Reading & Running old D&D adventure/delves... Am I missing something?

[Halivar]

It's true that ToEE left huge gaping holes in the plot. But filling them in, for me, was a joy. I'd never had to do extemporaneous DM'ing before, and running ToEE that way made me a better DM, and helped our group craft a better story.

I have a bad habit of railroading as a DM. But when there is no linear narrative, there is no reason to railroad. It helped me break free from an established narrative. So my preference now is definitely for site-based, not story-based adventures.

 

[Rechan]

I'd argue that story and plot have always had a place; the difference is that in today's products the narrative is explicit and spoon-fed to the DM whereas before the DM was generally expected to supply those elements and adapt them to his or her group as appropriate.

If by spoon-fed you mean "comes with a story already" then yes.

But then for me it's a rare adventure that I would take the existing story and run with it without serious changes. Modules often end up being things to take things from, maps or encounters or an interesting plot seed to be changed to better fit my tastes.

The things I had to do to Keep on the Shadowfell to just be able to run it... (because a group requested to be run through the 4e modules).

 

[GX.Sigma]

Like in Ravenloft I have either missed it or its not there but I don't see any interaction between Strahd and Ireena, the woman he desires.

There is if Ireena joins the party (like it says in the adventure) and Strahd's motivation is that he desires her (which is only one of four possibilities).

in both books I don't see any NPC's that give reasons to go check out the big evil HQ and it just seems to me that the PC's are just going to go there because its there.

Ravenloft: What about all the people in town who are suffering under Strahd? What about Ireena, who will turn into a vampire if Strahd is not killed soon?
ToEE: In my experience, just saying that there is a place called "the Temple of Elemental Evil" is enough to make players want to go to it. If you're talking about the moathouse in part 1, it's true that there's no motivation for the PC's to go there. I think the whole mega-adventure (including/especially T1) suffers from very poor presentation.

They give you the players and set pieces and you make up most of the story bits and give the PC's good reason for motivation?

Usually the motivation in old-school modules is along the line of "you are adventurers; here is a place with monsters and treasure; what are you waiting for?" That's just a feature of the old-school playstyle. The characters did not have any assumed motivation beyond treasure-hunting. However, there does seem to be a common problem of not actually telling the players where the adventure is (so how do they know they're supposed to go to the moathouse?). Rest assured, that is a design flaw, not a feature.

I talked to another player in my group and he says "you don't want to railroad players" which I get but by playing a dungeon delve aren't you having to essential railroad the players because yes, they can just leave in the middle, but the point is just going to the evil HQ and to town to sell stuff and buy new gear?

There's always some amount of non-choice. If you want to run a true sandbox, pick a few different dungeons and spread them out in a wilderness and let the players do whatever they want. I've generally found that players don't mind being shepherded to the adventure, as long as you don't railroad them within the adventure, if that makes sense. A sandbox can only be so big, after all.

Was just wondering. Maybe I'll just have to read these closer. Like Ravenloft, I thought it'd have a story but I seem to be missing it unless I'm just supposed to RP it all. It just seems like a dungeon delve to me but its supposed to be a good one.

Ravenloft does have a story--one of the best stories I've ever run. The players go through a creepy town (whose inhabitants may or may not all be ghosts; it's deliciously ambiguous), crawl through the castle while being terrorized by a super-powerful vampire mage who could pop up and kill them any time, find the one artifact that can destroy him, finally defeat him in battle, then chase him to his tomb and kill him. I think it's a problem that old adventures don't have a synopsis like that; you have to read the whole thing and figure it out. For example, the Village of Hommlet could be summarized as "players start out in simple town, gather rumors, attack the moathouse, find out it's way too hard, go back to town and hire more help, find out that the village isn't as simple as they thought, and blunder through a network of intrigue while trying to defeat the Temple's agents."

Wow, you picked two difficult adventures to run.

Castle Ravenloft relies a lot on a DM to bring it and its atmosphere to life. If your heart is setting on running this, trawl around for reviews and see how other DMs have done it. It has a lot of potential but it requires a lot of effort from both the DM and the players.

you really need to have hit your stride in filling out things as a DM to do justice to Castle Ravenloft.

When I first ran Ravenloft as a DM, I spent probably 30 hours in prep, including adding more than 80 NPC's to the town of Bavaria and filling the town with additional intrigue and side quests, rewriting a few areas of the castle, and so forth.

