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

[Stormonu]

Lets examine the bad a little more closely:

B1- As to the maze-like deadends with no (seeming) purpose, take a look at the list of monsters used to stock the module. There are 56 numbered areas on the map and only 25 monster encounters. Furthermore, the DM is instructed to use only 16-20 of those presented for the entire module. This means that roughly 66% of all keyed areas will not have a set monster encounter.

This gives the PCs a bit of exploration space and those maze-like dead ends can be areas where the PCs can hole up and catch a bit of rest, or places to lure monsters into to kill them. Clever players can probably find other purposes for empty areas too.

The plot is the meat and potatoes of D&D! There is a dangerous underground complex said to hold great wealth. It awaits adventurers brave enough to explore it. Considering the bulk of XP is gained from aquiring treasure, the "plot" is fairly rich.

To each their own, I suppose. B1's just not my style, I guess. I like a little more plot to my adventure beyond "go over that hill and see what's there", and the deadends annoy me more as a DM than a player. But, that's just me.

B2- Learning caution early on is beneficial. As adventurers become more powerful and are able to handle greater threats, caution can sometimes be forgotten. If the players never learn the need for careful, clever play then the lesson won't be learned in the first place. 1st level is the best time to learn these lessons. Better to lose a newly rolled 1st level character than a 3rd or higher level one because you never learned not to bite off more than you can chew.

I agree, but there's not really much warning until you're knee-deep and looking for a paddle. Almost all the groups I've run through B2 at 1st level have lost one or more PCs in the first few forays before they started getting sneaky and paranoid. For an introductory module that's a bit rough, and I think that's why I've never been able to run it to completion yet.

[I6] - Lets not forget the super-duper railroad that starts this eh.

I knew there had to be some downside to Ravenloft I was forgetting

From personal experience, the bad is not universally true. I have survived play in the tomb ( can't say the same for the whole party but it is a contact sport), and had genuine fun as a player.

My bad, I overstated. I meant to say it's a really, really, really, really, really - and I mean really - tough challenge to go through S1 and not lose someone in the party, even if they get resurrected. I've read one of the groups at Gencon managed to actually sweep it without loss, but until I see it (and I've run S1 at least a dozen times), I won't believe it. Haven't ever run across a player - until you - who could say they enjoyed the experience.

Some personal favorites:

L2- The Assassins Knot

I really enjoyed this adventure. There were events taking place, a timeline that kept the pressure on the PCs to solve the mystery, interesting NPCs to interact with and cool places to explore- all without being linear or feeling like a railroad.

L2 is my second favorite adventure. It's one of the few I got to be in as a player instead of running as a DM.

 

[Lanefan]

T1 - Village of Hommlet is a excellent adventure that is still viable today.

However, one note: do your players and their characters a favour and ignore the recommended PC level range. That thing is nasty!

I was a player in a game where we took a 4th-5th level party in there - of a party of 6 only 2 survived. I can't imagine how raw 1st-level types are supposed to do it.

I agree, but there's not really much warning until you're knee-deep and looking for a paddle. Almost all the groups I've run through B2 at 1st level have lost one or more PCs in the first few forays before they started getting sneaky and paranoid. For an introductory module that's a bit rough, and I think that's why I've never been able to run it to completion yet.

If you think that's rough then don't start your game with Hommlet!

One of the good things about B2 is in fact that it teaches players that their characters can and will die, though in truth one hopes they've been warned of this by you as DM during the roll-up process. Also, in 1e it's not at all unusual to play more than one character at a time; a strategy I highly recommend for that adventure. (I started my current campaign with it; the death count was kinda brutal...)

Lanefan

 

[BobROE]

When I start a new edition, I want to run pre-made adventures so I can get my feet wet. I'd rather have an adventure that shows me how to do things right.

-O

I think this is important... To show not only how to set things up and what information to keep in mind when running adventures but also what sort of bredth of adventures your system supports well.

Showing that your system can support combat, exploration, investigation, etc. along with how to support those various game elements/types gives people an indication about how the system works and what sorts of things they can do with it.

Doing this I think helps prevent a system getting pidgeon-holed into one thing or another (It's great for investigation games but you can't do combat in it).

