For running the book I actually rather like this chapter from a structural/game design perspective. The concentric rings of focus where locations nearer the dungeon directs the attention of the GM back to AV itself, but the details given are enough to improvise a short 15-30 minute diversion in session if needed.
I really like that the locations aren’t too interconnected - it feels like most areas have some mechanic to funnel the party either back into the dungeon itself or to someone who will direct them to the dungeon - Lord Burdock for instance, who needs treasure.
The villages are given enough detail that the information can be fed back to players and encourage them to move on to more interesting locations without explicitly stating “it’s a boring village”. Finding out that a settlement specialises in the production of legumes adds a little flavour to the setting and is better than nothing, but also clearly tells players to move on to something more interesting.
The adventuring locations could use a little more content, perhaps, but I figured they would just use the lair rules as a one off location that directs players back to Newmarket (bandits), Gosterwick or the dungeon itself.
As a setting it leaves a lot to be desired, but I think it works quite well as a quick and dirty region around the dungeon to make the world feel a little more lively while signposting “fun stuff this way”.
Similarly, I think Gosterwick works best when not played outside of a couple of social encounters. It’s place players go in between sessions or as bookends in a session and say “I want to do this” in an uncomplicated manner. It’s functional but not amazing, which is all it needs to be imo.
Howdy Kestrel, thanks for stopping by! I appreciate you taking the time to type out your thoughts ❤️
> I really like that the locations aren’t too interconnected - it feels like most areas have some mechanic to funnel the party either back into the dungeon itself
I think "most" is playing a little loose with language here.
Sorting areas into places that have a mechanic that funnels the party back to the dungeon:
Has a mechanic: newmarket (via a hook you need to remember from a previous chapter), gosterwick, castleton (barely), castle burdock (also barely), the azure keep, bandit camp (even more barely), lost shrine, Ibis roost, the thicket (through a hook in another chapter). Total: 9
Does not have a mechanic: Bilsham, Ulfham, Thorham, Beretun, Deepton, The Swift River, Bilstream, The Muddy River, Gold River, The Long Run, Old Forest, New Forest, The Paw, The Fingers, Rocky Ledges, The Spire, Bald Hill, Table Rock, The Fenn, Valtos Marshes, Hidden Lake. Total: 21
-----
> The villages are given enough detail that the information can be fed back to players and encourage them to move on to more interesting locations without explicitly stating “it’s a boring village”. Finding out that a settlement specialises in the production of legumes adds a little flavour to the setting and is better than nothing
I disagree here, for reasons of signal and noise. Every irrelevant detail we add decreases the average value of the text, and adds noise that distracts us from the important bits.
I legitimately think this section would have been easier to run if none of this was included; just Gosterwick and Arden Vul, and there's a note that if players want to import gear it's 3 days to newmarket and 2 weeks to narsilieon, which have a population of 4000 and 40000 respectively. I think Barton is *maybe* imagining that players will want to explore beyond gosterwick <-> arden vul, but I think it's totally okay on a product level and social contract level to tell the players that this is a megadungeon campaign and that everyone outside of that is undeveloped and is going to be abstracted.
-----
> The adventuring locations could use a little more content, perhaps, but I figured they would just use the lair rules as a one off location that directs players back to Newmarket (bandits), Gosterwick or the dungeon itself.
If you want the GM to randomly generate a gargoyle or bandit lair, why not do that for them and write down your results? That way it's one person generating the lair rather than the hundreds or thousands of GMs that now need to duplicate that work. Further, if the expectation is that the GM is to randomly generate a lair, *say that*. Better, imo, is to link to a module you recommend if you don't want to do the work yourself, and tell the GM how to re-skin or re-flavor it.
-----
> I think Gosterwick works best when not played outside of a couple of social encounters. It’s place players go in between sessions or as bookends in a session and say “I want to do this” in an uncomplicated manner.
If the model of play is that the players have to generate questions like "hey can i get some smithing done?" and the GM goes "sure, you're directed to Torunn the Smith...", then I think that works. This means its now totally on the players to guess/ask about what all is in the city. To echo the points above, if this is the intended method of play, that was never made explicit.
Thanks for taking the time to reply! I generally enjoy your reviews and find them thought provoking and helpful.
I definitely think that clarity and concise communication are the biggest issues with Arden Vul on the whole, and agree the signal to noise ratio is a little whacky. I just personally find when running that I prefer to be able to say “the most interesting thing about this village is peas” to “move on”.
