What are the worst classic D&D adventure modules?

[Steel_Wind]

I would have to completely agree with what was said about the DL modules. I only played the first few, but felt like a spectator. We HAD to do what the novel characters did and when I found out my PC couldn't die?!

But, I don;t think they are bad modules/adventures. I agree it was more the novels' fault and stupid rules being added. I would actually like to run someone through the adventures one day.

I think you'll find that the obscure death rules were removed and that there were options other than what happened in the novels.

I don't doubt that was your experience; I'm saying that the main problem was the usual one: it was your DM rail-roading you, not the text of the module itself. Don't get me wrong - there are some significant rail-road elements in there - but not nearly so many as players report.

If you have a look at the updated versions of the modules DL1-4 in the book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dragonlance-Dragons-Autumn-Cam-Banks/dp/1931567336"]Dragons of Autumn[/ame] , which completely re-visits the modules for D&D 3.5 rules by Cam Banks, you'll find that those problems are gone.

The only real problem is that the novel Dragons of Autum Twilight really is a blow-by-blow account of the first two modules. After that, thankfully, the novels stop ruining the modules and the module experience - and the novels - both greatly improve.

 

[Marx420]

I have to agree with several others assessments of the Temple of Elemental Evil, I feel that this is one megamodule that is severely overrated (speaking from experience, lost 4 of my characters in the original, never finished the 3e Monte Cook remake after losing 3 more, and lost countless characters in the buggy computer game version). It is very much a slog with capricious difficulty and balance issues which are all the more tragic due to the magic that is the village of Hommlet, though a competent DM could probably wring some fun out of it.

 

[Bullgrit]

Interesting, all this dislike of Temple of Elemental Evil. It's in my top three adventure modules of all time. I love it dearly. I only played through 1 to 1.5 levels of it, but I own it and have read it all the way through. To me, it is the ultimate example of what D&D is.

Bullgrit

 

[Erik Mona]

Temple of Elemental Evil is not a "perfect" module by any stretch (although Village of Hommlet is close). But I hope everyone is aware that the dungeon parts are primarily the design of Frank Mentzer, rather than Gary himself.

So while Gary's inability to finish the adventure himself is not exactly a shining point in his design career, it's not really fair to blame him personally for a too-long dungeon crawl he didn't really even write.

For me, I think it's too long and ultimately boring. And the "watch the gods fight" ending is a pretty textbook example of how _not_ to end a big adventure. But if there had been more advice regarding how to run the adventure as a series of forays into a huge dungeon and perhaps just a touch more narrative structure, I think it would have been a lot better.

It's still one of my favorite adventures, despite its flaws.

--Erik

 

[thedungeondelver]

The DRAGONLANCE modules and the DESERT OF DESPAIR modules are terrible. Your characters will go here. They will do this, and they have to survive. If they don't, you, the DM, make up a reason that they did. Up to and including being saved by a powerful NPC.

I6 is particularly heinous (yes, I don't like RAVENLOFT) for railroadyness. But it has nothing on modules with friggin' song lyrics and french fry recipes in them.

ST1 UP THE GARDEN PATH is ing terrible. By it being incredibly rare, the world is spared a horrible fate.

 

[Bullgrit]

But I hope everyone is aware that the dungeon parts are primarily the design of Frank Mentzer, rather than Gary himself.

The text reads very much like Gygax's writing.

it's not really fair to blame him personally for a too-long dungeon crawl he didn't really even write.

The dungeon crawl is very much in Gygax's style.

The book has EGG's name on it. It's all in his writing and design style. EGG never disavowed any of it. A not insignificant part of why I like the adventure is because it is EGG's work. It's kind of strange to try to disconnect him from the material when someone criticizes it.

the "watch the gods fight" ending

There is no such ending in ToEE.

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

The text reads very much like Gygax's writing.

The dungeon crawl is very much in Gygax's style.

The book has EGG's name on it. It's all in his writing and design style. EGG never disavowed any of it. A not insignificant part of why I like the adventure is because it is EGG's work. It's kind of strange to try to disconnect him from the material when someone criticizes it.

There is no such ending in ToEE.

Bullgrit

I've heard that it was Mentzer working off of Gygax's note from other sources as well. I believe that was actually pretty well established.

And if you don't believe there's a god fight, check encounter area 433. If an Iuz follower calls on him, he has a 90% chance of showing up. And if he does and good character are there, St. Cuthbert has a 90% of appearing as well.

 

[TerraDave]

Interesting, all this dislike of Temple of Elemental Evil.

It (and Return to) always comes up as a great disapointment. I know it, and you know it, just like Steelwind new DL was going to be in here. It could even be why you started this thread.

its publication marked the point where I realised that Gary, as talented as he was, was simply incapable of meeting a deadline.

He had some other stuff going on.

Temple of Elemental Evil is not a "perfect" module by any stretch (although Village of Hommlet is close).
--Erik

Mr. Mona, as always thanks for stopping by. We agree on Hommlet. For the ToEE I have always hear that Mentzer did it "based on Gygax's notes". Its also my understanding that Gygax did run it in campaign style, though I wonder if Mentzer was one of those players.

 

[Bullgrit]

I've heard that it was Mentzer working off of Gygax's note from other sources as well. I believe that was actually pretty well established.

I really don't want or intend to get into an argument to defend ToEE, but. . .

Gygax's name is on Q1 (with Sutherland) also, and he though he wrote well of it in the adventure preface itself, he disavowed it later. Gygax's name is on OA and he disavowed it as well.

But ToEE has his name (as well as Mentzer), and he never distanced himself from it. It is written and designed in the same style as other works he wrote 100%. I understand that Mentzer organized/assembled ToEE from Gygax's manuscripts and notes, but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone try to seperate Gygax from ToEE.

And if you don't believe there's a god fight, check encounter area 433. If an Iuz follower calls on him, he has a 90% chance of showing up. And if he does and good character are there, St. Cuthbert has a 90% of appearing as well.

Are you looking at the text as you write this? I'm not, but I've read it many times. If I'm remembering correctly, (and I'll check when I'm home in a couple hours), the chance of Iuz showing up to a calling is only 5%. Cuthbert will show up 90% only if Iuz comes first. And even if this 5% chance is rolled, the gods will merely revive any dead mortal combatants, and then vanish to settle their issues in private.[Edit: see below]

So there is no "watch the gods fight" in that.

ToEE has flaws, sure. But don't call out flaws that aren't there.

Bullgrit

 

[thedungeondelver]

It's wrong to slam Gary on T1-4's lateness considering what was going on in TSR at the time. Cut a guy some slack for God's sake.