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

[Scylla]

I could talk about TSR modules forever, as some were excellent. Among my all-time favorites:

C-1 Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan
G-1-2-3 Against the Giants
S-1 Tomb of Horrors*
T-1 Village of Hommlet

*Not to pimp my blog here, but if you want to read an actual S1 foray report—with survivors and a not-to-be-missed bang at the end—access the links below:

Part 1: Overview
Part 2: Let the games begin!
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5: Slime all the time
Part 6: Balloons away!
Part 7: There will be blood
Part 8: Death to Acererak!

 

[Mattachine]

Though classics, the G series of modules wasn't very good, IMHO. They are just a lot of big fights the PCs slog through, with way too much treasure provided. Also, some of the most detailed and interesting parts of the adventures are likely to be missed/skipped by the party.

 

[Scylla]

Though classics, the G series of modules wasn't very good, IMHO.

I must strongly but respectfully disagree. There's a reason they are widely heralded as classics, not only by players but by RPG authors. For such a small number of pages there's so much goodness there. Gygax gave each giant type a very specific feel, and G3 in particular had a number of very inventive rooms (such as the torture chamber fight or Obmi).
I do agree about the treasure—but too much treasure was common in early modules.

But of course, to each their own taste.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I must strongly but respectfully disagree. There's a reason they are widely heralded as classics, not only by players but by RPG authors. For such a small number of pages there's so much goodness there. Gygax gave each giant type a very specific feel, and G3 in particular had a number of very inventive rooms (such as the torture chamber fight or Obmi).
I do agree about the treasure—but too much treasure was common in early modules.

But of course, to each their own taste.

If I found the treasure to be too much then I adjusted it to where I felt comfortable or I would add in my own stuff.

My favorite dungeon of all times will always be Undermountain along with the Myth Drannor boxset.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I must strongly but respectfully disagree. There's a reason they are widely heralded as classics, not only by players but by RPG authors. For such a small number of pages there's so much goodness there. Gygax gave each giant type a very specific feel, and G3 in particular had a number of very inventive rooms (such as the torture chamber fight or Obmi).
I do agree about the treasure—but too much treasure was common in early modules.

But of course, to each their own taste.

Agreed, Played as a hackfest, I can see that the G series might be underwhelming, but if the pcs use subterfuge it's a completely different adventure. I've had players take both approaches. The former never ends well.

 

[Scylla]

Oh yeah. Frontal assault might—might—possibly fly for G2, but in G1 and particularly G3 it's pure suicide. If anything, the slow, tense burn of "how many giants can we covertly slay before the alert goes off?" can be a lot of fun in itself.

 

[MerricB]

Oh yeah. Frontal assault might—might—possibly fly for G2, but in G1 and particularly G3 it's pure suicide. If anything, the slow, tense burn of "how many giants can we covertly slay before the alert goes off?" can be a lot of fun in itself.

G1 isn't that hard an adventure, due to the distracted nature of the giants at the start. Launching a massed assault on the feasting hall, especially given the access of the party to fireball and related spells, will clear out the giants quickly. I've discovered just how easily giants go down in my current AD&D campaign. (I'm not complaining).

G3 is a lot trickier, because the giants aren't all in one place and are smarter than the Hill Giants.

Cheers!

 

[triqui]

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.

Why is a heavier story element undesirable?

 

[delericho]

Why is a heavier story element undesirable?

Well, as I said, Ravenloft itself is a very good example of that type of adventure.

However, when heavy story elements go wrong, they lead to nasty instances of railroading, where the PCs end up as spectators while the NPCs have the 'real' adventures (the "Marco Volo" adventures for 2nd Ed, or some of the "Transylvania Chronicles" for Vampire), or they have to follow the pre-written storyline from a tie-in novel series (Dragonlance).

Simply adding heavier story elements isn't necessarily a bad thing. Doing it badly, however, is. And, of course, the majority of adventures that do it, do it badly.

 

[Mattachine]

My players didn't play Ravenloft as a gothic horror story. Instead, they played as experienced hack'n slash, dungeoncrawlers. After one encounter with Strahd and realizing he was a vampire, they laid an elaborate trap for him, lured him to fight, killed him in one combat round, and then trapped his gaseous form, which they brought outside and waited for daytime.

After that, they systematically looted the castle.

It was very strange, indeed.