Not everything need be explained. Who is Kadish? The dead guy in the tomb. Who was he? Probably some sort of mage based on the environment. Will the PCs ever learn his name? Only if they try taking his treasures from the tomb. Will the PCs care? Probably not.
Adventure scenarios are...well, just scenarios for adventure. That's how I approach adventure writing anyway. Even when designing for B/X...I cut my teeth on B/X as a youngster and played it exclusively from 2009 till (roughly) 2019. I've found that players tend not to be overly curious about 'background color' except if it is something that can be used to their advantage...and probably not even then.
The locked provides a complication, but not an unsolvable one. PCs can, of course, break it down, if they have the proper tools. They can knock out the anti-magic and THEN use a *knock* spell (readily available to many MUs of 3rd+ level). They can get a good roll from the party thief (and low level thieves are quite a bit more competent at picking locks then B/X thieves, due to DEX and racial bonuses); my own play group often contains multiple thief types. The treasure beyond is a decent reward for parties that are well-prepared, ingenious, and/or perseverant.
RE derision of B/X:
I do not deride B/X as a system: B/X is a good, playable system and (so far as I know) the clearest, best entry point into the hobby of any instructional text ever published. It is NOT (IMO) suitable for long-term campaign play; it's limits tend to expire after 2-3 years of play depending on play frequency. For that reason, I prefer AD&D. But I always (and often) promote B/X...ESPECIALLY Moldvay's Basic book...as a good text for people (both kids and adults) interested in learning how to play D&D.
While I largely agree that not everything need be explained, I actually have found that my players (generally) ask about such things. In my session last night in fact, I was asked several questions about an area's background, specifically what the old ruler was like, and the names of some key locations. Truly though, in a one off site, it's not really an issue.
The door thing is a puzzler. Having multiple avenues by which it can be solved is excellent design, and I appreciate it being there. However, it plays into one of the larger conversations that seem to come up time and time again, i.e, is the Thief even a necessary class. If it's good design to assume that the Thief is going to whiff his abilities, it seems redundant to have one at all. I admit that the ad&d Thief is more reliable in this case, but it still strikes me as being a class that uniquely sucks at it's own role. As you mentioned, a Thief's lockpicking is easily replaced by the MU's Knock spell (a situation that I have been loudly assure by elements on twitter NEVER HAPPENS and even bringing it up is a bad faith argument). I would generally prefer that the Thief, if included, be more reliable at his job, even at low levels. But over all, I do think thing the way you have handled here is good, which I why I would label it as a quibble with ad&d, not your site itself.
As far as B/X goes, that's a point of total agreement. B/X, especially Moldvay, struggles at high tier campaign play. Even BECMI struggles (hence my own switch to ACKS in recent times). I started in the OSR with a pdf of Moldvay and the OSE books, then ran a game for just under two years. Eventually I realized I was borrowing so much from ACKS, I might as well switch. I did not mean to malign the nature of your critiques, just to get in some light ribbing. Especially with NAP III having wrapped up, I read many of your review's of a review on high level B/X.
For B/X play, I have (in the past) suggested that they receive +5/10/15% bonus based on their DEX atribute (13-15/16-17/18) as a way of both increasing their effectiveness and encouraging them to use their skills; low level thieves often fail to see the reward worth the risk compared to having (for example) a dwarf search for traps.
Is the thief necessary? I approach the class similar to the way I approach ALL the classes: it provides an alternative way for 'getting things done'...an alternative way that provides some advantage and some disadvantage. Players can adventure without a cleric, but healing becomes much harder and undead much more dangerous. You can adventure without a magic-user, but you'll need to stock a lot of extra equipment and avoid certain types of monsters (black puddings, for example). You can adventure without fighters and...well, I'll assume you get the point.
My players generally always carry a thief or two in the party...even if one (or more) of the players are playing an assassin (which happens frequently), they'll look to hire a thief for the better skills. They provide a lot of advantages for gathering intel (climbing, sneaking, detecting), and they advance quickly in comparison to other classes. The extra hit points in AD&D (thieves roll d6s, not d4s) makes quite a difference, especially after they've got a couple levels under their belts; a high CON helps this.
[of course, veteran B/X players will complain loudly that thieves can't use bows. From my POV, I find this helps emphasize the thief's role in the party...they are NOT long-range marksmen]
I would not even say thieves' skills are "easily" replaced by spell-users (clerics' find traps, invisibility, knock, etc.) as spells are valuable resources to be hoarded. Despite their random chance of failure, thieves skills are an effectively UNLIMITED resource, making them a very practical class for a group looking to increase their effective operating range. In some ways, they are similar to MUs...a pain in the ass to protect at low-levels, but boy can they earn their keep at times!
