Borshak's Lair - is this thing supposed to be good?

DangerousPuhson

DangerousPuhson

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Curiosity piqued, I checked out Borshak's Lair - a Jacquay's classic - after much credence was ascribed to it by internet authors. The copy I found is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4wbm8hb8day3xl/BORSHAKS_LAIR.pdf?dl=0

I must say, I don't get the reverence. Not because it's "orcs in a hole", but the design and writing is... janky? Amateur? Sure the map is Jacquayed to hell (it fucking better be, considering the author as the namesake), but the writing is littered with typos, logic problems, and weak design choices.

In my office boredom, I even catalogued it all:

Introduction: 2 spelling mistakes, no hooks/rumors, too much background information that won’t come up during play

AREAS:
  1. 3 spelling mistakes, “roll to determine type” not referenced (roll where?)
  2. 4 spelling mistakes, “Fred” is uninspired name for an amulet, too much spell chaining (magic mouth > detect magic > magic mouth)
  3. 2 spelling mistakes, statues referenced are not well shown on map
  4. 1 spelling mistake, “magical invisible poison pin” seems out of place for orcs, pointless secret door leads to dead end (barred-off area)
  5. Guards need to be mentioned prominently before statue part, needlessly chained magic mouth spells casting other spells
  6. Large room with no dressing, rock on map is described in adjacent area key for no reason
  7. 1 spelling mistake, gem values list no denomination, secret doors not described
  8. 1 spelling mistake, gelatinous cube starving yet makes no attempt to leave (it can squeeze under doors), scroll contents listed in another book
  9. Virtually no dressing
  10. 1 spelling mistake, liberal use of magic mouth for mundane coin purses (source?)
  11. 4 spelling mistakes, “red square” and throne poorly elaborated upon
  12. 2 spelling mistakes, no player-facing context given
  13. Description says “nothing unusual” then lists unusual statues, reference to monster found in another book
  14. 1 spelling mistake, alcohol referenced in another book, treasure is boring/nondescript and listed without denomination
  15. 2 spelling mistakes, no room dressing
  16. 2 spelling mistakes, room “sealed” but not mentioned how, kobold laughter given unclear instructions (“3 melee rounds or more”), scroll treasures are finnicky and referenced in another book
  17. 2 spelling mistakes, “special occasions” not cited
  18. 2 spelling mistakes, “curtain” needs to be cut through even though it sits 3 feet out from wall (why not just paste it to the wall?), medium not listed for dagger message (a note? Etching?), skeleton hit point descriptions and actions convoluted, 3 gems listed but only two colors provided (how many of each color?), “Welcome” message inscribed “in magic” (language?)
  19. 9 spelling mistakes, room description spans 2 pages, slipping conditions set “at judges direction”, invisible titanium cord makes no sense, visages not described visually, excessive magic mouth spells, “Hold Portal” spell confused with “Hold Person” spell, suggested spell level for silence effect (just declare a level), convoluted spell trap and encounter, sanity check required (not Call of Cthulhu), explosion damage listed even though no harm is meant to befall characters
  20. Keys lumped together for no reason, no details provided for Area 20
  21. Keys lumped together for no reason, no details provided for Area 21
  22. 2 spelling mistakes, treasure not given values, scrolls referenced in another book, ventriloquism spell as escape trigger makes little sense (does it work if someone just talks outside the cube?), basic book magic items, mummy in secret hiding spot not mentioned prominently on discovery
  23. Books not given value or meaningful description
  24. 3 spelling mistakes, very mundane contents
  25. Area 25 entry missing entirely (lumped into Area 20/21)
  26. Dimensions needlessly expounded, troll/room not described visually, “hidden box” lacks hiding, trap not telegraphed in any way
  27. Scroll contents referenced in another book, trap has no description beyond “exploding runes”
  28. 1 spelling mistake, occupants listed elsewhere, table compartment described before table is, mundane treasure seemingly worth a fortune (a 9,000gp non-magical helmet?), treasure map given but not described, “invisible peep hole” makes no sense
  29. 3 spelling mistakes, NPC mis-named (who is “Theory”?), “sketches on walls” unclear (posters?), no value listed for catapult blueprints nor means of knowing their worth, throwing star treasure has finnicky/complicated mechanisms and not given a value, pit trap described strangely
  30. 3 spelling mistakes, confusion about Helmdar/Tim both being spectres in same crypt (one killed the other, do they not hate each other?), no guidance for NPC interaction, treasure just laying on ground uncontained, treasure not given descriptions, jewelry and gems not listed, ring of Spell Storing “listed elsewhere” (where?)
Map: strange icons (secret doors look like normal doors, trap doors look like pits, stairs have written directionality, statues poorly depicted), letters listed on map often not defined in room keys

Is there something I'm not getting about this one, or do we all collectively just chalk up all the errors and scary editing decisions as "quaint DIY style"? This thing is routinely pointed out as a stellar example of "how to do right" - surely this is a jest?
 
bryce0lynch said:
I don't do older stuff
Click to expand...