This hasn't been my experience at all. I ran Ravenloft for the first time as a spur-of-the-moment one-shot with almost no preparation (just a skim of the module and one piece of advice from the Internet: pick a real-life time for Strahd to attack and tell the players in advance), and it came together beautifully. Maybe I just got really lucky? (As a note, all I have to add is one more piece of advice: Skip the whole crypts section. It's interminable and boring and not worth your time.)

Don't agree there. Making KotB into something worthwhile is as hard as running ToEE and CR combined. Talk about something that feels like an incomplete random hodge-podge, with no plot, no story, no direction, and no characterization.

Well, it's supposed to be an incomplete random hodgepodge. That's what's so great about it. You want "plot?" You want "direction?" I think you're confusing "making KotB into something worthwhile" with "making KotB into something it isn't." I'd probably find it difficult to make Dragonlance into something worthwhile, too. I suppose some people like a sandbox, and some people like a railroad.

It's the DM that knows who the protagonists are. He's the one that has to craft the story.

I disagree with this as an assessment of the old-school playstyle. It may be how you DM, but I don't think it's how modules like Keep on the Borderlands were meant to be run. In old-school, sandboxy, location-based D&D adventures, the players' actions craft the story by interacting with the scenario the DM presents. The scenario can be very simple ("here is a dungeon" is good enough for this playstyle), and doesn't need pre-scripted plot. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you here, but in a real sandbox adventure, the DM is anything but a storyteller.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

But its also true that the vast majority of early players of D&D weren't expecting elaborate plots, consistant settings, and lots of non-combat interaction with NPCs either.

I'll give you that for some portion of the fan base. D&D did spin out of wargaming, after all.

That doesn't mean that adventures like Keep on the Borderlands can't be imparted a reasonable and non-railroaded plot structure by a competent -- even novice -- DM.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, it's supposed to be an incomplete random hodgepodge. That's what's so great about it.

I disagree that good sandboxes are incomplete (beyond the sense any secondary creation is incomplete), random or a hodgepodge - much less all three.

You want "plot?" You want "direction?" I think you're confusing "making KotB into something worthwhile" with "making KotB into something it isn't." I'd probably find it difficult to make Dragonlance into something worthwhile, too. I suppose some people like a sandbox, and some people like a railroad.

You'd be wrong then. I like sandboxes, non-linear play, and player proaction. KotB is IMO about the exact opposite of that, which is why it is so appealing to novice DMs unable to handle more complicated play, and why Dragonlance utterly fails in the same hands. KotB does nothing to help a DM prep for real divergence in a story, and in fact that's the entire point. Dungeons are really orderly, predictable Small Worlds with nice stout Adamantium Walls, and frankly KotB had me kicking at those walls and its logical inconsistancies back when I was 10 years old.

I disagree with this as an assessment of the old-school playstyle....

Oh brother... You used those words again. "You kids get off my lawn.", is funny when directed at kids and self-consciously. It's not so funny when directed as serious criticism at someone with 30+ years experience on the lawn.

It may be how you DM, but I don't think it's how modules like Keep on the Borderlands were meant to be run. In old-school, sandboxy, location-based D&D adventures, the players' actions craft the story by interacting with the scenario the DM presents. The scenario can be very simple ("here is a dungeon" is good enough for this playstyle), and doesn't need pre-scripted plot. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you here, but in a real sandbox adventure, the DM is anything but a storyteller.

Here's the thing. After 30+ years of playing D&D, I've reached the point as a player that a random, hodgepodge, incomplete dungeon filled with treasure to take and monsters to overcome... isn't a scenario worth interacting with as a player at all. In fact, as is a scenario I wouldn't give you 5 cents for it or waste 5 minutes of my time on it as a player or a DM. "Here is a dungeon" got really boring 16 @#$@ years ago. There isn't anything meaningful to do in such a scenario. If killing things and taking their stuff was sufficient, I can do that in NetHack or any number of pointless free to play flash games with much easier book keeping and greater speed of play. The novelty has long sense worn off and the excitement of exploring something so one dimensional and intellectually linear (no matter how geographically non-linear) to me has all the excitement of watching paint dry.

I don't think you have a freaking clue where I'm coming from, so take your unreflective sterotyping and false dichotomies elsewhere.

