Bathtub Reviews are an excuse for me to read modules a little more closely. I’m doing them to critique a wide range of modules from the perspective of my own table and to learn for my own module design. They’re stream of consciousness and unedited critiques. I’m writing them on my phone in the bath.

Raising the Obsidian Keep is a 71 page module for Old School Essentials by Joseph R. Lewis. This version is a remake of The Obsidian Keep, in the hands of the Merry Mushmen, with art by Li-An and maps by Rob Matthews and Nobboc. In it, the adventurers delve into a chaos-corrupted keep full of mutated nobles, to investigate a missing fleet of holy warships. I got this as part of a recent kickstarter, along with their remake of Hound of Hendenburgh and the first in the format, Nightmare Over Ragged Hollow. Why is Joseph R. Lewis getting two reviews in a month? Honestly by coincidence they all arrived on the one day, even though they were from different sources.

The introductory pages here immediately fall into 2 pitfalls: Overexplanation (as if many new referees were going to start their careers with this module) and false rumours that don’t actually contribute to the players understanding or interaction with the world, and are simply wasted time. It’s a disappointing start, but I won’t dwell on it. From here, the structure is simple: Three brief locations that get you to the keep, each 8 pages long — Harbor of Death, Survivor’s Beach and At the Foot of the Obsidian Keep — and then the Obsidian Keep itself which spans 31 pages. Each of these smaller locations is 2 or 3 sessions of play, and the keep itself is closer to 7 or 8 (keeping in mind I tend to play in strictly 2 hour sessions), so this book is a solid 3 months of weekly play. It’s a high value investment.

Harbor of Death is a point crawl in a row boat, featuring 2 factions. There’s a random encounter table that features violent encounters 50% of your time in a rowboat, and they’re rolled every time you move between locations. There’s going to be a lot of fighting on that boat, with high risk of death by drowning according to the drowning rules. While NPCs in the random encounters are named (great!) they have no real connections deeper into the module (disappointing), so there’s no real consequence to these encounters, except as potential henchmen. I like some of the character descriptions here: “55, tough as nails, healthy, yellow jacket sailor. Says the ships were destroyed by red lightning. Most sailors eaten by sharks. Asks for rescue” It covers both what they need and can give to the characters, as well as enough for me to put on a persona. Nice. But, the characters often have information to give, rather than anything else, and it’s rarely specific or useful information, mainly context and story. And it’s not consistent: Ivan and Matteo get far less, and their information is presented in different format. There are plenty of magic items and treasure even early on, and the magic items are of the pleasingly high-limitation, but game-breaking variety. Like, there’s a decent chance you’ll be heading into the keep with a bunch of grenades. All of this continues throughout the module; the Harbour of Death is a microcosm of the rest of the module.

Survivor Beach introduces new factions, and is a whole lot less violent — only 25% chance of a hostile encounter. Otherwise, it has similar strengths and weaknesses. There are a few more traps (well, hazards) that, if I were a referee new to elfgames, I’d probably mishandle, making them potentially insta-kills at low levels. I mention this because it’s a disheartening juxtaposition in the light of the earlier concessions to new referees, that the text doesn’t account for the referee knowing how to deal with traps and hazards. I don’t need that extra support: But you’re indicating in your first few pages you think your audience does, so why aren’t the encounters adjusted in that light? What Survivor Beach really does is foreshadow the chaotic mutant nature of the Keep, where the Harbour of Death is more about what happened to the fleet and foreshadowing Survivor Beach.

At The Foot increase the hostility again, but also keeps the mutations. It doesn’t feature any factions, just two NPCs that are pretty fun. I honestly don’t think it has much to contribute aside from them, though, and it admits it in the introduction because it’s clear that all that’s here is “ruined castle, corpses, and some monsters”. Where the other locations were contributing to the overall development of the story, and foreshadowing what is to come through their random encounters and keys, these 13 locations don’t really contribute much more at all, except for a lot of combat and a little treasure.