Why not?

Presumably you write reviews for a desired audience... and if that audience wants to read reviews about older material, then why not review older materials? Might grow your audience. Personally, I think it'd be pretty damn sweet to see you apply that critical lens to known works; it lets us know where you stand on them. The other benefit being most of those old modules can be found for free, so no more shelling out $15 just to learn that B11 - King's Festival sucks.

But hey, what would I know? I'm certainly no esteemed blogger.
 
Judges guild is so historic I don't think you can judge it by modern standards in some respects.

Spelling errors are common in modules now unless they have skilled editors

Layout was done with a typewriter too right?

The first module ever was how many years before this?

Vampire something. That had an even more bare bones key and this holds up far better in my opinion.

I have not run this, only seeded with treasure maps and read.

For more, Prince reviewed this and called it the Rolls of orc lairs. Curious how your opinions differs in light of his points or which you disagree with and why!
 
Osrnoob said:
Judges guild is so historic I don't think you can judge it by modern standards in some respects. Spelling errors are common in modules now unless they have skilled editors. Layout was done with a typewriter too right? The first module ever was how many years before this?
Click to expand...

Considering the module starts with the words "This small dungeon. (sic) known as "Borshak's Lair" should be a welcome sight to those of you who have complained that the previous adventures were all too high level to be properly enjoyed.", it's not their first time at bat, you know? And for an organization that publishes things, as a career, typos and editing mistakes are a bad sign. Maybe they released an updated version with edits and fixes; I don't know - but I do know the version that's out there for all the world to see, right now, is littered with mistakes.

I'm not asking for modern standards to apply - just common sense. It's not "modern standards" to have proper spelling and internal logical consistency. It's not "modern standards" to know that you shouldn't mark things wrong on maps, or be deliberately sparse on needed details.

Osrnoob said:
Prince reviewed this and called it the Rolls of orc lairs. Curious how your opinions differs in light of his points or which you disagree with and why!
Click to expand...

You may not have been paying attention 'round these parts, but IDGAF what Prince thinks about anything. If our opinions align or differ, I wouldn't know because I refuse to read his stilted, sesquipedalian words. The words I will read are right there in the adventure, and they aren't great. But then, I've already transcribed all that for you above, so you can see for yourself.
 
Last edited:
The most interesting spelling error in this is the misspelling of Jaquays' last name. What is the provenance of the module?
 
Okay, so I did a bit of digging. I had never heard of this module before, but it looks like it was published in 1976, in a fanzine created by Jaquays and some friends, while she was still in college. She had been playing for about a year.

To be clear, this was published the same year as Palace of the Vampire Queen, reputedly the first published standalone module. I don't have a copy of PotVQ, but I think I recall seeing pages from it, and it wasn't exactly slick. For that matter, Caverns of Thracia and Dark Tower, and pretty much all Judges Guild stuff from this period, aren't particularly slick when compared to the early TSR stuff.

So a kid in college who wasn't very experienced with the game and with extremely limited "professional" examples to reference, in a time before ready access to word processing, knocked this thing out. "Amateurish" is less of a criticism than a description here.

Also, this module had me at Fred, the temperamental amulet of protection. @Melan called it "the gold standard of low-level orcs-in-a-hole modules" and I'm not surprised. I'm skimming it now and it's just packed with imagination. The text could be clearer, but I'm confident taking the time to grok it would be worth it.

This is going to the top of my "review to figure out if I can use it in one of my campaigns" pile.
 
I had similar meh feelings about Night of the Walking Wet. But yeah, these guys were banging this stuff out with typewriters and mimeographs, man. They were inventing something entirely new on the fly, so we should forgive a lot. That said, I loved the shit out of Dark Tower and Thracia, but the brevity of the original Tegel Manor (I know, different author, but same publisher) stands up as a curiosity from a bygone age rather than an actual usuable product that enjoys WAY too much respect.
 
