Is The Temple of Elemental Evil a well-designed adventure module?

[Quasqueton]

Quasqueton: TSR released T1 as a "module". Although we usually associate this term with "adventure", it was in fact understood to be a wider concept - a module could be any modular part you coud insert into your game, including, concievably, a village.

But “Dungeon Module T1” [bold mine] got higher placement on the cover than “The Village of Hommlet”. This suggests it was meant first as a dungeon, than as a setting. But the contents have more setting than dungeon.

I base my statements about T1's quality not on the type of product T1 is supposed to be

Just so I’m clear, I’m not questioning your (or anyone’s) statements/opinions on the quality of the module. I voted “Other”.

[ToEE and KotB are my top two favorite modules of all D&D, but I would say they both are only “decently designed”, for their time, not “well designed” or “poorly designed”. They could both be improved tremendously with just better formatting and lay out of the text, rather than the near stream-of-consciousness style EGG wrote modules in.]

However, most of its content isn't well suited to the type of adventuring AD&D is designed for.

Well, this is sort of my point. Much of its content (the village itself) isn’t directed at adventuring at all. It seems to be more a small setting for adventure. The village seems to be the main point of the module, with the moathouse as “something to do” in the area.

However, in KotB, it seems that the Caves of Chaos are the main point of the module, with the Keep included as a starting point and home base for the adventurers.

I wonder if modules (modular inserts for a campaign) of just villages and towns would have been well received without a dungeon/adventure attached to it?

Quasqueton

 

[Vigilance]

Well, no Vigilence. The difference is SWBaxter is not confusing his personal tastes with any sort of design excellence. I like/don't like it in no way actually defines something as good or not. It only defines it as good or not FOR YOU.

Which I have said several times above. But in my arguments for the modules objective quality, all I have been saying is you take the sum of opinions of people who have ran through the module.

I have met literally hundreds of gamers who have enjoyed it, and the poll above seems to indicate that respondents to this poll also enjoy it by a wide margin.

All I have been saying is that under the weight of all those subjective opinions, who ALL HAD FUN and enjoyed playing the module, you have to, at some point, concede it does something right, do you not?

 

[Twowolves]

They don't (give me two minutes, and they do); on the other hand, most of them have interesting hooks or serve a useful purpose in the adventure, while Joe Bumpkin in Hommlet doesn't.

I just don't see where you get this. Two of the NPCs in Hommlet are spys for the Temple, with an item that get you access to the deepest part of the dungeon. One of the "Joe Bumpkin" types is a ranger, semi-spying on strangers in town, willing to join in on adventures in town. Another pair of NPCs are mid-level "retired" adventurers, building a keep on land granted for their aid in the Battle of Emridy Meadows for the express purpose of keeping an eye on the region, in case evil arises again. The inn itself has no less than 4 NPCs willing to join the party. There is another spy in the laborer's camp. There is religious tension between the druid of the old faith and the new temple of St Cuthbert. In Nulb, there are more agents for both the good guys and the bad guys. How can you possibly say that there are no hooks or that these NPCs serve no useful purpose in the adventure??

I will admit, the adventure wasn't "well designed", because it took several read throughs and actually running it to fully come to grips with all the factions, the backstory, and how it all meshes together. There were no flow charts or preplanned adventure summaries. It, like many old EGG adventures, were a snapshot of a moment in time. Enter the PCs, and everything changes. Old NPCs in the inn joined the party or moved on, and I made new ones to fill their shoes. The agents of the temple followed the party back to town after one raid on the earth temple, and brought zombies and earth elementals with them, destroying the inn and a handfull of other structures. The pirate tavern in Nulb was burned to the ground. Assassins infiltrated the Welcome Wench and began slaying the party. Once the players moved in, the wheels began turning again, the snapshot came to life, and the players' actions dictated which NPCs became important and which had their stories never told. It took nearly a year of both real time and game time to run this whole module, and it was well worth it.

Well designed? Not really. A good module? One of the best. Worth it? Absolutely!

 

[Hussar]

Melan, a question. (I'm really not trying bait or anything, I just want to know)

Do you feel that simulationist design is bad?

The reason I ask is that I see this as the primary difference between Keep and Homlet. Keep is pretty much gamist in approach. There's enough there to keep the game moving along, but, that's about it. Not that you can't add more, I'm not saying that, but, from the point of view of making the Keep a simulation of a working borderland keep, it's not too close.

OTOH, Homlet is a pretty decent cross section of a town. It works. It might not be exact, but, it's not a bad kick at the kitty either. Most of the people you would find in a town of that period are there. From a simulationist approach, Homlet is a pretty decent design. However, as you say, from a gamist approach, where the purpose of the town is to move the adventure along and anything extra isn't necessary, it's a failure.

I guess my point is, when asked is something well designed, you really do need to ask, "Designed to do what?" A Ferrari is a bloody great design for a car, but a poor design for a boat.

 

[Melan]

Hussar: I am a strong gamist (cca. 60% G, 30% S, 10% N, probably), but I appreciate simulationism if it is the right kind. Genre emulation is pretty good (although I don't want full genre emulation myself). However, simulating a mostly peaceful, boring little village isn't the kind of simulation I'd like... or which would work well for a D&D type game. IMHO, of course.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I just don't see where you get this. Two of the NPCs in Hommlet are spys for the Temple, with an item that get you access to the deepest part of the dungeon. One of the "Joe Bumpkin" types is a ranger, semi-spying on strangers in town, willing to join in on adventures in town. Another pair of NPCs are mid-level "retired" adventurers, building a keep on land granted for their aid in the Battle of Emridy Meadows for the express purpose of keeping an eye on the region, in case evil arises again. The inn itself has no less than 4 NPCs willing to join the party. There is another spy in the laborer's camp. There is religious tension between the druid of the old faith and the new temple of St Cuthbert. In Nulb, there are more agents for both the good guys and the bad guys. How can you possibly say that there are no hooks or that these NPCs serve no useful purpose in the adventure??

