Temple of Elemental Evil - expectations

[MortonStromgal]

I have not played the other two but I did like Keep on the Borderlands. Much like T1 it was not just a dungeon, there were other side quest and things to explore.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Those who were disppointed with ToEE, where you also disappointed with things like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, and Keep on the Borderland?

I liked Tsojconth. I never ran Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun in actual play, so I'll refrain from commenting on that. I'm generally positive on B2.

Like many of the published modules, Tsojconth was a tournament dungeon. I consider that a very different kind of dungeon from the larger campaign dungeon or megadungeon approach. A design that works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. A tournament dungeon, or a non-tournament dungeon that uses a "lair dungeon" approach, is a much more contained adventure. Its scope is smaller.

I think the ToEE's failing is that it has campaign dungeon scope coupled with lair dungeon design. Can a good DM transcend that? Sure, if he's aware of the issue and is willing to put in the work. But it doesn't change the flaw, IMO.

Re: B2.

I generally like B2. I think its a good introductory module. I like the mini-sandox of the wilderness around the Keep. I like the presentation of the Keep as a safe base. The Caves of Chaos aren't an example of my favorite kind of dungeon design, but they're not terrible, either. They can be taken in bite sized chunks, and while each individual cave lair is pretty small and straightforward, taken together they give the players a lot of choices. The "humanoid bash" factor is a little high, IMO, but I can forgive that.

I actually prefer B1. What I've done in the past is use the Keep and its environs, but put B1 in the "Cave of the Unknown" and have rumors and such steer players that direction, first, rather than emphasizing the danger of the caves. While the players are busy exploring B1, I start increasing the raiding activity and such from the Caves of Chaos, so that by the time B1 has been fairly well looted, the PCs are ready to go tackle the Caves of Chaos.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I do wonder about that. I have to wonder if the more anticipation there is for a product the more disappointing it would be.

I told Gary before he died that I hoped CZ wouldn't be consider equivalent to the "Giant Rat of Sumatra", which should be familiar to 1e MM fans…The "legend" of the unpublished work surpasses the work itself.

For my part, it isn't that the ToEE couldn't live up to its own hype. I think the lair vs. campaign design flaw is an actual flaw, not just perception (although definitely one most apparent in actual play)

That said, I'd be surprised if the "legend factor" didn't influence Gary's thinking. His reluctance to release the original Greyhawk levels, preferring to re-do them, makes me think he had strong opinions about how a published module should be presented. What worked for him in his personal game wasn't necessarily what he wanted to present in a professional, published product. His approach in publishing Castle Zagyg is a good example.

Another example like this is Greyhawk, itself, with Gary's home game using the "North American" Greyhawk, but where Gary re-did an entirely new version for publication, saying "When the company asked me to do a campaign world, I altered much of my actual setting so as to be able to pack in as much variety into a relatively small area—that constraint of printable map size—and provide an entirely different one than that I actually employed in my own play."

I can't help but wonder if that tension between the needs of the home game vs. the constraints of published products isn't behind stuff like the long delay in publishing the ToEE (and Castle Grehawk, for that matter). It's possibly also the reason so many published modules tended to be tournament style or lair style affairs, despite the existence of legendary campaign dungeons like Castle Greyhawk and El Raja Key in home campaigns.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Something I find interesting in this is how old-timers/grognards, who usually defend to the death things that are AD&D1 in general, and EGG especially, are either quiet on this product, or they agree with the negativity.

Old schoolers tend to be a lot more defensive on ENWorld than they are in places such as Knights & Knaves Alehouse. Ofc 'new schoolers', fans of 4e, and everyone else, are all more defensive about their preferred edition here than they would be on safe territory, amongst like-minded people.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Eh, I dunno. I call 'em like I see 'em, wherever I am.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Those who were disppointed with ToEE, where you also disappointed with things like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, and Keep on the Borderland? Aren't they all in a very similar style -- writing style and organization and design style?

If not, what makes ToEE not like the others?

Referencing back to my previous post, I said that the biggest problem with ToEE was poor organization, particularly when it comes to quickly distinguishing and using the different factions.

Keep on the Borderlands, on the other hand, clearly identifies the factions. Obviously the clear physical distinctions of the lair structure also helps in this regard, but the alphanumeric sub-categories keeps that distinction clear in the actual text of the module.

So contrary to being in a "very similar style" in terms of organization, the Keep on the Borderlands is actually a good example of how you can organize a module to avoid some of the problems with ToEE.

And while the dungeon design for Keep on the Borderlands tends to get criticized, I find there's enough internal linkages between the lairs and enough dynamism provided from the rich selection of multiple entrances to make it an interesting environment. (Particularly as an introductory module, since it so clearly emphasizes player choice right from page one.)

The other great thing about the Caves of Chaos is that it was really easy to quickly restock the place. The PCs have cleared out a few lairs? Pick a new monster, have a bunch of them move in. (Or use the random tables.)

I just kept a list of the major NPC's (i.e. The High Priests for each Element) listed on a side paper with notes on them. I do this with any module.
Another big thing most forget to do was general movement of monsters or the factions when they brought in new recruits/sacrifices or even simple guard patrols.
Even movements by various major NPC's should be tracked that way. Cause honestly, very few of them will never sleep or have a pressing matter that might call them away from the ToEE.

