways the writer's couldn't have imagined.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
[3D][/3D]
In other words, I wrote a whole essay worth of questions, but rather than address any of them, you're going to say, "Well, that's just your opinion man." Nor are you going to attempt to counter my assertions. Ok, fine.
The point of my post was not to debate Forge terminology, merely to point to the fact that KotB has been used for such purposes and its open-endedness. So, yes, most of your "essay" was irrelevant hot air. I would suggest engaging me using cogency over verbosity.

Furthermore, if you wish to debate how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] ran KotB, then I would advise you to discuss the matter with the appropriate person.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I actually disagree with this statement. The more detailed and precise an adventure is, the harder it is to make it your own.
I can see why you'd think that, but in my experience I don't have that problem.

Take, for example, the current crop of WoTC adventures for 5E.
I wish you wouldn't, if only because you are now debating based on evidence that I'm not familiar with. I've read little of the 5e modules, and so I'm out of my depth discussing them. But, of the three that I paid the most attention to, the rebooted Ravenloft, the Underdark sited based adventure, and the Chult/Acererak themed horror adventure, all three seemed to be things that you could easily mine for content or adapt to your game. None of them seemed like the sort of game that compelled you to run it in a certain way. I'd suggest as evidence, if you asked 20 different groups that had played the module to describe the events of their campaign, you'd get 20 different sequences of events.

Something I change in the first chapter, can possibly have a dramatic effect on the later chapters. Add to this, that I have to read the entire (massive) book to understand the adventure, before I make the adjustments I want to make... These require much more prep.
I would argue that you have to read any adventure a couple of times to even run it as intended, much less to alter it. The argument you make here though is strange, in that you are siding with B2 on the basis of its lack of content. That is to say, because B2 isn't particularly massive, and doesn't really plan to occupy the participants in the game for as long as the big 5e hard backs or carry them through as many levels and as many adventures, that it's better because it takes less prep. I can fully agree with you that B2 requires less prep to run than a full campaign book, even if you turned B2 into some sort of mini-campaign. But I don't see how that defends the text. It may defend the style of adventures that are smaller and less interconnected and so are better for more episodic play, and I might be entirely on board with that preference after having spent 8 years running an adventure path of my own design, only to frequently mourn that the structure of an adventure path tends to limit a player's choices simply because an adventure path provides a massive motivation to players to continue pursuing it as a primary goal - for most of those years the player's were convinced that the bad guys were making a 'destroy the world' doomsday device. The more episodic smaller adventures allow greater freedom to pursue player goals and make leisure uses of downtime, something I've come to miss (not because it's better, but just because it would be different than the fare I've been running).

It is easier to modify and adjust an adventure that has less moving parts and less detail.
I'm not sure I agree, simply because I've pulled modules out that have plenty of moving parts and adapted and 'sandboxed' them (at least in a narrow-broad-narrow framework).

Also, the DM input required of Keep on the Borderlands is the 'good kind'. It provides the stats and stocks the dungeons. It gives you details that are mechanically important and tedious to come up with on your own. What it leaves open to interpretation is what you should be doing on your own (and in a "basic game" is part of the lessons in teaching new DM's).
This is in my opinion the most interesting thing that you say, as it I think provides a unity between what everyone is saying about the module in this thread. I think the heart of what everyone is saying could in some way be found in this statement, and to the extent that I think it's just my opinion whether it is a bad module, or just someone's else's opinion as to whether it is a good module, the answer to why can be found in this statement. The heart of your statement is to say that, for you, there are certain sorts of content you find hard to create. You'll note that in this thread, and even more explicitly in other threads regarding B2, the heart of my argument has always been that B2 provides content which is easy to create. Both of us are saying that the module is valuable, or not valuable, based on our perception of what sort of content is valuable. I've frequently said that B2 is a 'atavistic' module that harkens back to more primitive dungeon designs that was thrown together quickly by Gygax to meet a deadline with little in the way of creativity on display, and that I'd expect any decent 15 year old DM to do about as well. It's far from the complexity and depth that you see from modules created in a parallel time frame by Jaquay or the Hickmans, or even really compared to some of Gygax's older work. It does for low HD demi-humans what the G series does for giants, only throwing the whole bunch of minitribes together willy-nilly in a small location.

But this assessment is based on an assumption of what is easy to create and therefore less useful, which I fully concede could vary from person to person. So if you are willing to go into more detail, I'd love to know exactly what you mean by details that are tedious to come up with, and what parts of the text that you both retained and found central to your play, and what things you find very easy to create.

The act of figuring out what is going on in these caves is, at least in my opinion, the primary lesson to be learned from the module.
I personally feel this argument would be bolstered if the text itself emphasized that. But truth is, the text of X1 spends more time talking about how import the act of figuring out what is going on on the island, at least as it pertains to how to hook the PC's into going, what they are expected to do their, and how they might set their own goals upon reaching the island. And I'd also argue that X1 has been more successful in spawning versions of itself, probably most deeply in the 'Savage Tide' adventure path, but reoccurringly over the years as it has been revisited in publication.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top