I think your quibble is more appropriately targeted at my adventure than at AD&D....I could have (and probably should have) made a note about how easy/hard it is to break down the door. A cautious party will be hesitant to take such a direct route, fearing that they will awaken some monster on the other side or set off some unforeseen trap...for those types, a failed thief roll may prove an insurmountable barrier. But (again) for me, this is (part of) the heart of FAG game play: being faced with interesting choices and being forced to weigh risk/reward. Some players enjoy that thrill...and that's what I try to instill in the tables that I DM.
I think, the main point of disagreement is on what the term "unlimited" means. Yes, a thief can attempt to unlock any number of locks in a given level. But he still only gets a single attempt per lock per level. This means a party is likely going to circumvent the lock in some way other than by the thief, or be stone walled away from the door. For mission critical doors, a party will prefer a loud attempt to a complete failure.
Contrast this with the ACKS approach of simply allowing any number of methodical attempts (but only a single hasty attempt). This means a failure to pick is a waste of a turn, but the option is there to "spin again" as it were. Given unlimited time, any thief can pick any lock. The balance is that time is not unlimited. Much in that vein that bashing down the door takes time, or pulling the hinges, or any of the myriad other ways good plays say "okay thief blew it, time to open the door anyway." Now the trade off becomes one of both time risk and the risk of rolling a natural 1 on repeated attempts (which jams the lock entirely, stopping ALL future attempts). This has the same thrill of risk/reward, but feels much more like the thief is allowed to not suck at his job. The fiction becomes "I can pick any lock, no matter how exotic/old/ruined, just give me time." instead of "I might be able to pick a lock, but I give up at the first sign that I can't."
Naturally, as things progress in level much of this criticism become irrelevant. The ad&d thief really is much better at his job than the B/X one, even if he can't cheese with bows.
Back when I was running a B/X campaign (2009-2013ish) I simply did away with all thief skill rolls (the percentage-based ones anyway). Open locks: auto. Hide in shadows: auto. Etc. There were caveats...including the time component...but simply allowed the skills to automatically succeed, barring extreme circumstance.
It worked fine in practice (i.e. it did not disrupt or unbalance game play). However, over time I've come to realize that the randomness...the gambling aspect...is very much a part of the experience of playing a thief. And some players thrive on that. And it makes for yet another interesting dynamic of D&D game play that differs from how other class abilities function.
As is usually the case, I've found AD&D to be the happiest of happy mediums for the thief, and yet another reason I stick with that edition as my default rule set.
Ha! Good review! Thank you!
Not everything need be explained. Who is Kadish? The dead guy in the tomb. Who was he? Probably some sort of mage based on the environment. Will the PCs ever learn his name? Only if they try taking his treasures from the tomb. Will the PCs care? Probably not.
Adventure scenarios are...well, just scenarios for adventure. That's how I approach adventure writing anyway. Even when designing for B/X...I cut my teeth on B/X as a youngster and played it exclusively from 2009 till (roughly) 2019. I've found that players tend not to be overly curious about 'background color' except if it is something that can be used to their advantage...and probably not even then.
The locked provides a complication, but not an unsolvable one. PCs can, of course, break it down, if they have the proper tools. They can knock out the anti-magic and THEN use a *knock* spell (readily available to many MUs of 3rd+ level). They can get a good roll from the party thief (and low level thieves are quite a bit more competent at picking locks then B/X thieves, due to DEX and racial bonuses); my own play group often contains multiple thief types. The treasure beyond is a decent reward for parties that are well-prepared, ingenious, and/or perseverant.
RE derision of B/X:
I do not deride B/X as a system: B/X is a good, playable system and (so far as I know) the clearest, best entry point into the hobby of any instructional text ever published. It is NOT (IMO) suitable for long-term campaign play; it's limits tend to expire after 2-3 years of play depending on play frequency. For that reason, I prefer AD&D. But I always (and often) promote B/X...ESPECIALLY Moldvay's Basic book...as a good text for people (both kids and adults) interested in learning how to play D&D.
Just to be clear.
; )
Hmm...re-reading my comment, that should say "The locked DOOR provides a complication..." No one is immune to typos, sir!
As always, thanks for the comment.
While I largely agree that not everything need be explained, I actually have found that my players (generally) ask about such things. In my session last night in fact, I was asked several questions about an area's background, specifically what the old ruler was like, and the names of some key locations. Truly though, in a one off site, it's not really an issue.
The door thing is a puzzler. Having multiple avenues by which it can be solved is excellent design, and I appreciate it being there. However, it plays into one of the larger conversations that seem to come up time and time again, i.e, is the Thief even a necessary class. If it's good design to assume that the Thief is going to whiff his abilities, it seems redundant to have one at all. I admit that the ad&d Thief is more reliable in this case, but it still strikes me as being a class that uniquely sucks at it's own role. As you mentioned, a Thief's lockpicking is easily replaced by the MU's Knock spell (a situation that I have been loudly assure by elements on twitter NEVER HAPPENS and even bringing it up is a bad faith argument). I would generally prefer that the Thief, if included, be more reliable at his job, even at low levels. But over all, I do think thing the way you have handled here is good, which I why I would label it as a quibble with ad&d, not your site itself.
