Dungeon of the Mad Mage (D&D adventure module) (read for fun)

I wanted to learn how to build dungeons and stock with them encounters. I do not just mean monsters to fight or traps to avoid but a full adventure. So I looked to the professionals of the "world's greatest roleplaying game" and picked up the mega-dungeon known as Undermountain. 

This is a review for "Dungeon of the Mad Mage".

Wow, this module is versatile. The flexibility written into this mega-dungeon is amazing. I was expecting something that was a one-size-fits all sort of thing. You know, something like the modules that Adventure's League DMs run: the players arrive for X reason, and then Y happens. Let the players react and then tell them to do Z. This book isn't written like that at all. In fact, it is so flexible it is less of a pre-written adventure and more like a pre-written setting that includes set-piece events for a DM to use or adapt for their own adventure. 

For instance, the first chapter provides adventure hooks for the party but acknowledges that players can have their own reasons for entering Undermountain. The players aren't locked into a particular quest or storyline. A DM could make up their own reason. This is an easy thing to do. I found myself coming up with several hooks for venturing to particular levels; hooks that didn't have anything to do with the specific adventure suggested but just the setting provided. 

The same chapter has this sidebar listing off possible motivations for Halaster Blackcloak, the Mad Mage himself, to tolerate the adventurers intruding in his lair. There are six in total, and they can change whenever the DM wants without explanation. As the book says, "he is the Mad Mage, after all". So the DM could make up some totally bonkers motivation, and that would be totally legit. If they don't want to include him, then they can leave Halaster in the background. 

The dungeon levels themselves are flexible. Each level map is created with tunnels that lead off the established area. These are marked as "tunnel leads to expanded dungeon".  So the DM can add rooms and events if they want, or they can pretend those tunnels don't exist and treat the area as a solid wall.

 A list of wandering monsters is often provided that the DM can include if they want to shake up an existing room. Even if a player has read this book, they can still be surprised by these wandering creatures, or who may or may not appear. 

Finally, while each level is written with its own storyline, the book acknowledge multiple ways that the players could resolve it, or even ignore it. This is tacit encouragement for the DM to tweak things to fit their own narrative. I see the levels more as "template settings" than hard-coded adventures. Indeed, one doesn't even have to use them for Undermountain.

Each level is designed to work within Undermountain. Of course, it is, because they are included in this book. However, they can take place elsewhere. A little tweaking of lore or re-flavoring of certain factions or items, and any given level can be its own stand-alone adventure. For example, there is no reason why Dweomercore, the school for evil mages, has to be inside Undermountain. It could be some isolated mansion in the woods, or part of an urban city with either a public reputation or secret existence. 

I do not mean that this flexibility is nothing but options. There is a concrete path to walk if you choose to walk it. A DM can run this adventure exactly as it is, no changes necessary, and it would still be a complete adventure. There are storylines, individual events, monster encounters, and treasures of all kinds already provided. 

Each level of the dungeon is supposed to be balanced to the party's level, and there's even a in-universe mechanic to prevent players from going to levels they may not be ready for (if the DM wants to use it). The experience gained from each level will help the party level up and be ready for the next one. As for being balanced treasure-wise, that is something I want to address.

I don't really understand the value of the wealth-per-level thing. It sounds too rigid for storytelling. Why should the same dungeon contain more or less treasure for parties of different levels? It sounds like game-ism for the sake of game-ism. The treasure found in Undermountain makes a great deal of sense with its story.

The majority of the treasure found here is from other people who have set up shop in Undermountain. The bandits, the Drow Houses, the Hobgoblin army, other adventuring parties (living or dead, but mostly dead) etc. are the ones with the treasure. This is because the player's party is not the first to go into Undermountain. Heck, the main entrance to Level One is basically a tourist attraction in the Yawning Portal tavern. Lots of adventurers have gone in and searched for loot. So the book mentions empty treasure chests, already-looted vaults, and other signs of previous adventuring parties. There is STILL treasure to be found, but it is going to be on deeper levels, in better hiding places, etc. I find this a fantastic thematic device.

The artwork and maps and all that stuff look good too. I just don't want to go into detail about it. Rest assured that flipping between the map and the descriptions of the rooms keyed to the map is an easy thing to do. I did just that when I was reading through the book to get a sense for how the level was laid out. 

As a dungeon master, my reaction to reading even the first several levels was, "I want to play through this with someone."

Trickster Eric Novels gives Dungeon of the Mad Mage an A+

Click here for my next book review:  So I'm a Spider, So What? (light novel 2)

Click here for my previous book review: Pendragon's Heir (book 1)

Brian Wilkerson is a independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

His fantasy series, Journey to Chaos, is currently available on Amazon as an ebook or paperback.

Pendragon's Heir (book 1) (read for fun)

 
This is a book I found in the local library. I didn't look for it. It just happened to be on the same shelf as another book that I was deliberately looking for. That's one of the fun things about a local library. You can browse the shelves freely, with nothing but the Dewey Decimal System arranging the books in front of you (no algorithms!). 

