Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5181130" data-attributes="member: 55271">Referencing back to my previous post, I said that the biggest problem with ToEE was poor organization, particularly when it comes to quickly distinguishing and using the different factions.Keep on the Borderlands, on the other hand, clearly identifies the factions. Obviously the clear physical distinctions of the lair structure also helps in this regard, but the alphanumeric sub-categories keeps that distinction clear in the actual text of the module.So contrary to being in a &quot;very similar style&quot; in terms of organization, the Keep on the Borderlands is actually a good example of how you can organize a module to avoid some of the problems with ToEE.And while the dungeon design for Keep on the Borderlands tends to get criticized, I find there's enough internal linkages between the lairs and enough dynamism provided from the rich selection of multiple entrances to make it an interesting environment. (Particularly as an introductory module, since it so clearly emphasizes player choice right from page one.)The other great thing about the Caves of Chaos is that it was really easy to quickly restock the place. The PCs have cleared out a few lairs? Pick a new monster, have a bunch of them move in. (Or use the random tables.)By contrast, this is the type of reverse engineering work that needed to be done in order to make ToEE playable.I'm not clear on why you're artificially conflating &quot;including details on a particular area of the campaign world in the module&quot; with &quot;including details in the module which rewrite the wider campaign world&quot;. It's like saying that if I publish a tourist guide to San Francisco, it'll turn Washington D.C. into a fascist dictatorship.I find this to be a really weird complaint given that the original ToEE was also a return to the temple.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5181130, member: 55271"] Referencing back to my previous post, I said that the biggest problem with ToEE was poor organization, particularly when it comes to quickly distinguishing and using the different factions. [i]Keep on the Borderlands[/i], on the other hand, clearly identifies the factions. Obviously the clear physical distinctions of the lair structure also helps in this regard, but the alphanumeric sub-categories keeps that distinction clear in the actual text of the module. So contrary to being in a "very similar style" in terms of organization, the [i]Keep on the Borderlands[/i] is actually a good example of how you can organize a module to avoid some of the problems with ToEE. And while the dungeon design for [i]Keep on the Borderlands[/i] tends to get criticized, I find there's enough internal linkages between the lairs and enough dynamism provided from the rich selection of multiple entrances to make it an interesting environment. (Particularly as an introductory module, since it so clearly emphasizes player choice right from page one.) The other great thing about the Caves of Chaos is that it was really easy to quickly restock the place. The PCs have cleared out a few lairs? Pick a new monster, have a bunch of them move in. (Or use the random tables.) By contrast, this is the type of reverse engineering work that needed to be done in order to make ToEE playable. I'm not clear on why you're artificially conflating "including details on a particular area of the campaign world in the module" with "including details in the module which rewrite the wider campaign world". It's like saying that if I publish a tourist guide to San Francisco, it'll turn Washington D.C. into a fascist dictatorship. I find this to be a really weird complaint given that the original ToEE was [i]also[/i] a return to the temple. [/QUOTE]

Verification