Monday, February 3, 2025

Adventure Site Contest Wrap-Up

While these review posts have been rolling out on the daily, I actually wrapped up reading, reviewing, and writing them back on January 13th...I didn't want to overwhelm everyone with multiple posts at once.

Welp, it's been a few days (I'm writing this post on January 17th), and I've had a moment to reflect on the contest and the various entries and compile some thoughts on the whole exercise.

The original ASC only had 18 entries...this year's has 30. I was not a judge in the prior year, but reading through the Adventure Sites I compilation, I can examine the top eight and compare their quality to my (personal) top 8-10 of this year's crop. Here are some things that (I think) are worth noting:

50% of the first ASC's top entries were written for AD&D, and all were "solid D&D"...the kind of entry I'd award four(+) stars. My only quibble with any of them, really, is that Lipply's Tavern needs to be set to a higher level than 2nd-4th based on the amount of danger AND the potential treasure take; but it's still a great adventure. Of the other four, one was S&W (also very good), two were for some form of Basic (though only one would get a 3* from me), and the last is a monstrosity that I would not have included, had it been my competition.

In comparison, less than half of the 30 entries for ASCII were for AD&D, and while four of those did crack my "top eight," only one of those would have rated as "solid" (4+) for me...the others were merely "playable" (3*). The other four in my top...two B/X and two OD&D...received better ratings generally.

Now, I want to choose my next words carefully: while there was definitely a lot of enthusiasm and creativity on display in ASC2...and I mean a LOT...I found myself somewhat disappointed by the overall results. The average number of stars awarded was 2.30 out of 5 possible and, just to be clear, THREE stars is what I deemed as the minimum for playable D&D. As in, an adventure that if you sat down at a table with the designated rulebook(s) you would be able to run the adventure for your table, without needing to cobble things "on the fly." If I removed the Stars Without Number entry (because it doesn't really fit with the overall treasure-seeking goals of old edition D&D), that number drops to 2.28. That's...not fantastic.

The best of the bunch (surprisingly to me) were the five OD&D/S&W entries: they scored a 2.80; three of the five were in the top 15, two of which had 4* ratings, and a fourth (The Two Spires) barely missing the cut. The fourteen AD&D/OSRIC entries ended up with 2.29, while the eight Basic entries clocked only a 2.00 average. If you were only to look at the best 18 (the same number as the submissions for the first ASC), the average is 2.94...but I'm sure that even the original contest had a few stinkers in it.

Would the ratings have been higher if we'd had some of last year's "best" writers return? Hard to say, but it's true no entries were submitted by Scott Marcley, Trent Smith, Grutzi, and GiantGoose. However, even past best nominees (DangerIsReal, Peter McDevitt, and Stooshie & Stramas) had a more difficult go of it, this time around.

One difference that really stood out was the extra pages that ASC2 entrants were afforded.  Last year's submissions were allowed three pages total, including the map...this year, we received three pages of text PLUS maps (some entries had two or three pages of maps!). This led to bigger entries, many of which stretched well outside the parameters of "adventure site," instead being more "mini-module." And for many authors, this brought with it a compulsion to create elaborate backgrounds, rumors, plots, NPCs, etc. The focus of "adventure site" is (with the possible exception of Lipply's) clearly evident in the original ASC's final compilation. For ASC2? Not so much. 

If I was going to advise Mr. Gibson of ways to improve the contest for ASC3, I'd tell him to tighten the parameters of the contest. I'd tell him to limit the contestants to an 8-15 encounter range...about all that can be done in "an evening's play," while still being larger than a simple "lair." I would limit the entries to ONE PAGE of maps, TWO PAGES of text, plus ONE PAGE of "appendix" to detail non-system monsters, treasures, or NPCs...four pages total unless authors wanted to attach a cover sheet. Lock it down, dial it in...I think that would help the designers set achievable objectives.

For the authors, I'd offer the following advice: pick a system, learn a system, write for the system. I don't care that "that's not how I run my game at home." You are not writing for your home table!  If you want to be a game designer/author, then you have to kowtow to your audience. My home game has a bunch of odds and ends and houserules, too. But when I write an adventure for the public (for a contest like ASC or NAP, for example), I can't put in my "house rules." Characters need alignment. Magic-users need the read magic spell. Etc. Allow your audience (the judges, the customers) decide what THEY want to modify to fit their Frankenstein mash-up at home...don't you do it for them!