I hadn’t realised how bad the ratio of locations that point to the dungeon is - I hadn’t tallied it and I guess the places that do point on stuck in my mind more.
As for the town, it might just be that my players are like that. The first question I was asked when they found treasure was “is there a bank in town”, and they generally aren’t interested in exploring an urban location.
I’m looking forward to the rest of your review of the dungeon - I definitely find your perspective on design helps me to think about what I do and don’t like about modules.
> I definitely think that clarity and concise communication are the biggest issues with Arden Vul on the whole, and agree the signal to noise ratio is a little whacky. I just personally find when running that I prefer to be able to say “the most interesting thing about this village is peas” to “move on”.
Totally agree, and I think a GM saying that is solid D&D comedy. My suggestion is to just fully rip it out. Rather than have a detailed map of burdocks valley where you mark a lot of villages and sites (and then have to give them names and descriptions), you can literally just not include that map, and limit your scope to Gosterwick and AV. Now you don't have to tell the players that the most interesting thing about Ulfham is grapes; they just straight up never wonder about Ulfham because it effectively doesn't exist. If the players starting being like "yeah, but where do all of the grapes for the wine in gosterwick come from? surely there are nearby vineyards or something", you can either:
a) say "yup - gosterwick is serviced by dozens of outlying villages and farms"
This is my take too. Arden Vul is a megadungeon product first and foremost (although I know Barton has plans for further locations), and the more interesting you make Gosterwick, the greater the chance your players want to stick around there. I'm butchering Jon from 3d6's AV playthrough words but he said something like, "the adventure is in Arden Vul."
That being said, I think the post does point to valid shortcomings, and if this was presented as something more like a playable campaign setting I'd... Have questions. However I think Beau's conclusion that this is an unsolved problem is accurate, because I think a lot of adventure writers struggle to make cities gameable (in a way they don't with dungeons).
To re-iterate, I'm totally okay with this being explicitly a megadungeon product, and I think that would have been a stronger direction for the product. For instance...
- Gosterwick could be more abstract. You don't need to label 33 distinct areas with semi-fleshed out writeups if you don't intend players to adventure there. It could list out the services (how much loot it can absorb, what mundane and magical services can be purchased, how many people are available to be mercenaries/henchmen, etc).
- Gosterwick could be *even more* dungeon focused. It could explicitly reference hooks, have services expand when particular milestones are reached (bringing back such-and-such allows so-and-so to create magic weapons, bringing back yada-yada allows this person to brew potions, and so on).
- All of the description about the larger area (especially the villages and adventure sites) could be cut entirely
- All of the political intrigue between alexia and her brother either needs to be player facing and impactful or cut
This section is 14 full pages. That's longer than some whole adventures. It occupies an awkward spot between being specific enough that I feel like I need to read it a few times to make sure I'm not missing anything specific (like the multiple references to the undescribed moat house) and vague enough that it isn't actually useful for the assumed mode of play (adventures in arden vul and resting up / shopping in gosterwick).
If I am remembering correctly, Gosterwick section is the only place in the book where it told that plate mail isn't available for purchase anywhere on Magae.
In our first session with Arden Vul players specifically worked on getting more money to buy plate armor, and I stumbled on that crucial information about it right after session was ended. Very annoying.
Oh, and before I forget - it's similar to how the only place that you find out that 50 coins = 1lb instead of the BX/1e/OD&D norm of 10 coins = 1lb is in "Coinage, Ancient Archontean", volume 4 p126.
> Unlike modern coins which are all 50 coins per lb, ancient coins come in various sizes.
As a quirk, I think this is mostly a adnd thing that you can ignore playing any other game. In 1e, unarmored is 10 ac. Plate armor is 3 ac, so 7 better than unarmored. It also comes with *a lot* of downsides, so most players use banded mail instead. Banded has 4 AC, so 6 better than unarmored and has none of the downsides of plate.
In BX and OD&D, unarmored is 9 AC and plate is 3, so mechanically equivalent to 1e's banded.
Basically, if you're playing any other system (odnd, shadowdark, BX, acks, etc) then I would ignore the no-plate thing. If you're playing 1e, I wouldn't buy plate anyway
For running the book I actually rather like this chapter from a structural/game design perspective. The concentric rings of focus where locations nearer the dungeon directs the attention of the GM back to AV itself, but the details given are enough to improvise a short 15-30 minute diversion in session if needed.
