Old "classic" adventures

[Oryan77]

I started playing D&D during 2nd ed. back in the mid 90's, so I'm not real familiar with 1e stuff. I'm now DM'ing in 3.5 edition. Last year I began buying old modules because people say they are great adventures. I've read through the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief because I plan to DM it. I have also skimmed through a few other modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits & others that came out around that time because I want to experience what it must have been like playing the original D&D modules.

My question is, are all of these old modules mainly hack-n-slash adventures? They don't really seem to give much info towards roleplaying. The Steading doesn't have a single NPC monologue or any information on what the Hill Giant Chief or other important NPC's might be like; so you don't get an idea on how to roleplay the character. The module also doesn't give any atmosphere descriptions to read to the players. It describes in good detail what furniture is in each room (which I like), but nothing that gives situation flavor.

I'm just curious if all of the old adventures are like this. I'm used to DM'ing 2e Planescape adventures, and they are heavy on the roleplaying details. So I thought that is what I was going to see in the old modules. I always assumed people love those old modules because of the roleplaying aspect of them; but now I'm wondering if they are just hack-n-slash modules that people like just because they were their first adventures. What exactly makes these "classics" so good to play in? How are they different from 2e & 3e adventures? I'm genuinely curious. Even though I feel that I will have to add a lot of flavor myself to spice up the atmosphere & NPC's; I can't wait to run the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief

 

[Crothian]

The game changed a lot between editions. Planscape and the second eidtions settings are overloaded with deatils and role playing things. First edition though was not like that. It was more hack and slash but the DM I think was assumed to do more

 

[Glyfair]

My question is, are all of these old modules mainly hack-n-slash adventures?

The paradigms changed over time. In the 1E days, yes a lot of play was hack-n-slash. However, a lot of roleplaying took play through these adventures, too (You can still occasionally here the early D&D veterans of some of these groups complain about today's products handing you everything and not letting you use your imagination.). It depended on the group. It just didn't hand you that experience in a nice tightly wrapped package.

Another thing to remember is that a lot of the early AD&D adventures were originally tournament modules (the Giant series included). This tends to mean they are more focused on the tournament experience (compare the G-series to the followup D-series).

Through the 2E period, story started taking over (to the other extreme, in fact). I know quite a number of people who ignored interesting campaign settings because of over attention to fluff instead of the actual gaming experience. Planescape had some examples of this. Apparently, a few of the rulebooks were almost entirely written in the "cant" created for the setting, making them useless as rulebooks for anyone who didn't want to study for this.

IMO, the 3E period has found a nice balance between the two (others will disagree, based on taste). Most adventures consider both the story/roleplaying aspects of the product, and the in-game aspects of the product. You can quibble whether a product weighs too heavily in one direction or the other, but there is almost always a balance to quibble about

 

[Qualidar]

but now I'm wondering if they are just hack-n-slash modules that people like just because they were their first adventures.

It is mostly that: nostalga for long summers of constant gaming and no responsabilities. ahhhh, the 80's....

Also, these old modules may be cliched, but they came first. There's a lot of power in that.

~Qualidar~

 

[Treebore]

The role play was the DM's responsibility. Gygax did not presume to know how you ran your campaign, so they designed adventures, the DM added in the other dimensions according to their style and campaign history. This is why some Grognards refer to things about newer incarnations of the game as "hand holding". Older material was bare bones, the DM was expected to be able to add the "meat".

 

[painandgreed]

Yes, they are mostly hack and slash dungeons. Some stood out as not having so much or having RP ways out of it (L series IIRC), but they still had dungeons. It is called Dungeons & Dragons and the game is about killing stuff and taking their stuff. RP was put in by the DM to fit the campaign that was being run and often fleshed out from adventure hooks offered to the DM. IMHO, this is much better than many of the other modules that came later. Give me a dungeon and some bad guys and I can drop it into my campaign pretty easy, give me something with lots of RP and backstory and chances are it would take more effort to shoehorn it into my campaign than just doing the entire thing from scratch.

 

[Mycanid]

Ahh ... one of my favorite types of questions. Glyfair and I seem to often be the first to comment on these sorts of questions too. Hmm. HIs assessment of 1st through 3rd ed. is pretty accurate, I'd say.

Anyway ... the very earliest were hack n' slash in the sense of the bare material presented to the reader, yes. And for the 1st generation gamers (often in their early teens and who had very few other reference points, if any) they just went along with the program for the most part - CHOP UP THAT FROST GIANT! etc., etc. By very earliest I would generally say those adventures from 1980 to 1982.

BUT, then came the U and UK series. (Some would add other ones, like B3 for example.) These were absolutely NOT just hack n' slash adventures - you had to think, and sometimes think HARD to get through them. For me these were a revelation in many ways, and they set the standard for me of what an adventure should be like. And, as often happens, this general standard has remained until this very day.

Of course there IS the element of nostalgia involved in this (who can forget those glorious, long summers of constant gaming in the 80's that qualidar spoke of eh?) , but there generally seem to be two primary (although not solely) "camps" of those who played these early 1e adventures. For some these adventures and the feel they conveyed as a whole remain THE standard for almost every rpg to this day. Others were not as ... err ... how shall I say? ... Absolutely and thoroughly loyal to all the aspects of their "first love" as expressed in this game setting. I'm not saying this is "bad" or "good" per se, but merely trying to deliniate between the two primary groups.

Very often the first group will frequently wonder why the feel of the game has changed and will pine for the "old days" and the like. There could be many reasons why this has taken place in each individual saying this. Sometimes it is simply "nostalgia" ... sometimes it runs deeper or is actually seeing differences and emphasis in products nowadays that they don't like.

The other group often wonders why the first group persists in such "whining". For them the main thing is often getting together and having a good time with friends regardless of the specific settings or how they change over time. These people are often (but not always) simply looking for different things in their gaming sessions.

As might be guessed, I belong to the first group. These, of course, are only very broad comparisons. I have known those who began rp'ing with 2e and who were devastated with the "changes" in 3e and on. (Personally I didn't like what they did with 2e either in the Realms or in Greyhawk or in the other "worlds" ... I'm an old Greyhawk fan and still remain so.)

Finally I would absolutely agree with Crothian's assessment of 1e - the DM was assumed to do a LOT more. And I also prefer this. I am the sort who likes rp'ing and character development first and foremost. I like detailed history and background, but I also like things to remain on a very "local" level. No rubbing elbows with the gods, in other words. No world famous heroes. I liked the "coming of age" approach of "nobody" becoming a "somebody" (in a very limited sense, of course) ... kinda generally like what the Hobbits do in the LotR trilogy.

For those of you who read the old Thieves' World books, I thought the first two or three very interesting, but when the gods came down I threw away the series in disgust. My tastes/standards for DnD are very similiar, and I feel a good argument could be made to the point that this was a big part of what made the 1e modules have the specific feel and flavor they carried. With other editions "super powered" pc's and interaction with the deities and outer plane creatures on an everyday level became more common, it seems.

In 1e when you found yourself in the Abyss confronting Lolth you were scared to death. Nowadays people might be trembling, but there is an aspect of familiarity with that line of stories ... I feel because of it's undue exploitation for story line material. As if the prime material plane did not have enough material for the DM to create something he has to bring in the outer planes, extradimensional travel and the rest?

Anyway, I'm ranting a bit now. Apologies to all. But perhaps the approach or the subject matter of my ranting may give you a perspective into some of the differences that were in the 1e modules as opposed to the general tendency of later products.