And if you don't already have a system that you know and love...why not?  It's D&D, not rocket science. Learn B/X...it's the easiest and cheapest...and write for that, while you're learning the AD&D game. Or if you want something a little looser, check out S&W. I was impressed by the S&W adventures I saw in this contest, both how people used it and what it allowed. 

Or don't, I guess. You don't have to take my advice (duh). Heck, I'm not even sure Ben would want me judging again (after downgrading his adventure), so you needn't worry (much) about me saying "mean things" about your hard-wrought efforts.

REGARDLESS (i.e. regardless of whether or not you place any value in my advice AND regardless of whether or not I'm passing judgment on adventures in the future): please remember that the proof of whether or not ANY adventure is "good"...or worth a damn at all...is in the playing of the adventure. You really don't know HOW an adventure will play until you sit down at the table with some friends (new or old) and give it a whirl. Everything else...treasure counts, "interesting" encounters, level ranges, etc...is just guesstimating. At best.

Anyway.

Fun little contest. Nice to see so many people doing awesome stuff.  Lots of variety, different styles, nice maps, creative ideas. People playing these old D&D games are a pretty marvelous bunch...still. And that's great...that's hopeful. And all the enthusiasm...double the number of submissions as last year!...is also very cool. It would seem that a lot of folks have been hipped to Ben's contest, either through his web site, or the CAG server, or other people discussing it on-line. That's wonderful to see. Very positive.

Yeah.

All right, that's enough for now. I'm scheduling this to post February 3rd. Hope people found something useful in my reviews. For other reviews...focusing on different aspects of the same adventures, and many offering differing opinions from Yours Truly...you should check out the following links:


Cheers, folks!
: )

Saturday, February 1, 2025

ASC Review: The Tower in the Lake

The Tower in the Lake (Matthew Lake)
B/X for four to seven PCs of 3rd-5th level

And so we come to the end of our list. The Tower in the Lake was actually the 25th adventure received, but it was updated with a re-scanned map to make the walls clearer...no big deal. Will we go out with a bang or a whimper? That's the real question.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

I'll save you the suspense: this adventure is so good that I have almost no notes.

Only quibble would be with the Magical Library: magic mouth isn't a spell in B/X (although a wizard like Thassalius certainly might have researched one), and spell books don't work like this in B/X (PCs only know the spells they know)...but since they don't impact anything (not even treasure), that doesn't matter at all. 

B/X system mastery is on full display. Wonderful...really shows what can be done with the system. The problem with B/X is the lack of durability at low levels and the lack of long-term play value after reaching Name level. But for a small, mid-level adventure like this? B/X can be really effective. 

This is an adventure site, but it's a large one: 23 encounter areas. It will probably take more than one night to complete, but not necessarily because its many nods to verticality (pits, slides, whirlpools, etc.) can be used to bypass content. However, the adventure is so cool, players will probably want to plumb its (literal) depths.

Danger level is fairly high...but not impossible!...for this level range. Probably should take at least six PCs into this one. For a party of six 4th levels, I'd expect treasure take to be about 34K total. Treasure total? 40K (and up to 8K of that is destroyable). So...perfect?

Theme is tight and well done. Creativity is delightful. I'm not going to tell you anything about this adventure, because you should have your B/X DM run it for you. If you play a different edition, you can try converting it, although for AD&D you'll want to increase the level range...maybe a 5th-6th average with adjusted magic/treasure. Monster use is excellent, making good use of B/X stuff with a couple unique guys (well-described and fully statted) that are perfectly acceptable. Some DMs will complain there are no hit points listed for the monsters, but that doesn't bother me when everything can be found in the rule book.

This adventure is a triumph and gets the full five stars (out of five). Matthew Lake should be very proud of what he's wrought. Exceptionally nice way to finish these reviews.

*****

Friday, January 31, 2025

ASC Review: Tower of the Necromancer

Tower of the Necromancer (Riley)
S&W (OD&D) for three to four PCs of 1st-2nd level

Coming to the end of this review series; this Swords & Wizardry adventure was actually the 11th one submitted, but it was pulled back to have some bits cleaned up. The polish shows.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

Let's talk about the "rope-a-dope:" you show your opponent (in this case the players) one thing, but then you hit them with another. Here we have a nearby tower of a known figure (Santha the Conjurer) that seems to have been taken over by some necromantic forces: reports of undead sightings and the sounds of ghostly moaning leads the villagers to speculate some sort of Evil Force has taken over the place.

