Identifying "old school" adventure modules

[grodog]

Bullgrit: to some degree, I think you may be seeing a generation gap among the grognards with the c. 1981 cut off date. Many old-school folks began to play D&D with the release of the Moldvay Basic/Cook Expert sets with the Erol Otus inter-linked covers (1981) for example; others, however, began quite a bit earlier, perhaps before modules were being published at all. So, all of these folks share the common grognard experience of playing the classic modules, but there will be some skew toward those earlier modules in part because they're the ones that were first available (as monochrome covers in the late '70s), and also because those exact same modules were reprinted by TSR in new color-cover collected editions starting in 1981, to draw in the newer players.

A second point to consider hiding in behind your stats is module length, I think. Here are some stats on TSR's module page lengths through 1983, listing modules by page count then within a single count, alphabetically:

1978
- G1: 8 pages
- G2: 8 pages
- S1: 12 pages (20 more in illustration booklet; 1981 green version same page counts)
- G3: 16 pages
- D1: 16 pages
- D2: 20 pages
- D3: 32 pages

1979
- S2: 12 pages
- T1: 24 pages (16 pages of module, 8 pages of maps; 1981 light green = same)
- B1: 32 pages

1980
- C2 red: 20 pages
- A1: 24 pages
- B2: 28 pages
- X1 blue: 30 pages
- C1: 32 pages, 8 more page illos booklet
- Q1: 32 pages
- S3: 32 pages with 36 page illos booklet

1981
- S1 green: 12 pages (20 more for illustration booklet)
- S2 orange: 16 pages
- T1 light green: 24 pages
- A3: 28 pages
- A4: 28 pages
- D1-2 blue: 28 pages
- D3 blue: 28 pages
- I1: 28 pages
- L1: 28 pages
- X2: 28 pages
- B1 brown: 32 pages
- B3 orange and green: 32 pages
- G1-3 green: 32 pages
- U1: 32 pages
- A2: 40 pages

1982
- B4: 28 pages
- N1: 28 pages
- C1 brown: 32 pages, 8 page illos booklet
- I2: 32 pages
- I3: 32 pages
- U2: 32 pages
- S4: 32 pages (2 booklets, each 32 pages; adventure is only in booklet 1 though)
- WG4: 32 pages
- X3: 32 pages

1983
- O1: 16 pages (2 booklets, each 16 pages)
- B5: 32 pages
- EX1: 32 pages
- EX2: 32 pages
- I4: 32 pages
- I5: 32 pages
- I6: 32 pages
- L2: 32 pages
- M1: 32 pages
- M2: 32 pages
- UK1: 32 pages
- UK2: 32 pages
- X1 red: 32 pages
- X4: 32 pages
- X5: 32 pages
- U3: 48 pages

These then average out to:

1978: 16 pages
1979: 16.8 pages
1980: 26.86 pages
1981: 27.73 pages
1982: 31.11 pages
1983: 32 pages

So, you're looking at an age demographic that strongly prefers smaller modules, I think, too. I think that preference is part of why T1 fares better than L1, for example. (And, FWIW, the era of the 8, 12, 16, and 20 page module really only lasted for two years of TSR's production---1978 and 1979---and even then, longer modules balanced out the shorter ones to bump the average count to 16 pages).

 

[Orius]

First, this list is not exhaustive; I merely intended it to be representative. Second, Keep on the Borderlands is not AD&D1, it is BD&D. Third, the U series is represented with Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh.

Bullgrit

B2 may very well be Basic, but so many people have used it that it's often viewed with a great deal of nostalgia. Besides, I was only one of several people who mentioned it.

And I should have said D series, not U series. This is what I get trying to act grognardy. I goofed up and thought "U for Underdark!"

 

[Ariosto]

My impression is that Tracy Hickman was very conscious of doing something new, of bringing in a radically different concept of the game. So, I consider his work the vanguard of a "new school".

 

[Bullgrit]

Grodog, thank you very much for bringing some greatly interesting data/info into this discussion. I knew some of the oldest modules were very short, but how the general length increases over time is something I hadn't considered. Bravo for thinking of it and bringing it in here.

My impression is that Tracy Hickman was very conscious of doing something new, of bringing in a radically different concept of the game. So, I consider his work the vanguard of a "new school".