Anyway, the premise of this book is a schoolgirl discovering that she has inborn powers of clairvoyance when a terrorist organization tries to kidnap her for them. This leads to a Meele a Tois between said terrorist organization (basically the Illuminati), an international crime-fighting organization known as L.A.N.C.E. , and the private army of robots commanded by superhero Arthur Keep. That sounds like a lot, doesn't it? 

It it, kind of, but the way it is presented removes any feeling of info dump or confusion. The only confusion here is the budding Seer's own confusion. See, Elaine is a first-person narrator, so the reader experiences her confusion at the sudden 180 shift in her peaceful and boring life. The information provided to her (and thus the reader) comes in a steady and easily digestible stream, though she finds it frustratingly slow, which is understandable. Personally, I found it was surprisingly easy to keep track of everything. 

There are a couple things I want to address. They are concerns I had when I started reading this book. 1.) Will Reddington, Elaine's love interest, would be a hot-seductive-dangerous stereotype, and lack anything else of a personality. 2.) Elaine's clairvoyance would never amount to much, and just serve as a macguffin to make people fight over her and keep her involved in the plot; she herself would just be an observer of the plot. 

I have read a book with a similar premise to this: a girl with psychic powers who is involved with secret agent type schemes and whom the villain wants to recruit for her powers. It was one of the worst books I have ever read. Even now, years later, I can remember it clearly, and I use it as the standard for books that deserve an "F" by my grading scale. I am not joking at all. However, with this book, Pendragon's Heir, all of my concerns were unfounded. 

Will Reddington has a full-developed character. He has an existence separate from Elaine. He never tries to seduce her, and has his own character arc unfold alongside hers. He has a purpose in the narrative beyond "being an attractive love interest".  

Also, Elaine develops her powers over the course of the story, thanks to mentoring by a much older and experienced Seer (so she's not a unique special person either). At the start of the story, Elaine's powers are latent. They manifest as images that superimpose themselves over her literal eyesight. By the climax, she learns multiple uses for them, from spying on enemies to combat clairvoyance. Furthermore, all these uses have clear rules and limitations. So the clairvoyance is never used for an I Just Know sort of situation. 

As for being an observer to the plot, defying that idea is part of Elaine's personal conflict throughout the book. All four of her parents (two blood parents and two step-parents), want to keep her away from the fighting, because she is a civilian without training or experience in combat. So she is basically grounded in her father's tower for most of the story and surrounded by his army of robotic knights. She has to endure a good deal of combat training and physical conditioning, bond with her father to develop a level of mutual trust, and execute some covert maneuvers to prevent her caring-but-overprotective father from sidelining her. The climatic chapter is even titled, "Where I refuse to be sidelined no matter what". In other words, Elaine tries very hard to avoid being reduced to an observer. 

Did you notice the phrases "father's tower" and "small army of robotic knights"? Yes, those are literal statements. Elaine's blood father is Arthur Keep, an eccentric gazillionaire inventor who is the world's biggest fan of the King Arthur Mythos. Arthur Keep lives in Keep Tower, which is styled like a medieval European fortified tower (albeit with modern construction and technology) and one of his inventions is a type of combat robot who can either become literal armor for a human or move independently. Also, they are named after the Knights of the Round Table. Arthur's fatherly petname for Elaine is "princess", because that is basically what she is, legal heir to the Keep Incorporated kingdom. 

Aside from that, Arthur Keep is definitely based on the Marvel Cinematic Universe's version of Tony Stark. He prefers working in his laboratory to doing anything business-management related, rarely takes anything seriously, is a public superhero in powered armor he invented himself and grabbles with trust issues, except when it comes to his wife, a very professional and business-savy woman to whom he delegates any and all CEO duties, to the point where she IS the CEO of Keep Incorporated. The book was published in 2019, after many MCU movies featuring Iron Man. 

The first chapter is a bit slow and boring, but this is a necessity to show the contrast of her life before and after the initiation event of the plot. It is not a "make the protagonist a lowest common denominator" sort of chapter. It is actually more focused on introducing her budding clairvoyance, which becomes immediately relevant. It also leads to my final point. 

This is a Like Reality Unless Otherwise Noted sort of fiction story. Just because it takes place in a fictional version of America does not mean that it is exactly like the real life version. At no point does Elaine state that clairvoyance itself is fake/impossible/fiction. 

No. Elaine knows that clairvoyance is a real thing. Everyone in her setting, even and including the muggles, know that clairvoyance is a real thing. Superheroes and Fair Folk are real things too. There is no Masquerade at all. It is such a refreshing set up that I have to mention it. 

When I was growing up, every single fantasy book I read that took place in the modern day included a Masquerade. Every fantastical thing had to hide from the non-fantasy humans for some reason, or no reason at all. It was some implied rule of fantasy literature that the modern era had to be exactly the same as real life, with all the fantasy elements partitioned into some hidden area. Mixing them was taboo, both in-universe and out. I think it had to do with some meta-idea of the reader "discovering" the hidden fantasy world as they read the story. 