Now, if I'm the player of a 1st or 2nd level character, a "necromancer" (10th level magic-user, capable of casting 5th level spells like animate dead) sounds like bad news...like, really bad news. I've written necromancy-heavy adventures before that I had players walk away from...despite the promise of good spoils...simply because they decided "we don't have enough clerical power to handle this." Fear (of death) is a Real Thing in a properly run D&D campaign, and prudent players aren't ones to simply throw their characters into the fire because an adventure site is "there."

However, as suggested, it's all rope-a-dope: there is no necromancer. Santha the 4th level conjurer has been conducting some magical experiments using captured blink dogs; the result: potions of invisible flesh that makes Santha's hired mercenaries appear as skeletons. The moaning is just the howl of captive blink dogs howling in the caves beneath the hillside tower. It's still a low-level adventure site, perfectly suitable for the PCs...assuming they're bold enough to check it out.

Riley's system mastery of S&W is evident in his execution: The adventure is easily run using the S&W book and while I have some quibbles (how does Santha have a charmed ogre? Did he use a scroll of charm monster? Okay, what about the glyph that guards his chamber?) they are minor. Even the fact that a 4th level magic-user is "conducting magical experiments" is OK...S&W doesn't place any stipulation/minimum level on MUs pursuing this kind of activity. All good.

Danger level is fairly high for a party of only three to four PCs: parties could easily blunder into (up to) eight mercenaries in the tower (supported by a decent magic-user: love to see a low-level antagonist packing a sleep spell!), while the lower level features lairs with up to six giant ('smaller') spiders, all packing deadly (if weak) poison. And the humorously named quantum ogre (he blinks!) is a pretty rough fight for a group of only four PCs. But for seven or eight? I'm okay with that.

Treasure is low, even for low level PCs: I would like to see a bit more than 5,000 g.p. worth, and this one comes in at less than half (2,514). However, there are a handful of VERY nice magic items, not to mention blink dog puppies that can be rescued. ALSO: x.p. for monsters is fairly good at low levels (assuming the party can survive and defeat them...see the note about danger!). I think that, in this case, the trade-off is fine. Probably wouldn't use this as a first adventure for low-level characters, but it's a great second excursion...the kind of thing that could get the PCs that level up they're looking for (after already banking some experience). ALSO, it would be easy to throw in an extra 2K in treasure: a couple gems, a gold choker on the ogre, and a box of silver for the mercs can close the gap. It's not like trying to make up 10s (or 100s) of thousands of treasure discrepancy.

This is solid D&D, easily four stars (out of five). Taking it to the next level would be fine-tuning the encounters/treasure, and including some ideas for the long-term repercussions of PCs not interfering. But great job.

****

Thursday, January 30, 2025

ASC Review: The Warm Caves of the Ts'Ai Dragons

The Warm Caves of the Ts'Ai Dragons (Sneedler Chuckworth)
"OD&D" for PCs of 5th-7th level

*facepalm*

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

We now reach the part of our program where adventures came in after the deadline for submission. This isn't going to have an impact on how I rate these adventures...if they're on the list, they're on the list and Mr. Gibson ("the Big Boss") has deemed them O.K. However, when it comes to tie-breakers and such in my final count, I'm going to give more weight to the adventures received earlier. Just a 'heads up.'

On to the show!

The author, one Sneedler Chuckworth, states this adventure is for OD&D. Except that every monster in it is from AD&D. Magic items list their x.p. and g.p. value as if they were from AD&D. Book magic items are taken from AD&D books like the UA. Spells are referenced that don't appear in any OD&D book...but do appear in AD&D.

This is not an OD&D adventure. Unless Chuckworth has no idea what the hell is in OD&D.

I am sorry to continue harping on this, but dammit, I'm going to continue harping on this: every edition of D&D is different. Yes, they have similarities. But they are different: they play different, they have different expectations of design, they have different levels of depth and complexity and different ramifications of long-term play. They are even designed with different objectives (comparing introductory Basic games with the more robust Advanced game, for instance). 

"Oh, it's all the same! It's all just D&D!"  No, it's not. 5E is different from 4E is different from 3E is different from 2E is different from 1E. Sure, 1E is more compatible with 2E than it is with 3rd or 4th or 5th...but it ain't the same. If you give a group a 2E PHB, DMG, and MM and then ask them to run something like A3: Aerie of the Slave Lords without any 1E books, they are going to haver a damn hard time. If my group plays OD&D and I buy an adventure that says "For OD&D" and then the monsters include quillans, sheet phantoms, fire toads, caryatid columns, earth dragons, and flail snails, then NO, I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THIS ADVENTURE.

