Is The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh a well-designed adventure module?

[Quasqueton]

Is the classic AD&D1 adventure module The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh a well-designed adventure module? (Although Saltmarsh it is the first part of a three-part adventure series, this poll is only concerned with this one adventure module. The others will be discussed separately.)

I’m not asking if you like it or had fun with it. I’m not asking if it is a great piece of D&D history. Just, is it well designed as a published adventure for general D&D play?

If it is, what could current module designers/authors learn from it? What should current module designers/authors try to emulate about it?

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

Why did you select this module? I thought it was designed very well.

 

[diaglo]

yes.

 

[Mark Hope]

Yeah, totally. This is a real classic. It is basically site-based, but with some cool event-based developments. It also combines mystery and investigation with a player-driven finale that is quite open in its possible approaches and resolution. Plus there's the whole Scooby Doo angle to the adventure as well that makes it nice and memorable. All of these elements are worth emulation in modern adventures. There's very little wrong with this one, if you ask me. Good for general play as well as a one-off, due to its immediate accessibility and the cool intro hooks.

 

[painandgreed]

Except for Ned, yes.

IIRC. Does he really get paid to sit there tied up all day and night, for the hopes of gaining entrance into a party? Wouldn't it be better just for him to keep watch and alert everybody? Plus, it's a little obvious and dependant upon the good will of the party that finds him. Most I played with never even untied him and some dispatched him right then and there. Why would he turn on the party? by time he's in a good postion to do so, it's pretty obvious that the party will most likely win. He could easily help them, get part of the treasure, and even take over the smuggleing operation after they leave.

 

[Storm Raven]

Except for Ned, yes.

IIRC. Does he really get paid to sit there tied up all day and night, for the hopes of gaining entrance into a party? Wouldn't it be better just for him to keep watch and alert everybody? Plus, it's a little obvious and dependant upon the good will of the party that finds him. Most I played with never even untied him and some dispatched him right then and there. Why would he turn on the party? by time he's in a good postion to do so, it's pretty obvious that the party will most likely win. He could easily help them, get part of the treasure, and even take over the smuggleing operation after they leave.

Actually, all of your problems with this element are solved by the text of the module. To wit:

He's not paid to sit there tied up all day and night, he was a hastily implemented plan put into place by a panicky contact of the smugglers who didn't think he had any other options - placed there shortly before the adventurers arrive in the mansion. Most good-aligned parties, in my experience, will free Ned out of goodwill to rescue a victim of nefarious deeds, and if they don't, remember that the plan isn't supposed to have been thought out very well. Generally, when Ned betrays the party, the smuggler's should likely be at or close to their fullest strength, making a stab in the back fairly effective. I played this module as a 3.5e version, and Ned was huge, he incapacitated two characters with sneak attacks before they took him down.

 

[Mycanid]

In my opinion, this is one of the best of the modules created by TSR (perhaps the series may even be THE best). For me these modules set the standard for "how to make a module" to the present day....

Did I mention that I voted yes?

 

[Joshua Randall]

Not only do I think it is a well-designed module, I think it is the definitive 1e low-level module. It has a blend of investigation, combat, and puzzle solving (plus roleplaying if the PCs want to get involved with the town council et al.). It features loads of iconic D&Dism -- haunted house (but not really), traps, green slime, vermin hiding in the broken furniture, stirges, minor undead, evil humanoids, and enemies led by a spellcaster.

I agree with others that Ned is the one flaw in an otherwise nearly perfect module. I don't object to his presence (as that is indeed covered in the module), but I object to the fact that he punishes the players for their good deed of freeing him with a (probably) lethal backstab attack. Now, 1e was a different time, when player-vs-DM was more prevalent and backed into the culture, but I didn't like it then and I abhor it now.

Yes, the players need to learn that you can't trust everyone, but they probably don't need to learn it so early and in such a harsh fashion.

P.S. Here's a link to Quasqueton's other thread about U1.

 

[Crothian]

Okay, I want to hear why people voted no.

 

[painandgreed]

Actually, all of your problems with this element are solved by the text of the module. To wit:

Ah, thanks. I remember correctly now. Still, I don't think it ever worked. The parties I've played with ever since high school, even (especially) when good aligned, have such trust issues against such tactics that we have to metagame new PCs or we'll waste an hour or two role playing till the party will even allow the new member in. It's a running joke of parties saying "my, you look like a trustworthy fellow" to some guy at the tavern and allowing them in the party.