TSR/WotC Adventures - Are they REALLY any good? (Warning: Possible Spoilers)

[Stormonu]

Okay, one of the things that will help sell 5E is GOOD adventures. The question is, does TSR and WotC have a good track record for adventures? And which adventures ARE good and should be held up as the standard for what we want in 5E - and why are they good? Likewise, why are the bad modules/adventures bad?

Now, one of the things to consider is the old TSR adventures - A1-A4, B1-B10, C1-4, D1-3, I1-10, etc. They're definitely famous, but are they really good - especially to modern eyes? Before anyone declares these modules as the gold standard, I'd caution them to really look at the content. Some of them rode to fame on the fact that the shared experience when so few official adventures were available was so huge, and in today's market their initial release would have been glossed over or derided.

Also, I'm not saying that the good adventures should be simply reprinted or we see "Return to..." or "Expedition to..." duplicates for 5E. Instead, I'm proposing we talk about the aspects of these modules that appealed - and what failed.

My List:

Selections from B/X, BECMI

B1 - In Search of the Unknown. The Good: you can customize the rooms with your own creatures (from a list in the module). The Bad: Lots of maze-like deadends with no purpose. Plot is wet t-paper thin.

B2 - Keep on the Borderlands. The Good: A home base and a mini ecosystem dungeon. The Bad: Overwhelming odds tends to mean the PCs die in their first foray until they learn caution.


Selections from AD&D 1E

A4 - In the Dungeons of the Slavelords. The Good: Tests the character's wits. Fun final encounter really lets the PCs get their revenge. The Bad: Railroad beginning requires the PCs to be bereft of equipment.

I6 - Ravenloft. The Good: Strong story-based atmosphere. The villain does not sit idle waiting for the PCs. High replayability due to random placement of key story objects and villain goals.

S1 - Tomb of Horrors. The Good: Can't be defeated via violence. Interesting puzzles and traps. The Bad: You're not going to make it through without dying unless you cheat. It's only fun for the sadistic DM.

S2 - White Plume Mountain. The Good: Interesting puzzles to throw at PCs. Requires creative thought and inventiveness as well as reasoning skills. The Bad: Contrived plot. Adventure doesn't assume you will keep the artifacts afterward; the items are unbalancing to campaigns.

General notes: The Bad: A lot of 1E adventures rely on (modern) player knowledge to overcome thinking challenges. Likewise a lot of NPC's encountered tend to be "gotchas", who pose as allies to the PCs and then turn on the group.

Selections from 2E:

Night of the Living Dead. The Good: Lots of atmosphere, strong storyline. The Bad: Encounters are very linear. It is likewise dependent on the PCs taking initiative in investigating with few hints to help the PCs progress; there a points the PCs hit a dead end and can do nothing until the next timed event occurs to move things forward. Main bad guy has an instant death ability - in a 1st level adventure.

General notes: 2E adventures tend to have a much stronger story than 1E adventures, but are often more linear. Characters are generally EXPECTED to be trusting (gullible) heroes and the writers tend to dismiss the idea that the characters may be shady/gray. NPCs are either are either inept or condescending towards PCs, though there are far few "gotchas".

Selections from 3E:

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. The Good: Lots of interesting and unique encounters. The Bad: Hate the delve format. Too linear, too much going on. Every time you open a door, you can expect a fight. Looses a lot of the semi-sandboxy "skulking through a creepy castle" of the original.

General notes: 3E adventures seem to combine elements of story and lots of fights. NPCs run the gamut; they are helpful or hindering and are generally recognizable so upon meeting. Only the Standing Stone makes use of "gotcha" NPCs, but uses that as the central basis of the adventure.

