Schooling Classic and Modern Adventures

[Bullgrit]

Let's try a definition exercise.

Pick a favorite adventure, (or five), from any era/edition of the game and identify its characteristics without any reference or use of the terms "Old School" or "New School".

Is the adventure a dungeon crawl? Is it a story book? Is it open exploration? Is it a railroad? Is it a sandbox? Is it a mission? Does it want the DM to be a hardass? Does it encourage the DM to be a softie? Is it a menagerie of monsters with no ecological sense? Is it a meatgrinder? Is it a deathtrap? Is it a collaborative storytelling vehicle? Is it a setting for amateur theater?

Describe the adventure in any way, in as much detail or generality as you can, but not with "Old School" or "New School".

Also, does it closely resemble another adventure from a different era/edition of the game.

Do the same for an adventure you dislike. Describe it without "Old School" or "New School", and explain how it matches another adventure (you probably also dislike) from a different era/edition of the game.

** Any mention of "Old School" or "New School" (after this opening post explaining the rules for this discussion) would be threadcrapping and trolling. Please join this thread in the spirit it is presented. **

Bullgrit

 

[Diamond Cross]

Okay, I'll try.

Caves.
Magic circles.
Death trap.
Lost treasure.
The inner sphere.

I hope I did it right.

 

[the Jester]

EDIT: Okay, if we're ID'ing these, this is the Gates of Firestorm Peak.

This adventure is set in a dungeon that becomes weirder the 'deeper' one goes, eventually being quite weird indeed. There are consequences to the pcs taking too long, though they may not clue into this if they overlook the obvious. There are monsters and/or npcs with individual personalities strongly presented; there are unusual twists on old monsters. There are gruesome, Cthulu-esque elements and horrible ways for the pcs to die quickly (including parasitic infestation and traps with water).

It is also explicitly written to use certain splatbook elements from a then-just-released splatbook.

I wouldn't say that I am familiar with another adventure quite like it. Dungeonland and Land Beyond the Magic Mirror both have a lot of weird environments IIRC; the closest thing to the weird monster elements that I can think of is Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. There might be a better fit in the Planescape stuff, but I'm not very familiar with it.

(Are we supposed to name our module?)

[sblock]Is it fair to say "old school" if the adventure is set in the ruins of an old school? [/sblock]

 

[Vespucci]

** Any mention of "Old School" or "New School" (after this opening post explaining the rules for this discussion) would be threadcrapping and trolling. Please join this thread in the spirit it is presented. **

I know you want people to stop calling you New School. I also know that you wish the Old School had never happened. But objective reality doesn't bow to our wishes in that way.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

In before the flood and the (unavoidable ?) trench war.

U1 - The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, AD&D 1e
One of my favorites sports three different sites and sections, with the transfer points being set by the knowledge the PCs gain.

The information can be gained by the PCs exploring each site without ever leaving the adventure area. Background and context are explained in a way that the DM can easily react to the PCs leaving the premises and searching for information outside of the adventure, though this hasn't happen in the six times I've run it.

The first section focuses on exploration, giving the PCs free reign to proceed as they wish. It takes place in an unoccupied house.

The second action brings some more exploration as well as fights against some enemies, who are spread over the whole section, have their own schedule, and will react meaningful to the incursion. It tends to lead to a longer, drawn out fight over multiple rooms, where the PCs don't know the battleground, have to react quickly, and make tactical decisions with limited knowledge. It takes place in a small dungeon.

The third section features a commands-style intrusion in a very special setting. It's sort of exploration-like but feels very unusual and intense due to the area intruded upon. This section may play out completely different depending on the approach the players use. Clever roleplaying may be used to completely avoid any fight in this section. There's a certain danger that the players call in their Big Brothers to solve the situation. Either the DM prepares his background in a way that the BBs can and will decline to help or this section won't take place in any meaningful way.

 

[Bullgrit]

Why is no one identifying the adventure their talking about?

And Vespucci is just trolling me.

Some of my favorites:
Keep on the Borderland -- it falls into the sandbox style, and dungeon crawl style. Though it is a menagerie of monsters, the text does give some "ecological sense" to the place -- the different humanoids are segregated into their own cave lairs.