Of course the bulk of the module is the Obsidian Keep itself. It’s even more deadly, with a 65% chance of a hostile encounter every 2 turns; this is much much higher than the typical Old School Essentials rate of encounters. But, there’s a lot of NPCs here, and it’s all feeling very Halls of the Blood King in its sense of twisted decadence (there’s even a vampire from space here). It’s very easy to make huge mistakes, though (that space vampire can very easily derail the whole module), and it’s rarely clear exactly how the powerful NPCs that drive the action would interact in the absence of the players, let alone to their presence. Earlier I mentioned that some of the NPCs have both things they need and things the PCs need: That’s not the case here, so while Princess Viola is a quest-giver, there’s no reason for the PCs to do as she asks or demands. At a room to room level, though, there’s so much fun stuff to interact with here: Tons of NPCs, a whole menagerie of characters and creatures for the party to befriend, lots of weird encounters and strange spaces and surprising mutations. It’s a horror module, of sorts, but not the kind that will fill you with unease, but rather one that will make you keep wanting to see what weird thing comes next. My big objection here: I had trouble figuring out how the PCs could actually know what the right thing to do in the final room was. I guess the idea is that it should be intuitive not to choose the option that chomps off your arm?

The reason this is important is the appendices feature an “Ending the Adventure section, and there’s a decent chance the players will neither defeat or not defeat the Big Bad Guy. I’m not sure what the outcome will be, in that case? More clarity here would be appreciated. There is other useful stuff: A character summary, for example, and a summary of NPCs that can be repurposed when PCs die. But what these reveal about the module is one criticism I had of it the whole way through: It’s interested in about 6 rich and powerful people, and utterly disinterested in the many other characters in the module or their relationships, except in their usefulness to the PCs. Recently Amanda P mentioned petty desires, something close to my heart. Few of these characters have their own desires or relationships that exist in the absence of the PCs. In fact, dead NPCs that appear only in letters or messages in bottles have more interior life than the ones that appear in person. They’re toys to play with, and there’s no attempt to create more than the illusion of personhood. I’d prefer they all be more connected to their world.

One major flaw in all this design in my opinion is that retreating is highly discouraged, given the high risk and cost of travelling between locations due to the hostility in the random encounters and the high frequency of rolls. You’re clearly meant to be returning to the ship every three days to rest and recuperate — this is explained back in Harbor of Death — but to get out of the keep to the harbour features at least 3 random encounters (assuming the referee lets you move from point to farthest point, which feels against the spirit of the crawl), which is an about 80% chance of encountering violence on your retreat in the most optimistic scenario. There aren’t really many places of safety here, and there certainly aren’t any places to restock — it’s a fairly punishing module if you play by the intended ruleset. It does say in the foreword is that it’s not intended as a combat-heavy module, but the probabilities really don’t feel that way, and you don’t get a lot of opportunity to regroup.

A brief aside: I’ve noticed this in previous Merry Mushmen publications, but it’s sad to continue to see proofing errors throughout these otherwise high quality productions. It takes the sheen off. I’m aware they’re French and publishing in English and that’s a hurdle, and I can see at least for this module, they’ve hired an experienced editor from an English speaking country to proof the text, which means they’re aware of the issue, but when proofing errors start in the second sentence, it just shows that this needs more eyes to pass over it before it goes to print. There’s no rush, and plenty of people are ever happy to read these things.

The form factor here is carried over from Nightmare Over Ragged Hollow. They call it a slipcase, but really what it means is that the cover is not attached by staples, and is designed to be removed and used as a referee’s screen during play. This is cute, and clever. In the case of Raiding the Obsidian Keep, this screen is mainly maps with the names of the key attached — I think given it’s to be used in conjunction with the book, the space devoted to the key could’ve been devoted instead to random encounter tables and the like, to make a cute idea more useful at the table. Putting the rumour table here instead of any reference to the actual source text that might be used in play: Giant misstep, unless the intention is that the rumours be displayed at all times to the players — this might be the case, in which case bravo! and that’s why it’s on the front facing side, I guess? The problem with this format is durability: Covers are for protecting the paper inside. I took this to a cafe today, and despite it being in my handbag with very little movement for a grand total of 20 minutes, the pages sustained damage. When I’m spending this much — €30 — on a print copy, I expect it to stand up to more than 20 minutes in my bag.

