The Prophet's Spiral (Ben Gibson)
AD&D adventure for PCs of levels 3rd-5th
I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.
Why, Ben? Why are you doing this to me?
Gibson's adventure site is too big for an adventure site, exceeding the parameters of HIS OWN CONTEST, which (based on precedent already set in prior entries) should disqualify him. From his own contest. Sheesh.
But there are other issues. Let's talk about those.
An adventure for PCs with an average level of 4th. No number given though the author credits five play-testers. So...four to six? Maybe?
Which would mean an expected treasure take in the 40K to 50K range. And the thing DOES have 46K and change but despite its abundance it feels...mudcore? Statues worth 2K that are actually petrified priestesses (bad precedent, as it invites gaming petrification monsters for treasure creation). A half-ton of silver plates and junk worth 5K. A ceramic urn filled with olive oil that is worth 300 g.p. A pile of 15K electrum coins. An ivory throne and an alabaster altar (no weight given but presumably pretty hefty). No magic items to speak of save for a couple scrolls of cure light wounds and three scrolls with permanence?
And just what are we doing here anyway?
This site is so odd. It's something like a temple with an oracular cyclops chained in the basement. There's a bunch of weirdness: a "mystic cyclops" priest, his giant-blooded consort, a medusa that donates her hair to make cat-o-nine-tail lashes (that petrify instead of poisoning? Um...ok). And a bunch of acolytes just waiting to be slaughtered. I mean, nothing's overtly hostile here except for the wandering ghost that won't attack "unless angry" (but is described as vengeful and demanding the death of descrators...ok)...which is a pretty beefy monster for 4th level characters.
This thing is off the rails. I guess it's worth *** because players could decide to raid the place, but the denizens aren't going to put up much of a fight except for Una and his Consort. This is playable, but I don't like it, and it doesn't feel much like AD&D to me (see the MM2 for cyclopskin). Sorry, Ben.
Well. That's a 'brave' review of the contest organiser's entry. 😉
ReplyDeleteNice to see that you're consistent in your standards.
If 1gp=£1 then 300gp for an urn full of olive oil then that's more of a grocery purchase than treasure. My local Tesco is £7.50 per litre, so an urn with 40 litres (plausible) is definitely a bargain.
I treat a gold piece as the equivalent of a $20 bill in my campaign (so a silver = $1). At $6K, that's some expensive EVOO!
Delete(but I'm not judging folks' campaign economies)
I am trying to understand your ratings, as you seem to give a lot of things three starts that you don't necessarily like (and yes, I read your review criteria post). Do I understand correctly that if an adventure is playable, it get three stars at minimum and then based on your subjective judgment, it might be elevated to a four or five?
ReplyDeleteYes...with some caveats.
DeleteThree stars means that (in addition to meeting the criteria for the contest), there is enough here to run the adventure for the system given. The monsters, treasure, etc. can be found in the book (or they are included in a format that generally matches the system) and there is "stuff" to "do." It's a small scale dungeon crawl with no real problems.
Four stars (what I call "solid D&D") has sufficient treasure for the size, scale, and scope of the thing, and threats/challenges commensurate with the assumed PC number/level for which the thing is designed. No point handing out treasure if there's no real danger to overcome. Four stars also requires a "decent" map (i.e. something that holds at least SOME interest...not a linear gauntlet) and good distribution of both encounters and treasure. It should also have at least some degree of verisimilitude as pertains to the game world.
Five stars I reserve for adventures that demonstrate a degree of "mastery" over the system for which they are writing. It is "solid" D&D, but it does something surprising or unusual (while still functional) and it has tight theming while making excellent and appropriate use of creatures/items/procedures found in the system for which it is designed.
To be clear, not every 3* adventure has the bones upon which to build an 'elevated' structure. Where I feel an adventure does have this potential, I have noted this in my reviews (at least, in adventures that could easily meet the mark). In my opinion FOUR STARS is what every designer should be aiming for...it's what I aim for in my own adventures. Five stars is pretty tough to achieve and it's not all that much better than four stars...it's just especially "noteworthy." But four stars should be an achievable standard (more often than not) for every dungeon cobbler. Maybe not the first try, but certainly after a couple efforts.
ESPECIALLY for something THIS size...10-15 encounters? That's a sweet spot, generally good enough for any 4-hour convention timeslot. Making LARGER adventures (30-60+) is a bit tougher or, at least, more time consuming to get right...which is to say, to get SOLID.
Does that make sense?