Thick Thews, Brutish Brows & Heaving Bosoms (Rook)
OD&D adventure for PCs of levels 4th & 5th
This one bills itself as a Frank Frazetta inspired caveman lair...which it is. But at 12 encounter areas (Dyson Logos map) it's still in the solid range of an "adventure site."
This one has decent ideas, but it's not as tightly themed as it could be...despite the size, it really is just a "lair:" almost everything encountered is going to be a "cave person" (caveman or cavewoman). There are multiple interesting ideas stashed here, all of which can be seen as "Frazetta" (read "pulp paperback") inspired, but they don't quite go together. We have (for example) the three eyed demon deity with its mutant tyranasaurus avatar AND the black pudding, river god that are both getting sacrifices (not to mention the green aura'd cave painting guy with the green slime behind it and the ancestor wizard/preserved skeleton hanging from the ceiling). I feel like...PICK ONE, dude, and build your scenario around THAT.
But, then, if you do that all you're left with is a caveman lair. Which is too small. See the problem?
So instead, you have disjointed stuff going on. The chaotic shaman who's turning the tribe. You have some cavewomen who are plotting to leave (??) while others ar gleefully taking part in sacrificing and tormenting sacrificial victims. You have these primitive-type beings that can only hoot and howl and raid the homo sapient villages for "buxom" sacrifices, but then you have others that can speak broken common and who keep a stash of thousands of gold pieces on hand to "trade with outsiders." These are all great ideas, but there are (for my taste) TOO MANY. You don't throw every pulpy idea in the book into the thing. I mean, you CAN, but this can prove jarring to players in play...like defeating a hydra, opening a door and finding a mind flayer. Yeah, both monsters are in the same level range, both are weird and hostile, but do they really go together?
Are we negotiating and faction-building with primitives OR are we stamping out demon worshippers while avoiding godlike retribution OR are we rescuing buxoms from deluded primitive worshipping a giant slime pool? You see what I mean? Or not? Maybe you're just like, hey, it's all fun. Okay. Kick-in-the-door D&D is a thing and some players don't overthink it. For me, I see some things that could be tightened to make this a real wowser.
2HD cavemen (and 1HD cavewomen) aren't too tough for PCs of this level but there are a LOT of them, which makes the challenge about right. I have no problem with the encounters except the zombie head which while (again) a neat idea is problematic in a number of ways...if you think about it (some people won't). Like, why is it attacking as a 2 HD creature? How can it actually move (albeit with a MV of 0.5) AND still attack? Do all zombie pieces have individual animating force in their various limbs or is this guy just special? And who/how was it created? Is this a creation of Ooooogun the witch-doctor (whose spells, HD and hit points aren't listed)?
There's a few things left out here. Blank spaces that appear to need to be filled in by the DM (these should be filled in by the adventure writer). Info on the witch-doctor and the chief's younger brother. Stats for the tyrannosaur (not a monster in OD&D...and where is it sleeping?). Ditto the giant snake.
There is too much treasure, even assuming a party of eight PCs (OD&D adventures tend to run easy with a higher number of players)....if you're only running with 4 or 5 it'll be even more. Most of the treasure items are "big ticket" items (gems and jewelry instead of coins and goods), and none of it is particularly difficult to discover or retrieve. You've close to 70K in treasure for something that should probably be under 40K. Very few magic items, though the chief has a +1 sword and +1 shield that are sufficiently famous as to have names and are identifiable by a sage (??)...no explanation given, and a little odd considering the primitive nature of the "tribe."
This one gets ** because it's incomplete and requires work on the part of the DM before it's fit to run. But it's a HIGH two stars, and it while just filling in blanks and providing stats for the various monsters would get it an extra star, tightening the theme could boost it into the 4* range...possibly higher. There's a lot of good "Frazetta fantasy" in this one, and while caveman tribes don't fit into every campaign, this one's the best and most well done that I remember seeing.
Also: check out Jean Auel's Clan of the Cave Bear sometime.