I presume you're talking about Dragons of Despair and the overall Dragonlance series.

The Dragonlance series was, indeed, something of a paradigm shift in modules/series design, but I don't think it was a permanent shift such that it could be called "new school". The DL series was designed for the players to play the main characters from the DL book series, and the DM was told/encouraged/advised to keep the PCs alive throughout the series. Did this concept get followed with any other series?

Many "old school" modules expect/assume the PCs (at least some of the PCs) to survive and continue on to the next in the series -- the GDQ series, the A series, etc. But the DL series was the first (and only?) one to actually have the DM "cheat" to make it happen.

I think the DL series was a one-time odd experimentation, not the start of a new school of play. Are there any other module series after it, even today, where the DM is told (explicitly or implicitly) to take an active hand in making the PCs survive through to the end?

I mean, there were several solo modules produced during AD&D1, but I don't think anyone is going to suggest that it was a new school concept. Same with the DL series. It was a new port on the route, but not a new course for the journey.

Bullgrit

 

[Ariosto]

Desert of Desolation, Ravenloft, Dragonlance ... Hickman led the way. Then there were the RPGA scenarios "telling stories", and then the 2e Greyhawk stuff, and FR Time of Troubles, and so on.

 

[Bullgrit]

Desert of Desolation, Ravenloft

You're suggesting that these two -- one is a three-part series, the other a single module (until years later) -- are in the same style as the DL series? Just because they have the same author does not make them the same style -- Gygax was the author for both ToH and GD, but they were not the same style.

Then there were the RPGA scenarios "telling stories", and then the 2e Greyhawk stuff, and FR Time of Troubles, and so on.

I don't know anything about the RPGA modules (completely separate animals from the material published for general campaign play), the AD&D2 Greyhawk modules (a whole new edition that came ~5+ years later), or the FR modules, but you're saying they were all railroad plots instructing the DM to keep the PCs alive to go through a series? Someone with knowledge of these things will have to discuss these with you.

There is a big difference between assuming/expecting the PCs to survive through the adventure series/path (like GDQ, A series, U series, etc.) and instructing the DM to make it happen so they can play the plot of a published book (like the DL series).

Bullgrit

 

[Henry]

I didn't call Pharaoh and Dragons of Despair "Old School" because those and similar modules tended to tie into a larger overarching plot line; a lot of the late 70's stuff to early 80's were fairly self-contained plots, and didn't go "high fantasy" per se - nor were they very investigative, so that lets Saltmarsh out for me. Self-contained, Players were considered before characters, "low fantasy" (like Conan and Fafhrd, more than Zelazny, Vance, or Tolkien) those were the core conceits that separate "old school" from "not old-school" for me. I've seen plenty of Necromancer and XRP stuff that are "Old school", and some older modules from the 80's that aren't "old school."

 

[Bullgrit]

I didn't call Pharaoh and Dragons of Despair "Old School" because those and similar modules tended to tie into a larger overarching plot line

GDQ had an overarching plot line. And it was expected that the PCs would follow the plot line. Same for the Slavelord series. And both the GDQ and A series have been chosen as "old school".

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

GDQ had an overarching plot line. And it was expected that the PCs would follow the plot line. Same for the Slavelord series. And both the GDQ and A series have been chosen as "old school".

Bullgrit

The individual G, D, and Q modules had very sparse and easily ignored plotlines. D2, in particular, had virtually none. It was pretty much just a place to explore on the way to D3.

The A series hung together a little more, but not to the same extent as I3-5. The tie between A3 and A4 is the tightest because A4 doesn't really have a start independent of previous events, but the overarching plotline in I3-5 is a bit more of a driving force.

As plots strengthened, I believe modules transitioned from old school toward new school.

 

[Bullgrit]

Here might be an interesting thought experiment:

Say one of your gamer buddies said, "Hey, next game session, I'm gonna run an old school adventure."

Then he pulls out Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh or Pharoah. Would you say to him or think to yourself, "You're wrong. That's not old school."

Edit: I should probably stengthen this:

Say your group has agreed to only play old school adventures without specifically identifying any adventures. Then your DM starts up Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh or Pharoah. Would this be a break in the agreed game play?

Bullgrit