I really like that the locations aren’t too interconnected - it feels like most areas have some mechanic to funnel the party either back into the dungeon itself or to someone who will direct them to the dungeon - Lord Burdock for instance, who needs treasure.
The villages are given enough detail that the information can be fed back to players and encourage them to move on to more interesting locations without explicitly stating “it’s a boring village”. Finding out that a settlement specialises in the production of legumes adds a little flavour to the setting and is better than nothing, but also clearly tells players to move on to something more interesting.
The adventuring locations could use a little more content, perhaps, but I figured they would just use the lair rules as a one off location that directs players back to Newmarket (bandits), Gosterwick or the dungeon itself.
As a setting it leaves a lot to be desired, but I think it works quite well as a quick and dirty region around the dungeon to make the world feel a little more lively while signposting “fun stuff this way”.
Similarly, I think Gosterwick works best when not played outside of a couple of social encounters. It’s place players go in between sessions or as bookends in a session and say “I want to do this” in an uncomplicated manner. It’s functional but not amazing, which is all it needs to be imo.
Howdy Kestrel, thanks for stopping by! I appreciate you taking the time to type out your thoughts ❤️
> I really like that the locations aren’t too interconnected - it feels like most areas have some mechanic to funnel the party either back into the dungeon itself
I think "most" is playing a little loose with language here.
Sorting areas into places that have a mechanic that funnels the party back to the dungeon:
Has a mechanic: newmarket (via a hook you need to remember from a previous chapter), gosterwick, castleton (barely), castle burdock (also barely), the azure keep, bandit camp (even more barely), lost shrine, Ibis roost, the thicket (through a hook in another chapter). Total: 9
Does not have a mechanic: Bilsham, Ulfham, Thorham, Beretun, Deepton, The Swift River, Bilstream, The Muddy River, Gold River, The Long Run, Old Forest, New Forest, The Paw, The Fingers, Rocky Ledges, The Spire, Bald Hill, Table Rock, The Fenn, Valtos Marshes, Hidden Lake. Total: 21
-----
> The villages are given enough detail that the information can be fed back to players and encourage them to move on to more interesting locations without explicitly stating “it’s a boring village”. Finding out that a settlement specialises in the production of legumes adds a little flavour to the setting and is better than nothing
I disagree here, for reasons of signal and noise. Every irrelevant detail we add decreases the average value of the text, and adds noise that distracts us from the important bits.
I legitimately think this section would have been easier to run if none of this was included; just Gosterwick and Arden Vul, and there's a note that if players want to import gear it's 3 days to newmarket and 2 weeks to narsilieon, which have a population of 4000 and 40000 respectively. I think Barton is *maybe* imagining that players will want to explore beyond gosterwick <-> arden vul, but I think it's totally okay on a product level and social contract level to tell the players that this is a megadungeon campaign and that everyone outside of that is undeveloped and is going to be abstracted.
-----
> The adventuring locations could use a little more content, perhaps, but I figured they would just use the lair rules as a one off location that directs players back to Newmarket (bandits), Gosterwick or the dungeon itself.
If you want the GM to randomly generate a gargoyle or bandit lair, why not do that for them and write down your results? That way it's one person generating the lair rather than the hundreds or thousands of GMs that now need to duplicate that work. Further, if the expectation is that the GM is to randomly generate a lair, *say that*. Better, imo, is to link to a module you recommend if you don't want to do the work yourself, and tell the GM how to re-skin or re-flavor it.
-----
> I think Gosterwick works best when not played outside of a couple of social encounters. It’s place players go in between sessions or as bookends in a session and say “I want to do this” in an uncomplicated manner.
If the model of play is that the players have to generate questions like "hey can i get some smithing done?" and the GM goes "sure, you're directed to Torunn the Smith...", then I think that works. This means its now totally on the players to guess/ask about what all is in the city. To echo the points above, if this is the intended method of play, that was never made explicit.
Thanks for taking the time to reply! I generally enjoy your reviews and find them thought provoking and helpful.
I definitely think that clarity and concise communication are the biggest issues with Arden Vul on the whole, and agree the signal to noise ratio is a little whacky. I just personally find when running that I prefer to be able to say “the most interesting thing about this village is peas” to “move on”.
I hadn’t realised how bad the ratio of locations that point to the dungeon is - I hadn’t tallied it and I guess the places that do point on stuck in my mind more.
As for the town, it might just be that my players are like that. The first question I was asked when they found treasure was “is there a bank in town”, and they generally aren’t interested in exploring an urban location.