"Just buy a Fiend Folio! You know those monsters are in the Fiend Folio!" Yes, I do. Because I am an old geezer who's been playing D&D for more than 40 years and who has played nearly every edition of D&D. But you know what? Writing this for ME is a stupid, stupid idea, because I play AD&D and if I see an adventure that's "written for OD&D" I'm going to ignore it...even though it's filled with AD&Disms. Because I Don't Play OD&D.

You want to write for AD&D? Write for AD&D. You want to include an AD&D monster in your OD&D game? Then fill out a stat block for it in the style of OD&D. Other designers have done that for this contest (see the Banshee entry for ShockTohp's ACKS adventure)...that's the RIGHT way to incorporate stuff from other editions. OR you could just write for the appropriate system, i.e the system from which you take the BULK of your material.

I feel for this author. When I used to run OD&D, I liked to use the Fiend Folio on occasion myself. But I was doing that for my home game, NOT for publication. Not for other people

Treasure for this adventure should be around 112K. Total treasure count is just under 154K, and that's ignoring the magical items x.p. amounts (because OD&D doesn't award x.p. for magic items...duh). Still, too much...and if it was an AD&D adventure it would be WAY too much.  But, in the end, I don't really care; I'm just annoyed. This should have been a pretty good adventure. Instead it shows me the designer doesn't know what they're doing.

One star (out of five). Do better. Show that you understand there's a difference between one type of D&D and another.

*

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

ASC Review: Galactic Funtime

Galactic Funtime (Shawn Metcalf)
SWN for four to six players of 3rd-5th level

Ugh...I haven't been looking forward to this one. Stars Without Number isn't my cup-o-tea and it's been a loooong time since I even looked at the rules. My apologies to the author in advance.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

My knowledge of SWN is pretty limited. I read it a while back, and thought it might make a good system for modeling the WH40K universe with a B/X chassis. But that ain't what this adventure is.

THIS adventure is Aliens (giant mutant spiders, actually) take over the local Chuck-E-Cheese. Players land their spaceship in the parking lot, decide to investigate, and hilarity ensues.

Um...

We have a map of the Galactic Funtime complex. Three types of spiders: "typical," "large," and the unique "Soapy the Spider," a huge, intelligent version...these are the only encounters you'll have. They're not poisonous or anything; they just do damage, sometimes attacking in swarms. 

Players that survive can carry off video game cabinets and sell them to collectors off-world for 1d4x1000 credits each. I have no idea if this is a lot of loot...my recollection of SWN was that x.p. was not awarded for loot, but rather for accomplishing "missions." So...what's the mission here? Getting loot? Killing spiders? No mission x.p. award is given in the adventure so, um...yeah.

I don't know why Gibson wanted SciFi submissions; they don't really grade out along the same scale as the D&D stuff. This thing seems...fine. But I don't know. It's outside of my wheelhouse and probably won't crack the top eight on my list.

Three stars (out of five) with a "-" because, while playable, it's boring, and I don't find myself as amused by the subject matter as some folks might be. 

***-

Tuesday, January 28, 2025

ASC Review: Wailing Tower

Wailing Tower (ShockTohp)
ACKS for PCs of 4th-6th level

Okay...an Adventurer Conqueror King System scenario. ACKS is, from what I can tell, mostly a spiffed up version of BECMI. It has its devotees. For an adventure of this level range, it's mostly in the "A" part of ACKS, and can be judged much the same as a B/X (or, rather, BE) adventure.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

This one is almost good (I don't write that to be facetious). I'm not a fan of ACKS, but this one nearly hooked me. Great premise/concept: an aging and mostly abandoned monument (museum/tomb) on the edge of town is inviting someone to steal the goods on display. The kicker is that the "goods" are guarded by a piece of fantastical dwarven engineering: a crystal observation dome surrounded by a reservoir of water in creaky "clocktower" that sports spouting fountains and is driven by an ancient water wheel. 

Time pressures abound: another group (a thief NPC and his bandits) have a plan go dig into the chamber not knowing this will activate the 30 odd living statues that guard the exterior. A rust monster is nibbling at the main gear wheel's spindle, and will destroy it if not stopped. Also, there are some giant hawks nesting in the tower that will return shortly and provide additional complication.

Getting through the crystal dome without accidentally flooding the tomb and destroying most of the treasure is the main "puzzle" of the adventure, with the author providing several possible solutions. There is also a banshee haunting the place (new monster for the system, full stats provided in text, slightly different from the 1E version, but not bad) who is a puzzle herself...although violence works as a method of "resolving" her.