; )
While I'm not a Swords & Sorcery reader, I do like a 'lost world' theme as a pocket dimension almost (a bit like Jules Verne's Journey to the Centre of the Earth). With some polishing this sounds fun.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about the packing of factions and monsters. To be faction play there needs to be two monster types that the party can converse with, and intelligent monsters need a bit of room. I think that 12 rooms isn't enough, with the minimum being about 18, and an ideal of 24. That means that the limits of the ASC is a bit small for factions, unless the areas are spread out themselves.
Yeah. I mean, in this case, you have a large tribe, a community, and (of course) you can have rival powers within such a group...the younger brother or scheming uncle of the leader, the shaman/vizier versus the war leader/general, etc....all the tropes. Here we have some disgruntled cavewomen AND the chaotic witch doctor AND the chief's younger brother (not really a rival power, but a bit of a dimwit who could probably be "turned"). It's a bit much for the size of the place.
DeleteI wasn't thinking Verne so much as Burroughs's Pellucidar stuff, but Frazetta's "Fire & Ice" also has some influence here. It just seems like the author is having difficulty deciding if his cavemen are furry booted primitives or "subhuman"/neanderthal types...you see a little bit of both here.
[neither of which are really "D&D," by the way, but BOTH of which are fantastic fantasy adventure and lovely concepts for adaptation]
As with most (all?) of these submissions, it's not the creativity that's the issue...it's the execution of game design.
Thank you for reviewing my poor lost entry!
ReplyDeleteWell, too many good ideas isn't too much for me to cry over, haha. Shame to have lost a star for 'incompleteness' to become 'technically unplayable' is a shame. It plays pretty well in my experience! But I'm glad you see it as having so high a potential - beyond 4* wowie! That's nice to hear. With naming/defining the captive, the linked dungeon and a few other bits I saw it as making the DM's job easier tailoring the lair to their campaign world, not harder, minutes of effort perhaps. One piece of feedback I received in this regard said the dungeon had 'Vance-quality'.
Likewise, as to what the players are supposed to be doing? Well, any of the above options. Again, that's up to them and the DM, not me. I'd envisioned this site to be placed in a campaign world and for rumours and encounters to shape the goal of the party, this isn't out of keeping with the kind of site that the contest is looking for, no? The Cavemen can be allies, enemies, something in between. It's a site and the variety within gives it some life and interest.
I knew the lair format would be a issue, that's a lot of cavemen. I also agree the relationships are not as defined as they could be.
As for treasure, it was largely generated by the book - Treasure type A (land). I had a feeling I was going to get trouble from you for not having snake/tyrannosaur stats but you didn't point out that according to the treasure generation rules in OD&D 'Cavemen have no treasure'. Oh no! Shall I deduct another star? 🫣
Addenda:
- The Ooogun is just a regular caveman.
- I'd imagined the Zombie Head as being propelled by it's own hungry gnashing, maybe it's its own thing, a new monster. Incongruity can be ok.
- The magic sword and shield are not of caveman make, acquired, like the trolls with magic elven swords in the Hobbit. I'll admit this isn't explicit.
- I'd imagined the mutant tyrannosaur to be dwelling far away from this particular lair - an ominous issue for another session.
- interesting how you read the wizard bones as being perhaps an ancestral figure. I'd just intended for it to be an unusual treasure that's a little tricky to collect. It's fun how the reader's imagination can so effortlessly fill gaps and expand the site in the reading 😉
Again, thank you truly for the review, can't wait to hear from the other judges. I'll make sure to include this feedback in my later work.
When we design adventures for our own games, we (often) have a pretty good concept of what the thing is and how to run it. Designing for publication and use by other people requires a different level of explicitness.
DeleteDoes that mean everything needs to be spelled out for the reader? No. Some things (especially relationships between NPCs/monsters) can be left as implicit, allowing readers (DMs) to draw their own conclusions. But especially with regard to mechanics, I don't think it's particularly useful to make assumptions about what the consumer/reader/DM knows or has access to.