The whole module is beautiful, though. Its weathered look is intended to evoke 80’s nostalgia, as is the tightly padded layout. The art is lineart with grey shading, and complements the use of shading in tables, maps and headings; the art itself is uniformly gorgeous lineart of exactly the kind that I think behooves an elfgame. Font choices are bold, retro and legible. But they have to be: This layout is so dense it’s challenging to get through. The art isn’t thoughtfully distributed — you’ll have 6 pages of double column walls of text, then an illustration and a map or two illustrations on one spread. This makes it harder to use illustrations as navigation tools. Once you’re into the key, it’s hard to find the headings, because they’re nestled mid-page or mid-column. This is all in service to a dense, small and affordable book. The density is such that it stands out like a sore thumb when a space isn’t filled — usually to prevent orphans or widows, or to keep small paragraphs whole. There are nice flourishes, like the swash used to distinguish boxed text, but they’re lost in the density. It gives me no time to breathe. This is a tragedy of beautiful parts assembled poorly due to production constraints. I’d love to see this layout artist given some space to work in.

All of these layout issues become more glaring when placed into the context of the over-explanation in the module. It’s often seemingly pitched at a beginner referee, despite not being for level 1 adventurers; this explanation adds either more page count (which the Merry Mushmen seem keen to keep low), or it adds to density (which is a problem for legibility and navigation for me, at least). they could’ve cut a lot of this lowest common denominator advice to make it either cheaper, more profitable or more legible, and choosing to do none of these is baffling to me. I genuinely think that the maps in the module are a waste of space — again in a book full of layout decisions that suggest space is at a premium. It’s as if the book is laid out in isolation of the fact that the maps are in fact in the detachable cover. It’s always easier to look at the cover than at the book, and I’d have preferred if, had they decided they couldn’t do without them, to have minimaps on each spread covering just the section of the map that was covered on a spread, which would’ve been an improvement in terms of usability. There’s an overall attachment to nostalgic layout here that’s manifesting as a reluctance to lean into innovative solutions, even the innovative solutions that they’ve actually implemented themselves. It’s self-defeating.

Raid on the Obsidian Keep has a lot of things I love: The weird and high density of magical items that are just perfect for its chosen style of play, interesting and interactive factions, lots of NPCs. I can’t praise the actual content of the module enough. The lack of clear rewards for interacting with quest-givers and the high hostility of the random encounters and many of the areas and the number of potential companions make me this feel like a 5th edition module rather than one for Old School Essentials, in a way that’s equal parts complementary and derogatory: I don’t think the combat translates as well to the intended playstyle. In terms of layout and design it’s compromised by a lack of attention to detail and considerable flaws, and proofing and other editorial misses, negating some of those considerable strengths and making it hard to navigate.

Are those flaws enough to dissuade me from running it? That’s a hard thing to answer. There is a lot of module here: there’s a lot of fun to be had. It’s fun that feels specifically tailored for my 5th edition loving friends. But I’d have to run this for a long time, and this version is for Old School Essentials only, unlike what it remakes. And it lacks one of the things I like most in my modules, which is character-focused drama. But, if you’re into horror that you want to see more of rather than less, and you don’t mind a room-by-room play-style rather than a broader, political one, if you don’t mind the players losing a lot of characters, and if you’re willing to overlook the difficult navigation — you could probably overcome the issues with some coloured sticky notes or judicious colour highlighting — Raiding the Obsidian Keep is a lot of playtime and a lot of potential for fun and laughs at a beer and pretzels kind of table.

Idle Cartulary

Playful Void is a production of Idle Cartulary. If you liked this article, please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing to the Idle Digest Newsletter. If you want to support Idle Cartulary continuing to provide Bathtub Reviews, I Read Reviews, and Dungeon Regular, please consider a one-off donation or becoming a regular supporter of Idle Cartulary on Ko-fi.