This is a GREAT "adventure site:" it is small (only a dozen or so encounter areas) but complex enough to engage and occupy the players...the perfect kind of opportunity a bunch of rapscallion treasure seekers might stumble onto. THIS is a great example of what I believe the ASC is all about.

Now for the execution: it is, unfortunately, a little weak in the nuts-n-bolts. The puzzle for opening the crystal dome is pretty complex...the kind of thing one might have to figure out in a video game after wandering around for a loooong time, trying various combinations. Not very fun D&D, IMO. And I find it unlikely a group of 4th-6th level PCs would be hoarding a scroll with the 6th level spell lower water (one of the alternative solution presented by the author); two scrolls with dimension door is only slightly more probable. Depending on the group, this could be a decidedly frustrating endeavor, likely to end in a flooded loot vault.

And let's talk about that loot. ACKS, much like the Basic systems on which it's built, is a system that awards x.p. for gold. For a party of 5th level characters (say five PCs), I'd be expecting a treasure take of around 30,000. The wailing tower offers only 8,400 total, and that's IF the party can manage the treasure without flooding the compartment. Break the crystal dome, and that amount is dropping to a maximum of 5,700, with 3,300 of that only be recoverable finding some way to drain the water. Harsh! And fixing the banshee issue (a second "puzzle") offers no tangible reward, either.

The monsters, other than the banshee, are all pretty light-weight...unless (I suppose) the PCs are caught outside when the living statues get activated. My estimation of a SMALL adventuring party (five PCs) is based on the fact that the encounters here are so small in number: ONE rust monster, TWO giant hawks, ONE banshee, SIX bandits (and their T6 leader). This is pretty small fry. The main challenge of the adventure is the puzzle vault.

This one's getting three stars (out of five). It's creative, it's engaging, and it's tightly themed. But the overall danger level is low, the treasure count is abysmal, and the puzzle thing can be frustrating for some (many?) groups, given the format (a tabletop RPG). It's not quite "solid" D&D, but it's a pretty good effort.

***


Monday, January 27, 2025

ASC Review: The Grand Retreat of the Great Sage Tellah

The Grand Retreat of the Great Sage Tellah (thanateros777)
"B/X, etc." for PCs of "mid-level"

Man, people reading these are just going to think I'm a jerk, huh?

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

A "mid-level drop-in funhouse adventure for B/X, etc." That's what it says on the box. Well, now. I know B/X like the back of my hand, and "mid-level" for B/X is 7th level. So that's how I'm going to treat this one. ALSO: please note that I do enjoy the (occasional) "funhouse" adventure...see my numerous blog posts on White Plume Mountain over the years.

How much should I drag this out?

It's not good. We'll start with the basics: for a B/X adventure of this size (20 encounters...a tad big but within contest parameters) a "mid-level" party could expect to find somewhere in the neighborhood of 261K, all monetary (because B/X doesn't give x.p. for magic items). If the PCs were able to pull out every last scrap of loot, they get a grand total of 21,100 g.p. value. Pitiful.

Then there are the encounters: illusionists (no such thing in B/X). A necrophidius (not in B/X). "Clockroaches," "assassin vine," "mycelian," and "shocker lizards" (I've never even heard of these things). Water weirds (not in B/X). Guardian familiar (not in B/X). That's a helluva' lot of "etc." No stat blocks are provided for any of the monsters.

Usability is an issue. Decent map, nice and clear. But the three pages of text are not only crammed together, but using a font that makes reading this a thing of torture...it is the proverbial "wall of text" which makes table use a nightmare, even on maximum magnification. At least the monsters are highlighted.

Yes, it's another negative review. And I'm sure many readers assume/believe that I take great glee in being negative, of being critical, of looking for every possible flaw. And probably I do...to some degree. 

But part of why I'm doing this is in aid of helping folks. Not just the author, but other people who might want to write/design adventures. Because writing an adventure for publication...something to be read and used by other people...requires a different standard from what DMs do when jotting down notes for their home game. It requires a different degree of care and attention. Because other DMs aren't you, Mr./Ms. Author...and they can't read your mind.

Let's elevate our design chops. Yeah, we're all amateurs (for the most part). If you're writing/designing for WotC you're probably not reading this blog; you're probably not entering contests like these. If you're a professional adventure writer, this info ain't for you. But if you, like me, are just an amateur or (glory be!) a semi-pro, please take this advice to heart:

Choose one system. Learn that system. Design/write for that system. 

System matters. This adventure gets one star (out of five) because the author decided that system doesn't...and it thus fails to work as a functional module for anyone looking for a "B/X, etc." adventure.

*