I couldn't get into Dark Tower or Thracia. I tried reading them and got bored (did more reading of Dark Tower than Thracia). It just felt dry to me. Maybe Ill try again. Most of the stuff people rave about, I don't really care for and find super dry. I'm not sure what its missing where I don't care for it--or should I say, it just doesn't inspire me to want to play them like it does for others.
 
The Dark Tower maps don't do if for you all by themselves? I get what you're saying though, some of these older products make for dry reading. I guess you'd have to take my word for it (and the hundreds of other commenters and reviewers out there), it plays like a dream. Maybe that's what I'm missing from Tegel as well; I'm just not seeing it when I read it, but maybe it plays really smoothly?
Like, some people have pooped on Barrowmaze, maybe the writing's not their cuppa, or they're just seeing a lot of bloody undead when they scan it. All I can say is, I keep coming back to it, and it keeps giving and giving and giving. It's quite intuitive the way it stears players towards fun, locks them in at the right time and lets them out before exhaustion hits. Also how new areas keep opening up and how each section is discrete but also neatly connected to other areas and the outside world. It's a real dream

Which, slight segue here, maybe folks like Bryce are really good at spotting playability. Like my chef buddy can look at a recipe and taste it, my mom can look at sheet music and hear the song in her head. I would consider myself a prime example of the DM consumer; drawn in by interesting maps, lots of artwork, an organized/attractive layout, and a compelling elevator pitch on the back cover. I end up getting disappointed a lot as a result. People who can see the playability in the text are a real boon.

Anyway, Dark Tower plays like a pro. There are all these one-sentence NPC's and features in the adventure that you don't think twice about when you're reading them, that the players end up having an absolute field day with. The best part is, that for the most part there's enough information in those descriptions for the DM to actually work with instead of being caught flat footed (I maybe could've used a little more love on what the hell was going on in the tower full of gnomes though...)
 
Malrex said:
Most of the stuff people rave about, I don't really care for and find super dry. I'm not sure what its missing where I don't care for it--or should I say, it just doesn't inspire me to want to play them like it does for others.
Click to expand...

Choosing an adventure can be finnicky. Stuff that's "just good" usually gets sidelined in the quest for the best, because our group's time and enjoyment is important to us (DMs), and adventures require significant time investment. Mash that concept with every DM's inherent nagging voice that says "you ought to be running your own stuff - what about that cool idea you had?", and folk tend to get pretty picky over which adventures they want to actually run, even if the adventures have great acclaim and scores of accolades. The pickiness generates an emphasis on reviewers to sift through the trash on their behalf.

However, though a valuable service to many, I almost never put any serious stock into the opinions of others when it comes to adventures, even ace reviewers like Bryce. Tastes and table preferences are far too diverse for anyone to be an objective authority on what's good or bad in the world of TTRPGs; the only real value a reviewer provides (to me) is a sense of the module, and a nudge towards maybe checking it out for myself to see if it'll suit.

Ultimately it falls on you to do your own research, because the only opinion that matters to you will be your own. The only person who really knows what works best for you is you.

Case in point: this thread, in which I decry Borshak's as "not great", is my opinion - which runs counter to the prevailing opinion that Borshak's is top-tier. Borshak's may be great to other people, but it isn't all that great to me. I had to check it out myself to discover this. Had I taken reviews at face value I'd be miffed right now, rather than just confused over what people see in this thing (which appears to boil down to "it was really ingenious *for its time*").
 
Last edited:
The1True said:
The Dark Tower maps don't do if for you all by themselves? I get what you're saying though, some of these older products make for dry reading. I guess you'd have to take my word for it (and the hundreds of other commenters and reviewers out there), it plays like a dream. Maybe that's what I'm missing from Tegel as well; I'm just not seeing it when I read it, but maybe it plays really smoothly?
Like, some people have pooped on Barrowmaze, maybe the writing's not their cuppa, or they're just seeing a lot of bloody undead when they scan it. All I can say is, I keep coming back to it, and it keeps giving and giving and giving. It's quite intuitive the way it stears players towards fun, locks them in at the right time and lets them out before exhaustion hits. Also how new areas keep opening up and how each section is discrete but also neatly connected to other areas and the outside world. It's a real dream

Which, slight segue here, maybe folks like Bryce are really good at spotting playability. Like my chef buddy can look at a recipe and taste it, my mom can look at sheet music and hear the song in her head. I would consider myself a prime example of the DM consumer; drawn in by interesting maps, lots of artwork, an organized/attractive layout, and a compelling elevator pitch on the back cover. I end up getting disappointed a lot as a result. People who can see the playability in the text are a real boon.