Temple of Elemental Evil -- it's an open mega dungeon crawl. It has a back story, which for me adds to the immersion fun; there is a story, but it is the setting for the PCs to create their story. It seems to fall right in the median between meatgrinder and cakewalk -- the DM is neither encouraged to be killer or softie.

Against the Giants -- it's a mission adventure, with a story, but it's no railroad. The overall dungeon setting has rhyme and reason, and explanations for the various creatures there in. It's open for how the PCs want to take it on: frontal assault or stealthy sneaking.

Forge of Fury -- it's a dungeon crawl, with a story, but again, not a railroad. The overall dungeon setting has rhyme and reason, and explanations for the various creatures there in.

Sunless Citadel -- see FoF above.

Worlds Largest Dungeon -- It's an open mega dungeon crawl turned up to 21!

None of the above encourage DMs to be particularly hard or soft on the PCs. They support the idea of DM as referee. They are not just gamist, because they all (except KotB) have backstory, current plot, and allow the written story to merge with the PCs' game play story.

Bullgrit

 

[Guest 85555]

I think most adventures are really a mix of different approaches. But I will give it a shot. Most of my modules growing up were Ravenloft so sticking with those:

Feast of Goblyns
Living adventure plus some sandbox. I can't remember if this is what they called it themselves, or if I just added it later on. But the whole idea is the NPCs are stuck to one spot, they move and act on their own, responding realistically to what the PCs do.

The sandbox isn't from the adventure itself, but the fact that the module feels like a setting. You can ignore the actual adventure, but use the domain, the two fleshed out cities, the Kartakan Inn (one of the greatest locations in Ravenloft), etc. Just drop the PCs in the Domain of Kartakass and use Feast of Goblyns as a reference guide (which I've done plenty).

The Created
Railroad and storyteller. This module had a few places where things could go one of two ways, but pretty much the was a track people were expected to follow. On the whole it is actually a fun module, but there are way too many instances where the GM is instructed to get the players on track by using NPCs. There is even an NPC the GM is instructed not to kill, even if the PCs reduce him below 0 HP. The storyteller aspect comes in with the drama. The final scene, is essentially taken out of the players hands once it starts. Set inside a theatre, when the players confront the villain, the ghosts of the people he killed rise up, board the doors and burn the place down (shouting "burn him, burn him"). I had to tweak this module a lot and remove those kinds of elements to use it myself.

 

[Umbran]

Vespucci - please address the content of the post, not the person who wrote it. Ad hominem arguments are weak rhetoric, generally rude, and apt to become personally insulting, and that last will get you in trouble. So please stop.


Bullgrit - Please take note that while you may respectfully ask people to stay on a particular topic, you cannot unilaterally dictate what is allowed in a thread.

 

[Bullgrit]

Then I request that the thread just be closed. If a thread-starter can't set the boundaries for discussion to specifically avoid an edition war, then let's not bother. Edition wars are no fun and not interesting.

I know you want people to stop calling you New School. I also know that you wish the Old School had never happened. But objective reality doesn't bow to our wishes in that way.

No one has ever called me "New School". Ever. (Not even you.) No one on this forum, and no one in person. And I love my "Old School" style of gaming, so I hardly wish it never happened. I was active in the "Old School" days, and still play in my "Old School" ways.

Bullgrit

 

[Guest 85555]

Then I request that the thread just be closed. If a thread-starter can't set the boundaries for discussion to specifically avoid an edition war, then let's not bother. Edition wars are no fun and not interesting.

No one has ever called me "New School". Ever. (Not even you.) No one on this forum, and no one in person. And I love my "Old School" style of gaming, so I hardly wish it never happened. I was active in the "Old School" days, and still play in my "Old School" ways.

Bullgrit

Bullgrit for what is worth, I think you should try to continue with this topic (which I am quite interested in), and just ignore any posters or posts that you consider flamey. Threads can go in all kinds of unusual directions, often not what the OP intended, and this can be lots of fun. It is when they flame out that things get dull.

Vespucci, for what it is worth, I found many of your ideas on the other thread very interesting. I think if you adhere to Umbran's suggestion we can have a fruitful thread that doesn't flame out.