I know how KotB is meant to be run. I've ran it completely twice, once the way it was intended when I was 10, and again when I was 17 mostly the way it was intended but with my improved understanding as a 17 year old DM with much more experience. If I went back to it, I'd run it competely a different way, but at that point the module per se would completely disappear because it has such thin and valueless content its adding that there would be in no sense trying to conform to it except in broad spirit in the first place.

 

[Joe Sumfin]

Yikes. I didn't know this would get such a response but I appreciate it all. I'm not really that scared of fleshing out a story with given pieces I more or less just wanted to know if thats how they wrote these things back in the day and thats fine.

I haven't read any new campaign books so I don't have anyhting to compare to but I imagine newer books are such as "adventurers come to town, goto bar, meet X.(X has this to say about such topics and points then to Site A. They head off to site A" and it goes along that lines in that the conversation is kind of already mapped out.

I just read a bit more into ToEE and at the point of Interlude from Hommlet to Nulb under the DM notes it just says something like "Now that hommlet is taken care of and you've slain or chased off all the bad guys...." Although I haven't read ALL the encounters in the moathouse I didn't see anything about Zert or any of the other people being an encounter.

I'm perfectly fine with that because I can make up my own story and how the traitors play in but I just wanted to know if I was missing something.

I'll be honest that I am really drawn to Castle Ravenloft because I like the story and potential to play with it but as it reads you guys are right. Your asked for help, you go, you can't leave, you head to the castle and just stay in the castle until Strahd is dead or you are. I didn't read anything really about having to search out the sunsword or the artifacts or whatever. I thought they'd be like somewhere else and you'd have to go back to town for help or search the countryside or whatever.

I like these old books that they are basically playgrounds you are given to mess with but I just don't like the "its there, lets just kill it." over arc. Oh well.

Thanks for all the feedback,

 

[Quickleaf]

They give you the players and set pieces and you make up most of the story bits and give the PC's good reason for motivation?

Usually the motivation in old-school modules is along the line of "you are adventurers; here is a place with monsters and treasure; what are you waiting for?" That's just a feature of the old-school playstyle. The characters did not have any assumed motivation beyond treasure-hunting. However, there does seem to be a common problem of not actually telling the players where the adventure is (so how do they know they're supposed to go to the moathouse?). Rest assured, that is a design flaw, not a feature.

It would be a snap to add a few paragraphs of potential character hooks at the start of an adventure. Because "monsters and treasure, let's go!" isn't as compelling for some players as it is for others. Plus a character hook can suggest how you can tell the players where the adventure is.

What I've learned is that even the so-called old school players I game with enjoy at least a little bit of engagement with and personal reason to go on the adventure besides "loot." Also, a strong character hook does wonders for those moments where the players are just wasting time or can't make up their minds.

 

[Celebrim]

That doesn't mean that adventures like Keep on the Borderlands can't be imparted a reasonable and non-railroaded plot structure by a competent -- even novice -- DM.

I guess it depends on what you are going for.

When I was 10 and my oldest player was a worldly 12, KotB gave us mostly we wanted or possibly could handle. But when we encountered CM3 Saber River, suddenly KotB started to pale. We realized something was missing. Eventually, Saber River style plots would also start to pale. We realized that there was something missing from either pattern that the other could benefit. We also realized that intellectually, we were no longer satisfied with exploring a story only in its physical dimensions. We could have never gone back to KotB. We simply would have considered it murder to kill a bunch of goblins etc. that weren't bothering us in the first place.

But, to be honest, even when I was 10 I had certain problems with KoTB as a structure for an adventure:

a) Why were we going to the Caves of Chaos anyway?
b) The denizens of the Caves of Chaos represent no real threat to the Keep, which is vastly more powerful and secure than they are?
c) What are the goals of anyone living in the Caves of Chaos? It can't be to attack the Keep; they are making literally no preparations. No catapolts. No ladders. No real army to speak of.
d) Why if they hate each other so much, don't they just leave? There seems to be nothing forcing them to stay there? What profit do these supposedly intelligent tribes see in staying right next to their hated enemies? What's so great about this as living accomodations anyway?
e) What's off the map and what does it mean? Where is this place? Is there a King? What's over the Border and the Border of what?

As a 10 year old I simply had no way of filling in those questions. I just didn't have the skills. But they did frustrate the heck out of me as I was observing myself running the game. When I came back to the game at 17, I tried to fill in all those questions. Now that I'm 40, I see even more problems and am critical of what I did at 17 as well.

Do you honestly think a novice DM can run KotB or anything like it for me as a player to my satisfaction? I think a compotent DM would struggle.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] Great post!