I’m looking forward to the rest of your review of the dungeon - I definitely find your perspective on design helps me to think about what I do and don’t like about modules.
> I definitely think that clarity and concise communication are the biggest issues with Arden Vul on the whole, and agree the signal to noise ratio is a little whacky. I just personally find when running that I prefer to be able to say “the most interesting thing about this village is peas” to “move on”.
Totally agree, and I think a GM saying that is solid D&D comedy. My suggestion is to just fully rip it out. Rather than have a detailed map of burdocks valley where you mark a lot of villages and sites (and then have to give them names and descriptions), you can literally just not include that map, and limit your scope to Gosterwick and AV. Now you don't have to tell the players that the most interesting thing about Ulfham is grapes; they just straight up never wonder about Ulfham because it effectively doesn't exist. If the players starting being like "yeah, but where do all of the grapes for the wine in gosterwick come from? surely there are nearby vineyards or something", you can either:
a) say "yup - gosterwick is serviced by dozens of outlying villages and farms"
b) look at them until they change the topic
and both work totally fine. To me, it's a direct application of conceptual density: https://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2016/11/conceptual-density-or-what-are-rpg.html
I need the book to give me details that are better than stuff I can just make up on the spot, and by and large this chapter doesn't do that for me
This is my take too. Arden Vul is a megadungeon product first and foremost (although I know Barton has plans for further locations), and the more interesting you make Gosterwick, the greater the chance your players want to stick around there. I'm butchering Jon from 3d6's AV playthrough words but he said something like, "the adventure is in Arden Vul."
That being said, I think the post does point to valid shortcomings, and if this was presented as something more like a playable campaign setting I'd... Have questions. However I think Beau's conclusion that this is an unsolved problem is accurate, because I think a lot of adventure writers struggle to make cities gameable (in a way they don't with dungeons).
Howdy Anbaraen, thanks for visiting!
To re-iterate, I'm totally okay with this being explicitly a megadungeon product, and I think that would have been a stronger direction for the product. For instance...
- Gosterwick could be more abstract. You don't need to label 33 distinct areas with semi-fleshed out writeups if you don't intend players to adventure there. It could list out the services (how much loot it can absorb, what mundane and magical services can be purchased, how many people are available to be mercenaries/henchmen, etc).
- Gosterwick could be *even more* dungeon focused. It could explicitly reference hooks, have services expand when particular milestones are reached (bringing back such-and-such allows so-and-so to create magic weapons, bringing back yada-yada allows this person to brew potions, and so on).
- All of the description about the larger area (especially the villages and adventure sites) could be cut entirely
- All of the political intrigue between alexia and her brother either needs to be player facing and impactful or cut
This section is 14 full pages. That's longer than some whole adventures. It occupies an awkward spot between being specific enough that I feel like I need to read it a few times to make sure I'm not missing anything specific (like the multiple references to the undescribed moat house) and vague enough that it isn't actually useful for the assumed mode of play (adventures in arden vul and resting up / shopping in gosterwick).
Definitely, I agree with you on all points!
I think it's symptomatic of Barton spinning this out of his home campaign, some less-than-aggressive editing and a lack of game-first authoring.
You see this with the room keys which you've already thoroughly (and rightly) critiqued.
If I am remembering correctly, Gosterwick section is the only place in the book where it told that plate mail isn't available for purchase anywhere on Magae.
In our first session with Arden Vul players specifically worked on getting more money to buy plate armor, and I stumbled on that crucial information about it right after session was ended. Very annoying.
Oh, and before I forget - it's similar to how the only place that you find out that 50 coins = 1lb instead of the BX/1e/OD&D norm of 10 coins = 1lb is in "Coinage, Ancient Archontean", volume 4 p126.
> Unlike modern coins which are all 50 coins per lb, ancient coins come in various sizes.
Pretty wild
Yeah, I think that's right.
As a quirk, I think this is mostly a adnd thing that you can ignore playing any other game. In 1e, unarmored is 10 ac. Plate armor is 3 ac, so 7 better than unarmored. It also comes with *a lot* of downsides, so most players use banded mail instead. Banded has 4 AC, so 6 better than unarmored and has none of the downsides of plate.
In BX and OD&D, unarmored is 9 AC and plate is 3, so mechanically equivalent to 1e's banded.
Basically, if you're playing any other system (odnd, shadowdark, BX, acks, etc) then I would ignore the no-plate thing. If you're playing 1e, I wouldn't buy plate anyway