Bottle City

[Scott]

Ok, on to the discussion of the adventure.
First the dislikes: The cover stock is pretty thin.
I just want a completely self-contained adventure and not "this will be expanded on in future releases" type material, especially when no indication that the product wasn't the complete package was given. There are also quite a few areas where the stats are very thin 'three 10th level wizards' (an example, not an actual listing). That's a lot of work to do for a purchased adventure, especially higher level adventures where the stat info can be quite large. After all, people generally buy the adventures because they don't have time to put a lot of effort into writing their own.
The rest of my comments would be positive. The content and feel live up to everything that was promised and expected. It's an excellent old-school, dungeon-crawl type adventure that just gushes 70s Greyhwk Castle Dungeon adventure. The stat info isn't such a big deal when you read it for the historical aspect. The map is a photo copy of Rob's hand drawn map and Rob has included little blurbs of comentary throughout that offer insights into the original design of the famous dungeon.
I'll post more later.

[dcas]

I thought Rob had said that it would not be a fully developed adventure? I can't remember, it was so long ago.

[Scott]

I was wondering if that was by intent.

[Scott]

By the way, David, it's good to 'see' you around.

[dcas]

It's good to be around.

Is the Bottle City text the same as the transcription? (There's a PDF on the Pied Piper web site.) That does seem a little . . . sparse.

[Scott]

I only paged through the PDF. I assumed the text had been expanded some in the module.

[geneweigel]

Sounds most likely better than most shit in the rpg world however I'm so soured on the guy that now I look at everything of his too critically.

But I'm done in the purchasing regard, I won't be buying, I've scratched him and the nostalgia of "while Gary's in CA; Fake Geneva Campaign" off my list of interests. The points that he originally gave me referring to the published GH as not being "real", I now point at his part in it and see Gary's vision of GH as the only one that I ever was interested in "real" or not. Everything else is just fluff to me (Lakofka included). In general, his willingness to let aesthetics and consistency slide are bad habits for a fantasy game designer who relies on imagined things. The failure of the Maure Castle magazine add-ons makes me wonder if the original adventure was just from a game session codified by someone else. The fact that he gets along with the "Jallarzi Sallavarian" weirdos just goes to show that he's never going to rise above that bland shit.

Having taken a good look at his products for the past 25 years or more in focus with his recent ventures, I place him far below Jim Ward now which is most likely where he belonged all along as a designer.

I know its harsh shit to say but how many times have I kicked poor Dave Arneson in the teeth?

[GT]

Oh, yeah--and good to see you, David... my old theocratic arch-nemesis! But seriously, anybody who likes Bass Ale can't be all bad! ;D

[Scott]

I like Rob's stuff. His lack of context/thin background materail is sort of a drag, but the body of the adventures is always solid.

[geneweigel]

I'm really being hypercritical now.

I might review his stuff in ten or twenty years from now but I've really lost interest currently. Just like I didn't buy any of that recent Judges Guild material or Blackmoor material. It now appears as equal merit which isn't enough for me to stay focused on.

On top of everything he's been tabbed as a bad referee by me as well. He's the kind of DM that skill-based games are meant for: unfair and glib. I don't like that sort of narrow minded play where if you don't get on the railroad then you "choke to death on your own water skin" which is what all the nonsense about the "wagons" was about in the last game. My cavalier gets trampled when carefully reaching for the bridle of what is obviously a distressed horse. I mean what do I have to do? Call the cavalier a "horsey man" for him? And give him lots of husbandry and riding scores for feats and skills? Come on! Its just ludicrous. I was amazed that he let Shook's mu character assassinate my cavalier with a polymorph spell. So much for the killer dungeon. That was just pathetic if they at least got it right I wouldn't have even cared but it was obvious they both

A)never played with a lawful evil character before so they had to remove me at any cost. (huh? Come on!),
B) planned the assassination earlier in the day and had hours and hours to take into account the spell's retention of HD (wasn't that one of his bragged about character tricks?)
C)had no regard that they were playing with people that have played for around thirty years. (is that who he's designing for? Imbeciles?)
D)had sour grapes that my play was dominating everything. (I can't even imagine what it would have been like if I wasn't there.)