As far as B/X goes, that's a point of total agreement. B/X, especially Moldvay, struggles at high tier campaign play. Even BECMI struggles (hence my own switch to ACKS in recent times). I started in the OSR with a pdf of Moldvay and the OSE books, then ran a game for just under two years. Eventually I realized I was borrowing so much from ACKS, I might as well switch. I did not mean to malign the nature of your critiques, just to get in some light ribbing. Especially with NAP III having wrapped up, I read many of your review's of a review on high level B/X.
Thanks for the comment and involved!
Ha! You're welcome!
RE: Thieves
For B/X play, I have (in the past) suggested that they receive +5/10/15% bonus based on their DEX atribute (13-15/16-17/18) as a way of both increasing their effectiveness and encouraging them to use their skills; low level thieves often fail to see the reward worth the risk compared to having (for example) a dwarf search for traps.
Is the thief necessary? I approach the class similar to the way I approach ALL the classes: it provides an alternative way for 'getting things done'...an alternative way that provides some advantage and some disadvantage. Players can adventure without a cleric, but healing becomes much harder and undead much more dangerous. You can adventure without a magic-user, but you'll need to stock a lot of extra equipment and avoid certain types of monsters (black puddings, for example). You can adventure without fighters and...well, I'll assume you get the point.
My players generally always carry a thief or two in the party...even if one (or more) of the players are playing an assassin (which happens frequently), they'll look to hire a thief for the better skills. They provide a lot of advantages for gathering intel (climbing, sneaking, detecting), and they advance quickly in comparison to other classes. The extra hit points in AD&D (thieves roll d6s, not d4s) makes quite a difference, especially after they've got a couple levels under their belts; a high CON helps this.
[of course, veteran B/X players will complain loudly that thieves can't use bows. From my POV, I find this helps emphasize the thief's role in the party...they are NOT long-range marksmen]
I would not even say thieves' skills are "easily" replaced by spell-users (clerics' find traps, invisibility, knock, etc.) as spells are valuable resources to be hoarded. Despite their random chance of failure, thieves skills are an effectively UNLIMITED resource, making them a very practical class for a group looking to increase their effective operating range. In some ways, they are similar to MUs...a pain in the ass to protect at low-levels, but boy can they earn their keep at times!
I think your quibble is more appropriately targeted at my adventure than at AD&D....I could have (and probably should have) made a note about how easy/hard it is to break down the door. A cautious party will be hesitant to take such a direct route, fearing that they will awaken some monster on the other side or set off some unforeseen trap...for those types, a failed thief roll may prove an insurmountable barrier. But (again) for me, this is (part of) the heart of FAG game play: being faced with interesting choices and being forced to weigh risk/reward. Some players enjoy that thrill...and that's what I try to instill in the tables that I DM.
; )
I think, the main point of disagreement is on what the term "unlimited" means. Yes, a thief can attempt to unlock any number of locks in a given level. But he still only gets a single attempt per lock per level. This means a party is likely going to circumvent the lock in some way other than by the thief, or be stone walled away from the door. For mission critical doors, a party will prefer a loud attempt to a complete failure.
Contrast this with the ACKS approach of simply allowing any number of methodical attempts (but only a single hasty attempt). This means a failure to pick is a waste of a turn, but the option is there to "spin again" as it were. Given unlimited time, any thief can pick any lock. The balance is that time is not unlimited. Much in that vein that bashing down the door takes time, or pulling the hinges, or any of the myriad other ways good plays say "okay thief blew it, time to open the door anyway." Now the trade off becomes one of both time risk and the risk of rolling a natural 1 on repeated attempts (which jams the lock entirely, stopping ALL future attempts). This has the same thrill of risk/reward, but feels much more like the thief is allowed to not suck at his job. The fiction becomes "I can pick any lock, no matter how exotic/old/ruined, just give me time." instead of "I might be able to pick a lock, but I give up at the first sign that I can't."
Naturally, as things progress in level much of this criticism become irrelevant. The ad&d thief really is much better at his job than the B/X one, even if he can't cheese with bows.
Back when I was running a B/X campaign (2009-2013ish) I simply did away with all thief skill rolls (the percentage-based ones anyway). Open locks: auto. Hide in shadows: auto. Etc. There were caveats...including the time component...but simply allowed the skills to automatically succeed, barring extreme circumstance.
https://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-more-skill-rolls-dammit.html
It worked fine in practice (i.e. it did not disrupt or unbalance game play). However, over time I've come to realize that the randomness...the gambling aspect...is very much a part of the experience of playing a thief. And some players thrive on that. And it makes for yet another interesting dynamic of D&D game play that differs from how other class abilities function.
As is usually the case, I've found AD&D to be the happiest of happy mediums for the thief, and yet another reason I stick with that edition as my default rule set.
; )
Being involved* I guess this entire post has spelling gremlins.
Wow I must have been wearing a blindfold when I proofread this one.