| Slavers of Pardes Valley | |
| by Ben Frank | |
| Lew Titterton’s Review | |
When the scenario I’m playing to take my mind off schoolwork ends up boring me more than the work itself, that tells me there’s a problem. Never in a “Solid” adventure has this happened more than with Slavers of Pardes Valley. I’ve mentioned in prior reviews that some scenarios got overly high reviews and were placed on Spidweb’s “Solid” table because they were released early on — thus, the standards were not so high, and there was more forgiveness of mistakes, lack of inspiration, and a less-than-mastery of the editor. But even taking these things into account, I still can’t imagine how Slavers possibly got a 4.1 out of 5, as it stands now.
I will first admit that while I played this scenario for several hours, I didn’t finish it, so maybe it gets better. Before outraged readers flame me with emails demanding to know where I get off reviewing a scenario I didn’t finish, consider this: if a designer has the skill to make a great ending, why wasn’t this skill shown long before the game’s conclusion? And why should I be forced to slog through empty outdoor area after area just to find what might be a decent climax?
This is not to say that Ben Frank, Slavers’ designer, lacks skill — he showed that he did indeed have it with The Fog. Unfortunately, his abilities took their damn time to show themselves. Frank seems to recognize his scenario’s main deficiency in the text file, writing
“[Version] 1.3b reduces the amount of open space to travel through somewhat. Designers beware — once you create an outdoors you have to fill it or people get annoyed.”
Very true, Ben, but admitting it and claiming it’s been sort of fixed doesn’t make it at all acceptable. I shudder to think how brain-deadening earlier versions of this scenario must have been, if 1.3b really does “reduce” the problem. Even if he simply went back and threw in some unrelated side quests with new towns and dungeons, it would’ve added something. Not the best solution for an overly wide-open scenario, but better than no appreciable fix at all. Another alternative could’ve been “move party” specials with text messages explaining you’ve just traveled uneventfully over open terrain. The best solution is planning ahead and avoiding the problem to begin with. Alas, no such luck here.
All this needless wandering would be a little more tolerable if the programming were better. Though not bad, it certainly isn’t bugless — lots of messages ought to have stuff-done flags, yet don’t. This only adds needless, aggravating, dull repitition to an already aggravatingly dull scenario. Other bugs include outdoor wandering monsters placed in water and an outdoor encounter that leaves endless treasure — knowledge brew, no less! Another case of a flag making the treasure one-time only, if that flag only existed. No, it’s not a terribly buggy scenario, and I suppose an “honest” player would avoid repeatedly plundering the unflagged loot. But then, an “honest” child wouldn’t rob a cookie jar. Blaming the player and not the designer is like blaming the kid when the parents tell him not to snack and then hand him a bag of Chips Ahoy and leave him alone for an hour before dinner.
So, obviously, a scenario with a free-treasure bug is inherently Monty Haul. Things are compounded deliberately with the open sale of mist globes. Even though they are “Utterly Ridiculous” in their pricing, their availability alone gives infinite skill points so long as you have the gold. The whole point of the mist globe — to be mysterious, possibly helpful, possibly harmful — is ruined in Blades because the “conceal item ability” function doesn’t work. Not Frank’s fault, but even so, the item shouldn’t be for sale.
Then there’s the towns and dungeons. As I said before, there are far too few — I don’t know the exact number of outdoor areas or town levels, but I’m willing to bet the ratio of Town/Dungeons to outdoor area is below 1:1. Frankly, no matter how good a designer you are, the fundamentals of the editor dictate that a town has much, much more potential to be interesting than an outdoor area. (Even Redemption and Tatterdemalion, those two champs, basically use relatively few outdoors, and only as a medium for getting to the T/Ds, where the real game takes place.) As such, for me, the T/D:outdoor ratio must be at least 2:1 or I start getting bored. In Slavers, If you do randomly stumble upon a dungeon or metropolis, you won’t be disappointed — but you won’t be blown away either. There’s a simple lack of dynamic brilliance here — by-the-numbers caves, towns, and dungeons with a few interesting bits here and there. Hardly enough to compensate for problemo numero uno, though.
As for graphics, Frank uses the Blades repertoire diversely and effectively, but there’s no custom help. Are custom graphics always a necessity? No. Witness On a Ship to Algiers, Burned to the Ground, and The Magnificent Six. But I would point some things out: first, these three scenarios are good, but not great. While their lack of greatness does not hinge solely on their use of default graphics, that definitely plays a part. Second, all these scenarios are short and small, with one, two, and four outdoor areas, respectively, and no more than about ten towns. The longer and bigger a scenario gets, the more it begs for graphical diversity. Slavers, with far more outdoor areas than these three scenarios combined, is practically screaming for a custom sheet, among other deficiencies it’s caterwauling about (or maybe that was me screaming while playing this thing!)
Although, to be fair, this adventure doesn’t quite deserve screaming. Compared to some of the absolutely fecal scenarios that occasionally crop up, Slavers is pretty good. (Anyone remember Sword of Kings, a scenario so bad it must be a sign of the Apocalypse?) But the day that “better than crap” becomes an accolade is the day our standards as humans have lowered far too far.
Basically,
everything, including the writing and programming, is competent and even
sometimes above-average here, except the sinfully excessive and unfilled (except
by needlessly repetitive specials) outdoor areas. Before you say, “But Lew, if
you’re admitting all but one aspect is decent, what right do you have to rail
on this thing?” consider this analogy: you’re on a date with a girl (or guy,
for you lady Bladesers and alternative-lifestyle folks). He or she is somewhat
nice looking, in pretty good shape, sorta fun-to-talk-to, and fairly
intelligent. But he/she has BO to raise the dead. Or a penchant for
serial-killing. Or a third eyeball staring at you through dinner. That’s Slavers
of Pardes Valley: lots of nice stuff, but nothing is great, and although
there’s only one big thing really wrong, damn, is that one thing ever big, and
is it ever wrong!
Keeping with the Spidweb rating, I give this scenario a 4.1 as well — only my rating is out 10. Go find a scenario that doesn’t smell bad, won’t kill you, and has the right number of eyes.
— Lew Titterton