Selections from 4E:

Keep on the Shadowfell. The Bad: Fight, fight, fight, grind, grind, grind. Hate the delve format. Irontooth encounter is overpowered for no good reason. Sir Keegan skill challenge doesn't follow the DMG suggestions and is very poorly designed.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, one of the things that will help sell 5E is GOOD adventures. The question is, does TSR and WotC have a good track record for adventures? And which adventures ARE good and should be held up as the standard for what we want in 5E - and why are they good? Likewise, why are the bad modules/adventures bad?

Funny, I was discussing this with one of my players just last night...

What makes an adventure good? A number of factors, most of which most published adventures fail at, sometimes to epic proportions. Sticking just to dungeon crawl types for now, they are:

1 - Choice. The party has multiple ways in and out, multiple and intersecting paths once inside, multiple connections between vertical levels (with some that skip levels), and can most of the time choose how they approach it all.
2 - Replayability. Tied with choice, this means that repeated use of the same module with different groups gives a different play experience every time.
3 - Memorability. There need to be some specific things or events or battles or whatever in the adventure that will stand out in players' minds years later; usually as "that was so cool!" but on occasion it could be "that was so dumb!".
4 - A sense of life. By this I mean the opponents don't just wait in their assigned places for the party to arrive, and aren't restricted to written tactics if they do move ("the guards in room 5 will respond only to noises in room 3").
5 - Easy to run. This means it is well laid-out with a detachable map, obvious questions likely to come up in play are at least acknowledged if not answered, the monster stat blocks are with the encounter they apply to, etc.

Non-dungeon-crawl adventures are very difficult to design for publication, as they very often seem to end up with the party bailing on the adventure and-or missing the next breadcrumb, or the DM leading them by the nose from crypt A to outdoor location B to island C.

Some examples of good adventure design:

From 1e:
The Secret of Bone Hill - perhaps the best module I've ever seen for a combination of points 1-2-3 above; it fails a bit on point 4 but that's not the end of the world; and does just fine on point 5. There's about 6 or 8 ways in and out of it, not all on ground level; there's choice on where to go and what to do once inside; and there's a few encounters and events in there that - if done right - really are memorable. Best of all, the map is detachable and most of the more likely "what if they do this?" questions are at least waved at. I've played it and run it twice each and it's been quite different every time.

From 3e:
Forge of Fury - does reasonably well on the first 4 points; yes some of the monsters don't move around much but logical reasons are given for it: there's a whole bloody ecosystem in there! Two ways to get in (three if you're really creative and open up the chimney), reasonable vertical access (though I'd like to see a secret passage from the bottom of the entry chasm to somewhere on the lowest level), quite a few choices on what to do once inside, and some really memorable encounters - the chasm being one, the dragon another, the roper a third. It fails on point 5, however, due to 3e's publication design: the map is built in and the monster stat blocks are at the back. That said, it does go into some "what if" answers.

Now let's take Keep on the Shadowfell, as you did, and analyze from the same perspective:

Point 1 - mostly fail. There's only one way into the thing, period; then once inside there's only one vertical access point to the lower deck (there easily could be more, the goblin mining operation being an obvious place for one); and while there's a bit of choice where to go once inside it still comes down to a bunch of dead ends.

Point 2 - fail. Though I've only run it once I can't see it coming out much differently if I were to run it again...the same encounters would happen in largely the same order.

Point 3 - pass. There are a couple of parts of KotS that really are good - the final battle vs. Kalarel being one, the battle in the room above that being another - and some others that have the potential to be great including the goblin mines. It's been 4 years and war stories fronm that adventure still come up now and then - always a good sign.

Point 4 - fail. Nothing moves in there.

Point 5 - fail. While the monster info appears where it should the main map is still built-in and the little encounter maps don't show enough of what is nearby that might interfere if alerted. But where this module *really* fails is in answering the "what if" questions, particularly in and around the final encounter. What happens if Kalarel finishes his ritual? What happens if the party tries to finish it for him? How does the portal open and can the party do so*? How can it be closed and can the party do so*? What if the party start shooting at the tentacled beast*?

* - the party did all of these when I ran it...

