Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bullgrit" data-source="post: 4888690" data-attributes="member: 31216">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.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</blockquote>

Verification