That is a fantastic summation and analysis of the possibilities in the village of Hommlet.

I will admit, the adventure wasn't "well designed", because it took several read throughs and actually running it to fully come to grips with all the factions, the backstory, and how it all meshes together. There were no flow charts or preplanned adventure summaries. It, like many old EGG adventures, were a snapshot of a moment in time. Enter the PCs, and everything changes. Old NPCs in the inn joined the party or moved on, and I made new ones to fill their shoes. The agents of the temple followed the party back to town after one raid on the earth temple, and brought zombies and earth elementals with them, destroying the inn and a handfull of other structures. The pirate tavern in Nulb was burned to the ground. Assassins infiltrated the Welcome Wench and began slaying the party. Once the players moved in, the wheels began turning again, the snapshot came to life, and the players' actions dictated which NPCs became important and which had their stories never told. It took nearly a year of both real time and game time to run this whole module, and it was well worth it.

Well designed? Not really. A good module? One of the best. Worth it? Absolutely!

The village of Hommlet itself is, I would submit, well designed. That "snapshot" type of design is a good example of non-linear adventure construction. The players need to figure out all the ins and outs of the village and how it all ties together. The rest of T1-4 is not that well put-together, in my opinion. Nulb isn't fleshed out enough, for one thing. Where Hommlet is actually pretty intricate and subtle, Nulb is barely detailed at all, relatively speaking. Hommlet makes for a good home base, while Nulb would have been a good opportunity for the creation of an "evil crossroads" type of village, which is not all that common for D&D.

 

[turbo]

The hard question really is: what criteria? Not so much because of the subjectivity question, which applies to any judgement, but because of the chronology problem.

Gygax had just invented the thing! It seems only fair to assess it with this in mind. On these terms, yeah, the parts with the most detail and the most intriguing relationships--Hommlet and the upper dungeons--come off best. Gygax always seemed to lose his way in the depths, which isn't surprising, because it's harder to write something so alien as demonic temples than, say, villages, bandit camps, and tribes of savages.

Even in its moment, it changed tone perhaps too abruptly; it suddenly becomes not at all about negotiating with a dynamic environment and entirely concerned with wiping out a static one. Still pretty good on the whole, though.

But when do we stop making allowances for early days? That's what all this brings to mind for me.

When did the early days end?

 

[SWBaxter]

Right, because we're not talking right now.

Your definition of discussion must involve me recognizing your brilliance.

Well, the "discussion" right now is you saying "I had fun, so it's great". I don't share that experience, but that doesn't matter to you because all that counts is you had fun. And as a result of your criteria, there's no room for discussion about whether or not it's well-designed. So to have you now observe there's not a lot of discussion going on, the only response is "well, duh, you don't want any."

My definition of discussion involves people saying things like "I think Hommlet is pretty well designed as a starting village for 1st level characters" or "I like the way the factions in the temple are laid out so a party can exploit friction between them". Then if somebody disagrees with those points they can say why. Compare and contrast this sort of approach with your own, where if some poor schmuck didn't have as much fun as you you simply blow them off.

Call me crazy, but I think your version of "discussion" comes a lot closer to requiring people recognize your brilliance than mine.

 

[Arnwyn]

But when do we stop making allowances for early days? That's what all this brings to mind for me.

When did the early days end?

A very good question. I know for me, I'm not making any allowances for the "early days" when I vote and comment in these threads. In fact, it is entirely possible that all the early modules were 'poorly designed' simply because it was the early days. (Not that my voting habits have matched this possibility.)

But that's just me - others will have different criteria.

 

[Vigilance]

Well, the "discussion" right now is you saying "I had fun, so it's great". I don't share that experience, but that doesn't matter to you because all that counts is you had fun. And as a result of your criteria, there's no room for discussion about whether or not it's well-designed. So to have you now observe there's not a lot of discussion going on, the only response is "well, duh, you don't want any."

My definition of discussion involves people saying things like "I think Hommlet is pretty well designed as a starting village for 1st level characters" or "I like the way the factions in the temple are laid out so a party can exploit friction between them". Then if somebody disagrees with those points they can say why. Compare and contrast this sort of approach with your own, where if some poor schmuck didn't have as much fun as you you simply blow them off.

Call me crazy, but I think your version of "discussion" comes a lot closer to requiring people recognize your brilliance than mine.

I'll say this again, slowly, since you seem to have continued to miss my point.

I am not saying "I had fun so it was great".

I have, in every post I have made, referenced the HUNDREDS of gamers I have personally met who enjoyed the module.

At some point, when the vast majority of people you meet like something (including the results of this very poll) you have to acknowledge that it has intrinsic value. Maybe not to you or me, but obviously to many folks.

My other point (and you haven't taken the time to address either one) is that ALL CRITERIA for judging a module is subjective.

You might say "Homlet is a great base for 1st level characters" and I might say "but my party was 5th level, evil, stayed in Nulb and skipped straight to the dungeon proper".

There's too many variables for a cold analytical discussion. I think what happens in module discussions is that people form a very personal, subjective take on the module based on their experiences and those of their close associates and then try to frame the discussion in a way that makes them look objective, rational and knowledgable about adventure design.

In my opinion.