Sure I went along with his ruling on the "Grok's bow" thing years ago but now that it is in this perspective? He's just a "soon to be replaced" referee who is devoid of any player empathy. Which is what 2e and 3e are truly made for:

to balance immature referees

My ruling had the Grok bow trick had been pulled by a player with me as referee? Absolutely it would have worked. He had changed my thoughtful but rapidly empirical plan. Grok had someone chop the regenerating roof and held the bow in the hole in enough time to jump through. He changed my simple cunning plan by saying Grok released the bow which I said twice that he wasn't let going to let go of the ends. At best I should have fell through the hole but he changed the player statements to fit his cheap dismissal. Thats a major flaw for a referee. He described the reaction to the effect then I reacted appropriately then he changed the logic.

A lady has the right to change her mind and that was no lady!

[Scott]

Well, I'm no fan of con games to begin with. I had no gripes with Rob's DMing style, but I don't think the setting allows a fair assessment, you almost have to railroad.

[GT]

Invariably, I've more enjoyed playing in a small group of 6 or so, away from the fracas, than I have playing in a large group at the Cons.

[geneweigel]

Alright, I'm not looking for approval or anything I'm just publicly saying that I'm never getting on that "wagon" again as well as saying I'm not in business, never was and won't be. Its an illusory pile of manure. I had more of a business relationship with Gary goofing off on the Greyhawk website and that wasn't for a "product". For the record and to make it all done with, I retain all rights to anything that I did in that company's regard incuding the newsletter "cyst" thing, the "winning" contest ideas, and the planar stuff or whatever.

Etc., etc., etc...... what was this a review?

Oops...

[GT]

Well, I've digested and can review now! Like Scott, I wish that the Upper City level had been included, but if Rob's like me he probably left it incomplete and therefore has to finish it! As to "other layers between the entry and the city", I don't mind their absence as much--as there is a direct route between the dungeon and the City Level, I'm cool. The encounters are good, but lacking in stats as Scott has pointed out. I like the Tekumel inclusions--wish I had a copy of the original game! I actually like the original handwritten notes and map, along with the explanatory notes for historical purposes; but I also understand why Gary wanted to "polish" up Castle Greyhawk/Zagyg for ease of play! Heh!! Overall, I give it a "thumbs up" and hope to incorporate it in the Castle (when that sloth-like Jeff finishes it! Sheesh!!! Have to wait til LGGC now! JUST KIDDING!!!!! [copyright: Gene Weigel] )

[grodog]

I haven't made time to dig into the final version of BC yet (still waiting for my standard edition copies to arrive), but am looking forward to it, hopefully soon (as in this week!).

[Scott]

The more I read this adventure, the more I like it. There is some extra prep work involved to run it, but overall it looks good on the pages. Has anybody run it yet? I'd like to know if it plays as well as it reads.

[amalric]

Just purchased this, and a whole bunch of RJK/Pied Piper stuff - Cairn of the Skeleton King, Tower of Blood, etc - from Nobleknight games, and they all look pretty darned good. Not done much more than a glance-through, so far.

[grodog]

Feb 21, 2010 10:40:24 GMT -5 Scott said:

The more I read this adventure, the more I like it. There is some extra prep work involved to run it, but overall it looks good on the pages. Has anybody run it yet? I'd like to know if it plays as well as it reads.

Yes, it plays well, although PCs can spends a LOT of time running around in the mazes/teleporters looking for something to fight. So, that may require some judicious DM adjustment as to where they really are on the map....

[grodog]

I just ran into this again.

FWIW, the Black Blade 2nd edition fully expands out all of the stat blocks from the original PPP version, and converts monsters and NPCs to AD&D vs. the OD&D baseline from the PPP edition: Gene, not sure you'd approve any more for the newer edition, but thought you might want to check it out sometime, perhaps

Allan.

[geneweigel]

It was hard for me to separate Rob from "business" interaction enough to be fair. That was the year that I wrote him the last e-mail and he never wrote back too (10 years!). Heh, on second thought maybe I was a little too light on Rob...




Seriously, I think I've seen all of this stuff back when I was "working" at Pied Piper Publishing isn't this 14 keyed areas of a one level dungeon? It was written on the back of a colored map, I believe.