Culture Clash: Modern Gamers and Keep on the Borderlands

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The original article sounds like Tucker cheated, giving the kobolds abilities which the rules didn't allow.

It always seemed to me that it seemed that way from the author's perspective because he wanted to stress how unfair it was. Nothing the kobolds do actually couldn't be stuff they had prepared, AFAICT.

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It always seemed to me that it seemed that way from the author's perspective because he wanted to stress how unfair it was. Nothing the kobolds do actually couldn't be stuff they had prepared, AFAICT.

My bold.
One thing I can't recall* if it ever was explained (or indeed known to the
author) if all (or most) of it they had or if Tucker decided they had the
moment the players revealed a new tactic to use.

Something like the difference between the GM's note "Being aware of spells
that create poisonous gas and their efficiency when pumped into a warren,
the kobolds have taken precautions against such with primitive gas masks
and clever ventilation systems." and "You throw a hand grenade over the
barricade? Well... One of the kobolds has a tennis racket and lobs it straight
back at you."

*I could read it again, of course, but since other people obviously have
done so recently and have it fresh in mind I'm going to rely on them remembering.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The original article sounds like Tucker cheated, giving the kobolds abilities which the rules didn't allow.

Or just gave them retroactive preparations. It just wouldn't be that hard to wipe out a tribe of problem kobolds, you'd just have to abuse spells. If all else fails, you've got a 12th level wizard. Demolish the entire level with rock to mud spells, or seal everything with wall of stone. Or just blow a hole in the floor and go past them.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Or just gave them retroactive preparations.

Actually looking into further, the problem seems to be with the shoot-n-scoot ability, which apparently wasn't available to PCs in that version of D&D. Which is actually a little hinky, IMO.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Of course a bunch of xenophobic pygmies are going to fight a dirty guerrilla war against huge monsters and avoid stand up fights. They couldn't possibly have survived without having done so.

Well, they could, if they chose "not fighting." Check out the kobolds in Michael Curtis's Stonehell dungeon. For generations they've been used as low-level workers by, well, everyone. So PCs don't have to fight them, they can hire them/talk to them, etc.

I personally think commando enemies are cool, although I think commando kobolds are lame*. I also think that having suck-up races who make themselves useful to the powerful instead of being trap-setting backstabbers is also a lot of fun. Maybe the weak survive by being useful. It's not as much of a GM pat-yourself-on-the-back as "high level adventurers are afraid of my kobolds" but it's a genuinely appropriate tool.


* especially, now that I think about it, commando kobolds with a huge special weapons budget. Unless they were killing gold-plated adventurers, man, they expended a lot of weaponry to hassle some adventurers for what sounded like not a lot of gain.

[ULFGARD]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Is that actually the attitude of people who don't like "Tucker's Kobolds" or think it's somehow shocking?

Couldn't tell you. All I know is that some "weak" opponents will be weak. Some will be bitter fighters. You used the NVA as an example. Some people might have simply given up and moved. They didn't. They fought a bitter guerilla war. Basically, if you back people up against the wall and push hard enough, they WILL fight back, and do so with every ounce of ingenuity and vicious instinct at their disposal. On the other hand, give them the option of moving to a nice place next door (when their home isn't somehow sacred to them), and they'll move.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Actually looking into further, the problem seems to be with the shoot-n-scoot ability, which apparently wasn't available to PCs in that version of D&D. Which is actually a little hinky, IMO.

Its unfair if the adventurers can't do it, and if the enemy can pop up, shoot, and return to total cover with no chance for the adventurers to shoot back. 1e is harsh on things like moving and shooting, or retreating from combat.

In practice, I think the situation described in the essay would have ended up like the time the Knights of the Dinner Table were in the jungle bowl of a dead volcano, and monkeys started to sling stones at them from the trees. A session and several days of game time later the heroes were poorer and bloody, and the crater was a smoking wasteland.