By contrast, this is the type of reverse engineering work that needed to be done in order to make ToEE playable.

If you went into too much detail within a module you would be upsetting the Canon of the world the fans loved so much. Think about the fiascos (i.e. Nerdrage) of the Realms with the Avatar Trilogy and the Spellplague through the editions.

I'm not clear on why you're artificially conflating "including details on a particular area of the campaign world in the module" with "including details in the module which rewrite the wider campaign world". It's like saying that if I publish a tourist guide to San Francisco, it'll turn Washington D.C. into a fascist dictatorship.

One thing I hated about Return to the ToEE was the fact there was a return. Namely because in one of my group's campaigns they had claimed it as their own.

I find this to be a really weird complaint given that the original ToEE was also a return to the temple.

 

[Lidgar]

Regarding module organization - I agree that in large part, ToEE completely lacks it. It is difficult to cross reference defenses and reactions during play without bogging things down and some additional prep work on the DM's part. For me, this included labeling all of the rooms with their contents and preparing a master list of each faction's resources, bosses, locations, and strategies. However, I do not necessarily agree that bad organization = bad module, just as I would disagree with the position that good organization = good module.

(As a side note, I prefer modules that leave some work for the DM - I almost never run them as is. However, IMO exceptionally bad organization can definitely "kill" a module, especially if it has no other redeeming qualities.)

As I mentioned in a post before, I think the module really shines early on - especially T1 and the first three levels of the dungeon. It also introduces some interesting plot elements (the factions, solving the destruction of the skull, side treks, and the deep history of the temple adds additional dressings) and memorable charcters/NPC's. I feel that these elements outshine the poor organizational aspects of the module, and therefore, while not my all time favorite module, definitely ranks high.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Regarding module organization - I completely agree that in large part, ToEE completely lacks it. It is difficult to cross reference defenses and reactions during play without bogging things down without some additional prep work on the DM's part. For me, this included labeling all of the rooms with their contents and preparing a master list of each faction's resources, bosses, locations, and strategies. However, I do not necessarily agree that bad organization = bad module, just as I would disagree with the position that good organization = good module.

For me it comes down to a question of resources: I have a limited amount of time to prep an adventure.

Say I've got two hours: I can either spend that two hours customizing an adventure to my campaign or adding extra awesome stuff to it. Or I can spend two hours doing the basic work to make it usable.

All other things being equal, I'm going to prefer the module where I can spend my time adding the awesome.

 

[darkseraphim]

(Seems like another case of Porsche drivers complaining about Model T performance.)

I like T1-4 quite a lot, simply because it provides what I associate with classic D&D - old school monsters of many different factions, all revolving in a "wheels withing wheels" meta-plot that gets ever-deeper with every answer leading to two more questions.

It's the same design paradigm followed in GDQ, S4/WG4, and B2.

It's a sandbox, however, when most people these days seem to prefer stories. BITD it was de rigeur to have a mini-treatise stating "These are the bare bones, consider the needs of your players and your own ideals and add flesh to them." I think this attitude is anathema to people who want to have the banquet served to them instead of being supplied on a table.

 

[Lancelot]

Those who were disppointed with ToEE, where you also disappointed with things like Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, and Keep on the Borderland? Aren't they all in a very similar style -- writing style and organization and design style?

If not, what makes ToEE not like the others?

Let me arbitrarily rate my liking for ToEE as 4-out-of-10. It's far from a lost case, but (see me post a few pages back) there are a number of things that disappointed me about it.

Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth: As a module, I'd rate LCoT as a 5/10. It's wildly random, with no regard to a "real" (heh) dungeon ecosystem. It has the same ToEE problems of bad maps (randomly generated, filling exactly the whole page), combat grind, and unexplored themes. However, it also has some stunning artwork (sleeping Drelnza is amazing), a definite climax, and it's so very much shorter than ToEE. However, you can't really just evaluate LCoT as a module; it was also a fantastic gaming supplement. The new monsters, lore (demon lords, history, etc), artifacts, magic items, spells... the supplementary material in LCoT makes it an overall 9/10 for me.

Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun: I'd rate this one as a 7/10. Yes, the Undertemple again suffers from "random creatures in every room" syndrome, but much of the rest is improved from ToEE. The creatures in the upper levels have an intelligent plan of defense, and their total force is clearly outlined and well-organized. The maps do not feel randomly-generated: they have a structure and purpose. The temple is incredibly creepy in parts - in fact, it feels much more foreboding that the ToEE itself. The climax is very unusual, in that it can be dangerous and scary without having a Big Bad. This one is all about the atmosphere.

Keep on the Borderlands: It's a 9/10. Shorter than ToEE, clearly laid out. Well-detailed base of operations (like Hommlet, which was one of the best things about ToEE). Large area of exploration, but each sub-area nicely self-contained and very thematic (kobolds, goblins, the maze, the temple, etc). Clear instructions and assistance for DMs of all skill levels. Interesting maps. Creepy atmosphere (maze, shunned caves, messing with altars...).