Anyway, Dark Tower plays like a pro. There are all these one-sentence NPC's and features in the adventure that you don't think twice about when you're reading them, that the players end up having an absolute field day with. The best part is, that for the most part there's enough information in those descriptions for the DM to actually work with instead of being caught flat footed (I maybe could've used a little more love on what the hell was going on in the tower full of gnomes though...)
Click to expand...

Those are the gems....when I read something and can actually picture what my character would do if I was playing---those are the adventures that I can play like a dream as a DM. If I can't visualize a character of mine going through it, then no matter how 'good' it is, Ill have trouble running it.

There must be some sort of gray line here, because I'm not looking to read a book. I understand an adventure needs to help the DM run it--so it may be dry like a textbook. But a lot of stuff that may be termed 'fluff' sometimes is useful for me to visualize it? Bryce is always harping on evocative writing, and I can understand the importance of that, but sometimes I feel designers just open a thesaurus and put in some different, interesting words to try to make their descriptions more evocative--and that doesn't help my brain, it actually makes me eyeroll a bit. I dont want to look up a word in a dictionary so that I can visualize the room better, ya know?

There was an example from a review recently. A corpse of a hobgoblin was found in the room. The designer went on about history how the hobgoblin had escaped his captors and eventually died in this room or whatever. I didn't read the adventure and maybe this is a bad example. The whole history argument again--where most of what Bryce says about it, I can understand and agree with--that background info is NOT needed. BUT, for me, when done right, this stuff helps me visualize things better. It brings pieces of the dungeon together and shows how it worked together in the past which can leave clues for when running it. It lessens the dryness of the writing. Sure, during play, it can clog things up and 'not matter' during play---no one cares. But as a DM, and even more specific--as a Prepper DM that prepares before play and doesn't open up an adventure 5 min before play, now I know what that hobgoblin skeleton looks like---it may of died in a running position, it may have iron bindings on its hands, etc. I'm able to better describe the scene and have BETTER interaction with the players when they are poking at it because I have that historical background--and when I can visualize it, then it 'plays like a dream'. The hard part is knowing when that fluff is useful and when it's not. The hobgoblin corpse is probably not critical but using it as an example. And I can agree with "this room used to be a library but now its empty"--that is not useful. But when done correctly, it's great for me.

I think this may be a left/right brain thing as writing triggers the creativity of the DM differently depending on their brain? Some may just need a 'punchy' word to help them visualize it (and this works for me as well sometimes)....and maybe some of us other people need a bit more to see how the whole place is connected.
 
I think it helps immensely to have an Overview of the adventure, which should cover all the "who/what/why/where/when?" questions beforehand. If I can envision the situation at a site and what everyone involved is trying to do, I can adapt it on the fly with minimal reference. The DM must be oriented to the adventure beforehand, not during play.

As for corpse backgrounds: Bryce may poo-poo the practice, but these things are immensely beneficial in the event that Speak with Dead gets deployed. Admittedly it's a situationally-specific preference. Valuable to know, but maybe best to save it only for adventures where it actually matters.
 
Malrex said:
sometimes I feel designers just open a thesaurus and put in some different, interesting words to try to make their descriptions more evocative--and that doesn't help my brain, it actually makes me eyeroll a bit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those guys are the worst. Their need to be perceived as a pseudo-intellectual does not supersede my need to make sense of their words. I don't care if the new term is ever so slightly more apt than the original; you've effectively impeded my gameplay with your "improved" vocabulary, and I hate you for making me look up what "rootstock" means just because you didn't want to use the word "origin".
 
Malrex said:
Those are the gems....when I read something and can actually picture what my character would do if I was playing---those are the adventures that I can play like a dream as a DM. If I can't visualize a character of mine going through it, then no matter how 'good' it is, Ill have trouble running it.

There must be some sort of gray line here, because I'm not looking to read a book. I understand an adventure needs to help the DM run it--so it may be dry like a textbook. But a lot of stuff that may be termed 'fluff' sometimes is useful for me to visualize it? Bryce is always harping on evocative writing, and I can understand the importance of that, but sometimes I feel designers just open a thesaurus and put in some different, interesting words to try to make their descriptions more evocative--and that doesn't help my brain, it actually makes me eyeroll a bit. I dont want to look up a word in a dictionary so that I can visualize the room better, ya know?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the older stuff tends to be a bit dry, I think it had the expectation that the DM would insert their own flavour text. And I agree with whoever said that you often don't grok how it all goes together until you run it.

