Catalog of discussions on the "younger classics" adventures.

[Mark Hope]

A personal favorite of mine was The Lost Caverns of Tsojancth.

Quasqueton did a thread on that one as well. He covered most of the elder classics in his series of threads (see the first post in this thread, or his sig, for a link to a full list).

 

[drscott46]

I'd love to see some more of these threads. Perhaps the Avatar Trilogy (is it possible that anyone enjoyed 'em?), the FRQ series, the Daggerdale series, Marco Volo, some of the post-war Dragonlance stuff, Dark Sun's Freedom series, any of the Birthright adventures, or the HHQ single-player stuff.

Just a few off the top of my head.

 

[Endur]

I think Ruins of Adventure was ok for game stats, but the GM would have had to play the computer game first for the flavor of the adventure. The computer game (Pool of Radiance) had far more story and background information than the module and novel put together. (For Pool of Radiance, computer game came first, than module Ruins of Adventure, then novel).

Curse of the Azure Bonds was slightly different. The novel was awesome. The computer game represented a sequel to the novel, which was also quite good. The module was a pretty close adaptation of the flavor of the computer game. (For Azure Bonds, novel came first, then computer game, then module).

Personally, I liked the Ruins of Adventure module better than the Curse of the Azure Bonds, because I like the open-ended 1e style of gaming. The module was incomplete though in flavor terms, and really needed more flavor.

Curse of the Azure Bonds, on the other hand, had the flavor but needed a bit more background on the area the PCs were travling through and how they were getting from encounter to encounter.

In both cases, the computer games were far better than the module versions.

But after flipping through PDF files of the FRC1 and FRC2 modules recently... I doubt we would have had much fun with Ruins of Adventure. Poor writing and editing and very little of actual interest within the various blocks of Phlan. The computer game, despite being the first and messiest Gold Box affair, actually did this setting and adventure much better than the tabletop version. Ruins of Adventure resembles a 1e adventure in the wrong ways, with piles of random tables and empty maps and little to go on with regards to interesting NPCs and the like.

Curse of the Azure Bonds seemed considerably better. Because it was also partially based on the novel, the module actually served as a sequel, with the party getting its own bonds from (some) different adversaries than the book and then meeting the novel characters along the way. It seems as though a lot more thought, effort, and coordination went into FRC2.

 

[drscott46]

I think Ruins of Adventure was ok for game stats, but the GM would have had to play the computer game first for the flavor of the adventure. The computer game (Pool of Radiance) had far more story and background information than the module and novel put together. (For Pool of Radiance, computer game came first, than module Ruins of Adventure, then novel).

Curse of the Azure Bonds was slightly different. The novel was awesome. The computer game represented a sequel to the novel, which was also quite good. The module was a pretty close adaptation of the flavor of the computer game. (For Azure Bonds, novel came first, then computer game, then module).

Personally, I liked the Ruins of Adventure module better than the Curse of the Azure Bonds, because I like the open-ended 1e style of gaming. The module was incomplete though in flavor terms, and really needed more flavor.

Curse of the Azure Bonds, on the other hand, had the flavor but needed a bit more background on the area the PCs were travling through and how they were getting from encounter to encounter.

In both cases, the computer games were far better than the module versions.

Agreed on the CRPGs... although otherwise our arguments about FRC1 and FRC2 are perfect encapsulations on the differences between 1e and 2e adventure styles and the players and DMs with a clear preference. (Pool of Radiance was released just before the 2e revision and Curse just after, so it all lines up.)

I'm certainly not going to criticize your viewpoint, but it was part of the point in suggesting a discussion of "younger" classics to spend time on the 2e-era stuff, which tends to get a lot less keystrokes from ENWorld (in part due to demographics/nostalgia, in part due to the recent trend of 1e-style materials such as the Dungeon Crawl Classics and the WotC rewrites series).

---
Unrelated note, before I forget: I like the way the FRC2 module was specifically set after the events of the novel, then placed the novel's characters in the game as NPCs to guide with a "hey, I once had this same problem" effect.

Contrast that with the Avatar Trilogy, which treats the PCs as accessories to the drama of Elminster, Midnight, Kelemvor, et al. All the players have to do is follow the NPCs and they'll generally succeed. The Avatar Trilogy was an underrated read as a set of novels, but the adventures really squander a unique setting (archetypal world in chaos, gods walk the earth) on something that's about as interactive as some of those old '90s "interactive movies" like A Fork in the Tale.

 

[Mark Hope]

Just a quick bump to mention that this project is still alive . Just got back from a couple of weeks vacation and will be posting a new thread tomorrow...

 

[Mark Hope]

Another Monday, another Younger Classics Thread (Rod of Seven Parts today.) Just so folks know my approach here, I'm settling into a pattern of 2 generic adventures, followed by 2 setting-based adventures - that seems a decent way to mix it up to me. From suggestions in this thread, I'm figuring Gates of Firestorm Peak next, and then maybe some Dark Sun and Spelljammer to keep it varied. Happy to hear any other ideas, though ...

 

[dcas]

even the settings like Greyhawk got more focused adventures. WG 6 on up ... plus WGA, WGR, and so on.

I think WG5 also falls into that category.

 

[drscott46]

Another Monday, another Younger Classics Thread (Rod of Seven Parts today.) Just so folks know my approach here, I'm settling into a pattern of 2 generic adventures, followed by 2 setting-based adventures - that seems a decent way to mix it up to me. From suggestions in this thread, I'm figuring Gates of Firestorm Peak next, and then maybe some Dark Sun and Spelljammer to keep it varied. Happy to hear any other ideas, though ...

Excellent. Toss Birthright in there; I've bugged people on this board before about that setting because it always intrigued me, and while I got a bunch of good opinions on the setting, no one ever said anything about the fistful of modules that got released for it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Most of my years of gaming were done during 2e, even though I started with Classic D&D and then 1e.

I'll cop to enjoying running the Avatar Trilogy. My players enjoyed it to. What I did not enjoy was prepping the modules. I had to do a lot of re-writing to get rid of the NPCs and have the plot still flow smoothly.

I won't comment on any of the TSR novels. I recall enjoying them, but that was a long time ago, and my tastes weren't so refined (or my memory is faulted).

I loved Ruins of Undermountain...never ever came close to exploring the whole thing, but that wasn't the point. It worked out well that the gaming group was based in Waterdeep at the time, too.

All I've ever heard about the Avatar Trilogy adventures is criticism. Like most FR players, I loved the novels and never bought or played the modules.

 

[Mark Hope]

Excellent. Toss Birthright in there; I've bugged people on this board before about that setting because it always intrigued me, and while I got a bunch of good opinions on the setting, no one ever said anything about the fistful of modules that got released for it.

Cool, will do . What would you say were the best-known, most widely played Birthright modules? I know next to nothing about the setting myself...