That is not the case here. When Elaine protests about having clairvoyance, it is because she doesn't believe that she, herself, has the power of clairvoyance. It is common knowledge in her setting that clairvoyance follows bloodlines, so if neither of your parents are clairvoyant then you aren't either. It is a rational idea, and I prefer it to a protagonist who denies a plainly visible truth (i.e. Flat Earth Atheist). 

Aside from all that, it looks good on a technical level. I don't recall much in the way of spelling errors or grammar issues. I give authors more leeway on grammar when they use a first-person narration, because really, how many people think in perfect grammar? 

Trickster Eric Novels gives Pendragon's Heir an A+

Check here for my next book review: Dungeon of the Mad Mage (D&D adventure module

Click here for my previous book review: Ancient Wisdom for the Modern Warrior

Brian Wilkerson is a independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

His fantasy series, Journey to Chaos, is currently available on Amazon as an ebook or paperback.

Connecting Things to Connect to Readers -

As a novelist, I write stories. I want to entertain readers with stories they will enjoy. This requires connecting them to the story, and all the elements of the story together. I think I neglected this aspect in Transcending Limitations. I also think it is why The Highest Power is taking so long to finish. 

I recognize the emptiness in the earlier drafts for The Highest Power but I couldn't figure out why they were so empty. I described the image in my head and tried to convey the emotion of what I saw and the energy that I felt so I could share it all with the reader. Yet everything fell flat. I didn't understand where the disconnect was until I realized it was in the book itself. 

I wasn't connecting things in the book itself. I didn't connect the feelings of the characters. I didn't connect events. I didn't connect motives. All the connections were in my head. All I did was present an image of the events through impersonal words. I didn't realize how distant this image was from a reader who lacked my internal connections. 

I could write SEVERAL blog posts about this idea of connections. In fact, if I tried hard enough, I could probably write a whole book about it.  Transcending Limitations was a significant learning experience. 

This post will focus on just one connection, the viewpoint character. You can also call them The Protagonist (which is different from The Hero). 

The viewpoint character is the connection within the connection. The book itself is the connection between the writer and the reader. The book itself, be it a paper book or an ebook or an audio book, links the reader to the writer. However, the connection is not really the book itself, but the story elements inside the book. It is the narration and the action of the characters, particularly the viewpoint character. 

(Related aside -  I'm not sure if this very article is connecting to the reader. It is a different sort of writing than a novel, so my learning experience with novels might not be helping here. After all, there is no viewpoint character, unless of course you consider the viewpoint character to be the one writing the article. Hey, maybe that's the thing.)

The viewpoint character is the connection within the connection. He or she (or "they", I guess) is the means by which the writer connects to the reader. The writer uses them to connect things in the story for the reader. This viewpoint character experiences the events of the story, and feels a certain way about them. They connect the story dots but in a way that is unique to them, which may or may not be accurate. 

The viewpoint characters see the events of the story in a certain way, which is the way that the story connects to them.  They interpret events according to their understanding. The reader sees this (or hears it, whatever) and that is their connection to the story. The energy, emotion and image that I have, that I want to share with the reader, is delivered by this viewpoint character. 

The story is filtered through this character's perspective. The lore that is relevant to the story is presented to the reader from their perspective. This keeps the story focused and coherent. I tried to portray this one scene from everyone's perspective and that was a mess!

The events that are shown in the story are the events that the viewpoint character takes part in, which does not include all the events that happen. Those "off-page" events still need to be made known to the reader, so the reader can understand the whole story, but they must be from the viewpoint character's perspective to maintain a consistent perspective. 

I realize now that this is why I hear so much advise about "relatable" viewpoint characters and "identifying" with viewpoint characters. Being able to relate to or identify with a viewpoint character helps the reader to understand their perspective, which then aids the connection, which then builds up the significance of events and aids the transmission of emotion. It is not necessary, in my opinion, but it is helpful. 

In fact, I think it can be more harmful than helpful, because trying to guess who is going to pick up your book is tricky. Yes, I know about targeted adds and information collecting algorithms, but making presumptions about any given reader is likely to come across as offensive. There are a lot of tropes on Tvtropes that make fun of this tactic, such as This Loser Is You. 

So I think it is better to be authentic. Present the authentic feelings of one character as they are. Allow them to be the author's connection to the reader, whoever the reader is. Doing this enables the reader to get inside the character's mind and experience their viewpoint. That is a connection. The reader can understand the character this way, and thus understand that they are not a flat character, empty of emotions and motives (unless, of course, the goal of the author is an empty audience surrogate). 

I coined a phrase for this -  standing behind their shoulder. Going into detail about that would be another post entirely. 

Brian Wilkerson is a independent novelist, freelance book reviewer, and writing advice blogger. He studied at the University of Minnesota and came away with bachelor degrees in English Literature and History (Classical Mediterranean Period concentration).

His fantasy series, Journey to Chaos, is currently available on Amazon as an ebook or paperback.