With the older stuff, I try to remember what others have said about how they ran it in their games. But a lot of times I don't really get it until I have mapped it out on a VTT and placed all of the monster tokens so I can see the geographical relationships. Programming the monster tokens also gives me a pretty intimate idea of what the creatures are capable of. And when I make notes that abridge what the original designer wrote (which I sometimes do to add notes to the VTT, and other times do just because the author's description is too wordy), I also get a more focused view of what is going on.

DangerousPuhson said:
Yeah, those guys are the worst. Their need to be perceived as a pseudo-intellectual does not supersede my need to make sense of their words. I don't care if the new term is ever so slightly more apt than the original; you've effectively impeded my gameplay with your "improved" vocabulary, and I hate you for making me look up what "rootstock" means just because you didn't want to use the word "origin".
Click to expand...
Gygax was terrible for this. I mean, B2 came with a glossary.
 
Beoric said:
Gygax was terrible for this. I mean, B2 came with a glossary.
Click to expand...

Right? Why use a familiar term like "gurney" that's immediately understood and easily envisioned by everyone, when you can drop some sweet old-timey esoterica like "bier" on them? It's a dick move, tbh. At least we aren't back in the days when you had to haul out a whole Encyclopedia for it.
 
Nah, I'm a fan of using archaic terms. If not for D&D, I'd never know what a plinth or a dais was. That a sward is not a sword. That players giggle forever if you mispronounce 'brazier'. That lapis lazuli is way prettier than blue marble. Sometimes the nuance comes from the provinance of the word itself, rather than the meaning.
 
Malrex said:
this room used to be a library but now its empty
Click to expand...

Okay, but...

Okay, I'm actually wrestling with this right now, because I could wax poetic for six line about dusty, cobwebbeb bookshelves, cracked wooden lecterns etc. Or I can say "This used to be a library but now it's empty." Everyone knows basically what this room looks like now. Also, we know to not bother interacting with it except to maybe check it for Secret Doors.

No word bloat. No pixel bitching by the players. Tell me I'm wrong.
 
The1True said:
Nah, I'm a fan of using archaic terms. If not for D&D, I'd never know what a plinth or a dais was. That a sward is not a sword.
Click to expand...

I'm all for expanding your vocab, just not at the expense of DMs at the table is all. If they put "plinth (pedestal)" or "dias (platform)" or "sward (grassland)" in the adventure, then cool, it's educational and functional - sure it pads the word count a bit, but at least I don't need to look something else up in a game already replete with referencing.

The1True said:
Or I can say "This used to be a library but now it's empty."
Click to expand...

I can see your point, and I think it's got to be a case-by-case basis.

Your "anyone can picture an empty library" point is sound, but at the same time, you've given meta-information that might impact things. For instance, I bet an empty library can look the same as an empty storage closet, empty pharmacy, empty school room, empty storefront, etc. (empty shelves, basically), but you've gone ahead and told them specifically what this was without them actually seeing it in action, which rules out all the other choices automatically and non-organically.

Do I think it would cripple a game? No. Do I think it's even a big deal? No.

But both sides do have a compelling argument. I don't think there's a right answer.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
I can see your point, and I think it's got to be a case-by-case basis.

Your "anyone can picture an empty library" point is sound, but at the same time, you've given meta-information that might impact things. For instance, I bet an empty library can look the same as an empty storage closet, empty pharmacy, empty school room, empty storefront, etc. (empty shelves, basically), but you've gone ahead and told them specifically what this was without them actually seeing it in action, which rules out all the other choices automatically and non-organically.

Do I think it would cripple a game? No. Do I think it's even a big deal? No.

But both sides do have a compelling argument. I don't think there's a right answer.
Click to expand...
Also, different people process information differently. When I'm a player, I prefer straight to the point explanations: what objects/creatures exist, and where they are in relation to me, am I close enough to charge, is that orc within bowshot, etc. I find that cosmetic details, where they have no relevance to the situation, are distracting. One of my players is also like this.

By contrast, I have a player who absolutely cannot process information unless there is some fluff added. I don't understand why she can't understand the physical distances without also knowing that the room has walnut paneling, but it is definitely a thing. She also has trouble with the abstractions in a battle map, so I have to narrate a blow by blow colour commentary for her to grok what's going on. Whereas the other player I mentioned above is only interested in the mechanics, and if I give a colour commentary, he reads stuff into the situation that isn't there.

So I now try to walk a line, making sure some cosmetic detail is present, but also that it doesn't overwhelm the description. Getting that balance right is still a work in progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top