[RPG]: A4: In the Dungeons of the Slavelords, reviewed by Lev Lafayette (4/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12854.phtml

Lev Lafayette's Summary:

A excellent challenging situation which demands inventiveness on the players. Regrettably does not include expansions for non-tournament use, so is only usable as a single-session scenario. Otherwise, one of the best AD&D1e modules published.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Dan Davenport]

If ever there were an illustration of how badly AD&D 1st ed. needed a skills system, this module was it.

I'm curious as to how well the PCs tended to do against the Slave Lords with only their makeshift equipment.

[Skiorht]

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

If ever there were an illustration of how badly AD&D 1st ed. needed a skills system, this module was it.

Yup. When we played this one, the Dungeoneer's Survival Gudie had alreadyt come out, and was quite useful.

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

I'm curious as to how well the PCs tended to do against the Slave Lords with only their makeshift equipment.

I ran this as part of the Against the Slavelords magemodule, and IIRC the PCs had quite a few problems, with at least one casuality. It was a hard, highly tactical battle, and one we still remember after almost two decades. The group's Thief-Acrobat was actually extremely useful in the final battle, being able to bypass enemies and re-equip the group with tossed swords et. al.

The session also had one of our greatest AD&D moments, when the group's ranger (the only honestly rolled 18/00 I ever saw) killed gnoll with a single clamshell thrust.

Lev's point about the dungeon design is a good one. I remember that the PCs managed to avoid the myconids altogether, which was a bit of a shame. I've always liked those fungus guys.

[Lev Lafayette]

Originally Posted by Dan Davenport

I'm curious as to how well the PCs tended to do against the Slave Lords with only their makeshift equipment.

There's a couple of opportunities just prior. You can persuade the slaves to hand over some daggers (encounter F), and the initial encounter where the slavelords are encountered includes an ogre with a two-handed sword and two sargeants with longswords; and the PCs have just picked up a sleep scroll. After that there's another 14 0-level characters with longswords. So weapons a-plenty really.

[SDriver]

I actually enjoy it when the "thing on the cover," e.g., the vampire, doesn't make an appearance in the module. It throws the players off.

"There's going to be a vampire any minute now, he's on the cover! How the hell do we fight a vampire with a clam?"

"I dunno, check Clambook: Nosferatu."

...

Another example is Tomb of Horrors, where both versions of the cover function as red herrings.

I think it's far more of a pisser when the climactic encounter is revealed on the front cover, out in the open for everyone to see on the shelf in the gaming store. Q.v., Forge of Fury. The end boss in that module wasn't much of a surprise if you left him as published.

[adaen]

Leve,

Yet again, another really nice review.

Best,

Adaen

[dogmeathorse]

This was a great review. I really want to get your take on Deities and Demigods. I can't figure out if it was good or not.

[SteelCaress]

That was one of those modules that got me thinking, "Gee, Conan the Barbarian wouldn't have much of a problem here," and realizing that PC power isn't based on them, but on their stuff. Nowadays, I prefer a system where it's not your equipment -- it's you.

And, we just used the 1-20 "to hit" tables with AC running across the top (I think that's how they looked." The "Glancing Blow, Strike Again" unarmed tables were kind of "meh." We just hit and rolled for damage -- and ran.

After a first run-through, I worked up a random table and decided there were some encounters that needed to be there (static), and some other encounters that were random. All based on dramatic necessity. I thought the myconids were neat (Dr. Who caliber neat) and had them encounter them, no matter which way the characters went.

[crimfan]

Originally Posted by SteelCaress

That was one of those modules that got me thinking, "Gee, Conan the Barbarian wouldn't have much of a problem here," and realizing that PC power isn't based on them, but on their stuff. Nowadays, I prefer a system where it's not your equipment -- it's you.

D&D (in all its incarnations) is definitely a gear-heavy game. There are ways of removing gear dependence, but they take some doing. Things we've found to be helpful:

-Use a much higher point base for starting characters than the book lists. Many of the magic items that show up in game do stuff like add +2 to a stat or provide a similar low-end bonus. Starting with a higher stat makes the bonus inherent to the character, not his gear. The Conan RPG does this.

-Action Points (or a similar mechanic) are great. They have the effect of a lot of low-end magic items nicely, provide temporary access to feats, and so on. The GM can hand them out as "treasure" too. Because they're strictly meta-game, they aren't part of the character's inventory. I've also found APs to be very useful as a game balance currency. For instance, in my campaign world, humans have a full complement of APs while "elder races" (elves, dwarves, etc.) have one third the total APs but are all gestalt characters (gestalt characters are 3.X's version of multiclassers). It seems to balance out nicely in play: APs provide a ton of flexibility and an ability to make it through in the clutch, whereas the gestalt abilities are very nice too.

Jay