Giant snakes and tyrannosaurs are named in the OD&D books...they are even given damage figures in Greyhawk. But stats like HD, AC, MV, etc. (things which are needed for use in play) are not provided beyond some casual guidelines. It is not difficult for you, as a designer, to provide a brief stat line, and for the DM who seeks to use your adventure (because they are too inexperienced or pressed for time to create their own) this is exactly what is wanted in a pre-written module.
Adventures should be designed for a particular range/level of character; this allows a DM to pick it up and say 'Oh, this works for my group,' or 'hmm, this might be better used at a future date.' Balancing treasure and challenge is the designer's job; treasure types are suggested ranges and have a wide range of possibility (all the way down to ZERO treasure...even for a dragon hoard!). Relying on random dice rolls for an adventure written for publication is fine, but it is the designer's prerogative (and responsibility) to 'tune' the results to the concept and player range for which it is designed. It matters very little to me if one goes "off book" when it comes to placing treasure hoards, so long as the hoards used are sensible and appropriate within the concept and assumed PC group for which the adventure is written.
For the sake of clarity:
When I write: "Are we negotiating and faction-building, etc., etc." I'm not talking about what the PLAYERS are supposed to be doing. I am asking what WE (but really YOU) are doing here as DESIGNERS. This speaks to tightening the scenario. Any scenario may be approached from a variety of angles by the players, but verisimilitude is helped by a certain degree of coherence. Again, there are a LOT of ideas in the adventure, but it is a 12-room adventure site, something suitable for an evening's play...players are likely to latch onto one idea and be jarred when they run up against something different and/or conflicting. This can break verisimilitude causing a "huh?" reaction that takes players out of the experiential game play that keeps them focused and engaged.
That the adventure plays well for you is not surprising...as the author and creator you already have an idea how the elements of the adventure interact and you can edit and adjust on the fly, in effect continuing to create/design/write the adventure as you play. Most folks using a pre-written adventure want a completed project, not something they have to "wing."
Any DM can come up with a handful of ideas and download a Dyson Logos map to stuff them into...any DM can roll random treasure tables for stocking their dungeon. When DMs are looking to run a pre-written adventure, they're looking for a little more thought and care, and they're looking for the designer to do the heavy lifting so that they don't have to.
W.r.t. your addenda:
Delete- Fine about the Ooooogun not having magical ability (missed that). Tell us what the 3rd level magic-user spell scroll is. Does this have any effect on his club?
- Incongruity and new monsters are fine...but then call them as such and define them. Can this be turned by a cleric (a 4th level cleric in OD&D auto-turns zombies, while a 5th level cleric auto-destroys them). If this wasn't a magical creation of the Ooooogun, then how did it get here and how do the cavefolk feel about it? Is this yet another demon/spirit/monster they worship?
- The trolls didn't use the elven swords. This caveman uses his equipment (which is a lot different from the spiked club that cavefolk are usually armed with). There is also the cave painting in #11 that seems to indicate sword-wielding cavemen are a "thing," or (at least) that this is some sort of heirloom weapon. This is an example of the disjointedness of the adventure: sometimes the cavefolk appear sophisticated (wearing jewelry, hoarding treasure for trade, speaking Common) and sometimes they appear to be neolithic primitives hooting like animals. There's a disconnect there.
- I'm fine with the tyrannosaur being miles away, but give some more info as PCs are VERY LIKELY to "defile" the statue for its diamond eyes, and the DM will need to know information like HOW LONG will it take for the T-rex to "travel unerringly" and "tirelessly" to get to the PCs.
- as I said, not everything has to be explained explicitly and mysteries can abound. You don't need to state how a skeleton got to a place, but there should be a reason it's still there, and hasn't been wrecked by the new inhabitants (assuming they didn't bring it).
I'm sure the other judges will have plenty of things to say. My apologies for the delay with getting this one out.
(and apologies also for the length of this comment!)
; )
Fair enough! And no, thank you for replying! And apologies are also due, my comment was very long too! Thanks again 🙏
DeleteAnd there was no delay at all! Your speedy reviews are what let me know that somewhere along the way my entry had been missed, so thank you for that!
DeleteRight on.
Delete