I'll try my hand at creating interesting answers to those questions about Keep on the Borderland...

But, to be honest, even when I was 10 I had certain problems with KoTB as a structure for an adventure:

a) Why were we going to the Caves of Chaos anyway?

The lord's daughter has been kidnapped by a foul beast cult. One of the PCs is her brother.

b) The denizens of the Caves of Chaos represent no real threat to the Keep, which is vastly more powerful and secure than they are?

Maybe now they don't pose a threat, but they're *mustering* and in a month or two who knows how many monsters will be there or what sort of chief will rise.

c) What are the goals of anyone living in the Caves of Chaos? It can't be to attack the Keep; they are making literally no preparations. No catapolts. No ladders. No real army to speak of.

The traitorous evil cleric in the Keep is their "inside man." The monsters don't want to overthrow the Keep...at least not yet...they need human sacrifices to appease their dark masters. For now, kidnapping small groups of humans (with the evil cleric's help) is the way to go. Once their dark master responds - sending more terrible reinforcements - then they'll go after the Keep.

d) Why if they hate each other so much, don't they just leave? There seems to be nothing forcing them to stay there? What profit do these supposedly intelligent tribes see in staying right next to their hated enemies? What's so great about this as living accomodations anyway?

Clearly they're being forced to work together by their dark master!

e) What's off the map and what does it mean? Where is this place? Is there a King? What's over the Border and the Border of what?

It's the kingdom of a chaotic fighter who retired to become an avenger (going off BD&D rules), with monsters now enslaved to serve in his militias. He may or may not be the dark master behind the monsters in the Caves of Chaos.

Do you honestly think a novice DM can run KotB or anything like it for me as a player to my satisfaction? I think a compotent DM would struggle.

It definitely needs work, no doubt. When a friend DMed us thru an abbreviated 4e version of the Keep, he focused on a rescue mission into the Caves with an evil cult. I think it worked in part because he was using the broader B-series (was that it?) with the Shrine of Nelwyn and such.

 

[GX.Sigma]

You'd be wrong then. I like sandboxes, non-linear play, and player proaction. KotB is IMO about the exact opposite of that, which is why it is so appealing to novice DMs unable to handle more complicated play, and why Dragonlance utterly fails in the same hands. KotB does nothing to help a DM prep for real divergence in a story, and in fact that's the entire point. Dungeons are really orderly, predictable Small Worlds with nice stout Adamantium Walls, and frankly KotB had me kicking at those walls and its logical inconsistancies back when I was 10 years old.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. As for KotB, I absolutely agree about the logical inconsistencies, but I don't really understand what you mean when you say KotB doesn't support "divergence in a story," or player proaction, or that it's "the exact opposite of" a sandbox. Can you explain? It seems pretty open to me. The PCs can even rally the humanoids and attack the Keep if they want to (that's where all the good treasure is, anyway).

I disagree that good sandboxes are incomplete (beyond the sense any secondary creation is incomplete), random or a hodgepodge - much less all three....After 30+ years of playing D&D, I've reached the point as a player that a random, hodgepodge, incomplete dungeon filled with treasure to take and monsters to overcome... isn't a scenario worth interacting with as a player at all..."Here is a dungeon" got really boring 16 @#$@ years ago....The novelty has long sense worn off...

I'm not saying it's a good sandbox because of those aspects, but rather that it's a good introductory module because of those aspects. I do agree that if you're a DM who's been around the block, and your players have been around the block, then KotB isn't really useful.

Oh brother... You used those words again. "You kids get off my lawn.", is funny when directed at kids and self-consciously. It's not so funny when directed as serious criticism at someone with 30+ years experience on the lawn.

It's more like I'm a new kid who's really excited about the lawn, and you're really bored with the lawn because you've been looking at it for so long, and I'm defending the fact that a lawn can be fun even when it's just a lawn. This isn't a great metaphor, and it's ironic that I'm more interested in what I consider the old-school style because it's new to me (after getting bored with a long "modern" campaign with lots of "story"). What I'm trying to say here is that we're at such different places in our gaming careers that something that's fun or worthwhile to me isn't necessarily going to be fun or worthwhile to you--though I think there's a large middle ground, and I'd love to play with you and experience how you run things, since I don't really understand what you mean just by reading it on the forum, and I'm still exploring my style.

I apologize if I've been anything less than civil, and I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me.