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I think a Village of Hommlet style adventure is needed right at the start. Although, not as deadly! It gives the PCs a good starting base with some interesting NPCs, a nice little adventure site that isn't as simple as it seems, and allows for the characters to make an enemy (organization) who can hang around for a long time.

 

[Mattachine]

One of the mis-steps of 4e was a lousy starting adventure.
*way too likely to TPK at several points
*could have been fun sandbox, but was a linear series of locations
*too much uninteresting combat (though the set pieces were cool)


I agree that a new edition should be launched with a sandbox-style adventure setting. A trade town (maybe by the sea, for once) that has rumors, adventure locales written up, and plenty of adventure seeds/hooks. Also, something that provides challenges for wider range of levels (maybe up to 4).

Rather than Hommlet, I think Bone Hill is a better model.

 

[Lanefan]

... Also, something that provides challenges for wider range of levels (maybe up to 4).

Which raises another big question: speed of level advancement.

Personally, if some of the party get to (untrained) 2nd level in the first adventure, that's quite fast enough. But then, I prefer a long campaign without very many levels in it...

Rather than Hommlet, I think Bone Hill is a better model.

It certainly is, and Restenford can make an excellent home base and jumping-off point for whatever comes next.

Lanefan

 

[delericho]

I agree that a new edition should be launched with a sandbox-style adventure setting.

I'm inclined to think the game should be released with at least two adventures available on Day One (plus an entire issue of eDungeon, complete with 2-3 more adventures). The two in-print adventures should each be a first-level adventure, and should highlight different aspects of the system.

So, I'm inclined to agree with your sandbox-style adventure (in the mould of the adventures you mention), but I think they should also do a more 'classic' dungeon-crawl, in the style of "Keep on the Borderlands" or "Sunless Citadel".

 

[amerigoV]

I'm inclined to think the game should be released with at least two adventures available on Day One (plus an entire issue of eDungeon, complete with 2-3 more adventures). The two in-print adventures should each be a first-level adventure, and should highlight different aspects of the system.

One should start in Barovia...

 

[Dice4Hire]

I'm inclined to think the game should be released with at least two adventures available on Day One (plus an entire issue of eDungeon, complete with 2-3 more adventures). The two in-print adventures should each be a first-level adventure, and should highlight different aspects of the system.

So, I'm inclined to agree with your sandbox-style adventure (in the mould of the adventures you mention), but I think they should also do a more 'classic' dungeon-crawl, in the style of "Keep on the Borderlands" or "Sunless Citadel".

Yes, a book of adventures should be available day 1.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I agree that solid adventures that showcase the system's strengths are a must for Next.

I really can't overstate how much damage Keep on the Shadowfell did to 4e when released. I think a lot of 4e's early reputation can be traced directly back to it... It's like the designers specifically released an adventure which would drive people away from the edition. About the best thing to come out of that adventure was Splug. Also, the whole Irontooth thing was actually pretty cool; I admire the designers' chutzpah in throwing a near-certain TPK into the adventure. Sadly, the rest of the adventure is a mashy fighty mess.

(mini-rant)
[sblock]From there, the rest of the H-P-E series got either better or - insanely - worse. I mean, I tweaked KotS until it resembled a fun adventure, and Thunderspire Labyrinth didn't require much work at all to make interesting. Pyramid of Shadows was, if anything, worse than KotS. Trollhaunt Warrens had some promise, but suffered from some issues very similar to KotS in the Warrens itself. Also, by then, the math flaws had started to show. Demon Queen's Enclave (P2) with the drow? Honestly, I don't have much bad to say about it. Amazingly, it's an example of a pretty good adventure somewhat crippled by the more-and-more-cracks-showing monster math. Sadly, we got right back into the bad with Assault on Nightwyrm Fortress, which is the worst published adventure I've ever tried to run. (Marauders of the Dune Sea - the Dark Sun adventure - looks even worse, but I never even tried to run it.)[/sblock]

When I start a new edition, I want to run pre-made adventures so I can get my feet wet. I'd rather have an adventure that shows me how to do things right.

-O

This is sooooo true. My only good experience with 4e premade adventures is with the first adventure in War of the Burning Sky which was lots of fun.