Lanefan

 

[pauljathome]

I'm one of those who feel that WOTC adventures range from poor to at best a bit better than mediocre.

It really doesn't matter what TSR adventures were like. The state of the art is very different now. As are the people involved

Paizo knows how to make good adventures. WOTC really doesn't.

 

[the Jester]

I'm one of those who feel that WOTC adventures range from poor to at best a bit better than mediocre.

There are a few good ones- Red Hand of Doom is the best, but I really like Demon Queen's Enclave, too, and when we played it, I really played up the politics and backbiting.

 

[Stormonu]

There are a few good ones- Red Hand of Doom is the best, but I really like Demon Queen's Enclave, too, and when we played it, I really played up the politics and backbiting.

I hear good things about Red Hand of Doom, but have not run it. What makes it so good?

 

[pauljathome]

There are a few good ones- Red Hand of Doom is the best, but I really like Demon Queen's Enclave, too, and when we played it, I really played up the politics and backbiting.

I haven't played either of those although I HAVE heard good things about both of them.

I'll change my opinion slightly:

The WOTC adventures that I've played, run or read are, at best, a little better than mediocre. There are many adventures that I have no personal opinion of. I think that I've played enough over the years to claim that good adventures, if they exist at all, are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Vael]

I hear good things about Red Hand of Doom, but have not run it. What makes it so good?

Just a warning, I haven't run it, but I've read it, and that was awhile ago. What I like about it:

1. Monsters behave intelligently. Writeups for how the monsters shift tactics as the PCs continue to foil their plans, and even some assassination encounters.
2. A timeline puts some pressure on the PCs, not going to have much in the way of 15 minute work days without serious consequences.
3. Despite the pressure of a timeline, it's not a heavily railroaded adventure.
4. The scope of the adventure, save the nentir vale from hobgoblin invasion, is suitable and heroic for the PCs.
5. It seems very well thought out, no major contrivances and weird plot points for the DM to smooth over, it looks like it runs well right out of the book.

 

[RangerWickett]

I liked playing Red Hand, but MAN was there a lot of combat. Still, it felt like we were choosing how to come at the combat, when to fight and when to flee, and occasionally when to make alliances with possible enemies.

But it suffered from that D&D constant of not knowing who the villain is until you meet him face to face and kill him 2d6 rounds later.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, one of the things that will help sell 5E is GOOD adventures. The question is, does TSR and WotC have a good track record for adventures? And which adventures ARE good and should be held up as the standard for what we want in 5E - and why are they good? Likewise, why are the bad modules/adventures bad?

I just feel the need to be the wet blanket, here.

I've never cared for published adventures. I'll run a 'module' (which is still how I think of them), if someone organizing a con or event really needs me to, or if some players are just really enthused about it, but it's not something I find compelling, I'd always much rather run my own stuff, even if I make it up as I go. So, maybe 'good' adventure will helps sell 5e, maybe they won't, I don't know, but they won't sell them to me.

Now, I have, for lack of anything better to do, played in the occasional module published adventure, and, I usually find them really lacking in one area or another. Whether they're railroad or sand-box, dungeon crawl or high-concept, they all feel strained and artificial compared to an original adventure or 'collectively told story,' to get snooty about it. I have seen good DMs modify and string together adventures to make a campaign of their own, so I know it can be done, but I don't think the quality of the published adventure makes a huge difference in those cases (though some guys do love to complain about how bad an adventure was before they modded it).

A couple of WotC-era modules do stand out in my mind, though:

Heart of Nightfang Spire: I like how viciously and relentlessly this module punished the 3.0 'I win' tactics, like scry/buff/teleport and the infamous 5mwd. I think you can still find story-hours where otherwise very successful groups ground to a halt in this thing. It's a mean, nasty, evil module, but a perfect example of what you could do to cut some of the problematic classes/spells/combos down to size.

Sunken Citadel: Managed to be a bit evocative of the strangeness of dungeons without being nonsensical. I'm sure there's a cohort of gamers who remember this one fondly as their first adventure.

Thunderspire Labyrinth: Was nice as a very small setting supplement more than as a published adventure. With Keep on the Shadowfell, it drove home how badly CR-style encounter design (an Elite four or five levels above you is no more exp than a solo of your level, you should be able to handle it!) failed in 4e.

Beyond the Crystal Cave: Only Encounters DM's got to see this one - I filled in for the second half of that season, and actually am still running a spin-off campaign from it. It got raves from a lot of fans, and all the players at my FLGS loved it. I can't see why - and I can see why the DM I was filling in for walked away from it. A challenging module to DM from, it required a couple of reads and a lot of page-flipping if you didn't outright memorize sections of it. But, it was a very successful season, so there's clearly something to it. I liked the Shakespearean and other references, and not much else, really, but can't argue with success.

 

[delericho]

Okay, one of the things that will help sell 5E is GOOD adventures. The question is, does TSR and WotC have a good track record for adventures?

TSR had a fairly decent track record in 1st Edition, and some of the late 2nd Edition stuff was solid - in particular, anything by Bruce Cordell is worth checking out.

WotC's reputation for adventures is deservedly poor. There are a handful of shining exceptions (Red Hand of Doom, Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, and the "Barrow King" trilogy), but for the most part they range from woeful to barely adequate. The one 4e adventure I've played successfully killed a previously-promising campaign, as the DM completely lost all enthusiasm for the game.

I agree entirely that 5e needs good adventures (and really needs adventures that are not just rehashes/sequels/reboots of the 'classics'). Which puts WotC in a somewhat tricky position.

Selections from...

Honestly, I'd be wary of taking selections from any given edition and then trying to draw some wider comment from there. The adventures in each edition are a sufficiently mixed bag that I think such comments will be of limited validity at best.

A4 - In the Dungeons of the Slavelords. The Good: Tests the character's wits. Fun final encounter really lets the PCs get their revenge. The Bad: Railroad beginning requires the PCs to be bereft of equipment.

In all honesty, when doing an Adventure Path (of which A1-4 is an early example), I feel that a railroad beginning is acceptable. Besides, don't most published adventures start from the expectation that the PCs will actually go on the adventure?

I6 - Ravenloft. The Good: Strong story-based atmosphere. The villain does not sit idle waiting for the PCs. High replayability due to random placement of key story objects and villain goals.

Looking back, "Ravenloft" actually changed the way adventures were written, and not for the better IMO. Although I6 is itself a 'good' example of the style (actually, a really good example), it marks the point where the adventures really started to introduce heavier 'story' elements - Ravenloft is built very strongly on the story of Strahd; it was followed by the very story-driven Dragonlance series (from the same author), and led to things like the "Marco Volo" adventures in 2nd Edition.

So while "Ravenloft" is deservedly a classic, I would be very wary of taking it as the model for how adventures 'should' look.

Selections from 3E:

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. The Good: Lots of interesting and unique encounters. The Bad: Hate the delve format. Too linear, too much going on. Every time you open a door, you can expect a fight. Looses a lot of the semi-sandboxy "skulking through a creepy castle" of the original.

General notes: 3E adventures seem to combine elements of story and lots of fights. NPCs run the gamut; they are helpful or hindering and are generally recognizable so upon meeting. Only the Standing Stone makes use of "gotcha" NPCs, but uses that as the central basis of the adventure.

Not sure it's fair to make a comment on 3e without discussing "Sunless Citadel" and "Red Hand of Doom" - both the best-known and also the most highly-regarded adventures of the edition. (Not to mention "Shackled City", which, strictly speaking, was an "official" D&D adventure product, despite being produced by Paizo.)

Additionally, of course, 3e was supported by a huge number of third-party adventures, something no other edition can boast. And it's probably worth looking to the best of those adventures to see what lessons can be learnt.