Bullgrit
Adventurer
After seeing statement after statement referencing supposed differences between modern-era D&D adventures and classic-era D&D adventures, I felt the urge to actually look into a published adventure for evidence of this “New School” v. “Old School” divide. So I looked at some of the published adventures that I’ve purchased in recent years, and thought I should see if I can find examples of “New Schoolness.” I pulled out one adventure, (that I actually used in my D&D3 game), to look at in detail.
Note: I’m only looking at one adventure right now, as I just don’t have time to examine multiple examples at this moment. This adventure may be indicative of its era, or it may not.
Note: I’ve recently been chided for disclosing spoilers about an adventure module that was over 30 years old, so I’ll refrain from giving spoiler details from this adventure.
“New School” elements I found in this adventure:
On the first page, there’s about 7 column inches [3” wide columns] of introductory back story going back over a dozen centuries. At the back of the booklet, the a full page is devoted to the back story, going in more depth and detail.
Although the adventure locale exists basically because of the old, time-honored reason of “a wizard created it,” the premise for the party to explore the location is not open dungeon exploration. The party is sent, hired, to quest for multiple McGuffins. (At least it’s not a rod broken into seven parts
Explanation of the levels the adventure is designed for: the text gives direct warnings that lower level PCs are likely to be killed too easily; higher level PCs won’t find a proper challenge in the adventure. Warning about a good party balance. The encounters in the adventure are all designed to be appropriate challenges for the PCs. (There are no overwhelming encounters that should be avoided. In fact, few encounters *can* be avoided if the quest is to be completed – see below.)
And that brings us to the map of the adventure, itself. The “dungeon,” (if we want to call it that), is pretty linear in layout – it’s not a sprawling environment conducive for wandering and exploration. You can’t reach an encounter area without going through the preceding encounter, in linear order. I don’t like using the term “railroading” when discussing dungeon design, because I see “railroading” as the DM orchestrating outcomes regardless of PC action, but I know many people hold linear dungeon design as “railroading,” so to be fair I have to at least acknowledge if that is a complaint about the “New School” style that it exists in this dungeon.
Right from almost the first room, the “dungeon” branches into three paths. Each path consists of about half a dozen set-piece encounters ending in a boss-monster room with the McGuffin as the reward. Each branch has another, short, branch that deadends with one or two rooms. This is actually a nice touch to hide the linearness from the PCs, (who may not be mapping), but when you look at the DM’s map, you can almost see the near mathematical pattern: 3 linear paths, each with 6 set encounters plus 1 side encounter.
There are several environmental challenges, including environmental obstacles in some combat encounters. Other than a very slight chance of a “wandering” encounter, (with enemies not from the numbered rooms ), all challenges and encounters are completely isolated in their set placement. There is no defense movement of the enemies for reacting to the PC invasion. Every encounter is a distinct challenge, appropriate to the PCs’ level.
The text explains why the named boss opponents are in the adventure and guarding the McGuffin. Heck, even some of the non-boss enemies get names and explanations/motives: there’s a romantic couple, (a fighter and a sorceress), and a fallen knight, (known by at least one of the PCs). There’s also mention of how the non-humanoid monsters get care and food.
The final set-piece encounter for the whole adventure, (scheduled for only after the party has found the McGuffins), is dependent on how hard or easy the PCs have found the linear challenges. The text says, directly, that the final challenge can be omitted if the party had a hard time, or it can be scaled up if the party had an easy time with the other challenges.
I didn’t bother noting treasure, (monetary or magical), in this adventure because I’ve explored that aspect of “New School” v. “Old School” elsewhere on ENWorld and on my own web site.
And, to be fair, there were several “Old School” aspects in this adventure, but I’m not pointing them out this time, because I was only interested in seeing if “New School” elements actually existed in it. From how I understand the distinction, I think the above details are considered “New School.” Is this what everyone else understands, or have I misidentified anything?
Bullgrit
Note: I’m only looking at one adventure right now, as I just don’t have time to examine multiple examples at this moment. This adventure may be indicative of its era, or it may not.
Note: I’ve recently been chided for disclosing spoilers about an adventure module that was over 30 years old, so I’ll refrain from giving spoiler details from this adventure.
“New School” elements I found in this adventure:
On the first page, there’s about 7 column inches [3” wide columns] of introductory back story going back over a dozen centuries. At the back of the booklet, the a full page is devoted to the back story, going in more depth and detail.
Although the adventure locale exists basically because of the old, time-honored reason of “a wizard created it,” the premise for the party to explore the location is not open dungeon exploration. The party is sent, hired, to quest for multiple McGuffins. (At least it’s not a rod broken into seven parts
Explanation of the levels the adventure is designed for: the text gives direct warnings that lower level PCs are likely to be killed too easily; higher level PCs won’t find a proper challenge in the adventure. Warning about a good party balance. The encounters in the adventure are all designed to be appropriate challenges for the PCs. (There are no overwhelming encounters that should be avoided. In fact, few encounters *can* be avoided if the quest is to be completed – see below.)
And that brings us to the map of the adventure, itself. The “dungeon,” (if we want to call it that), is pretty linear in layout – it’s not a sprawling environment conducive for wandering and exploration. You can’t reach an encounter area without going through the preceding encounter, in linear order. I don’t like using the term “railroading” when discussing dungeon design, because I see “railroading” as the DM orchestrating outcomes regardless of PC action, but I know many people hold linear dungeon design as “railroading,” so to be fair I have to at least acknowledge if that is a complaint about the “New School” style that it exists in this dungeon.
Right from almost the first room, the “dungeon” branches into three paths. Each path consists of about half a dozen set-piece encounters ending in a boss-monster room with the McGuffin as the reward. Each branch has another, short, branch that deadends with one or two rooms. This is actually a nice touch to hide the linearness from the PCs, (who may not be mapping), but when you look at the DM’s map, you can almost see the near mathematical pattern: 3 linear paths, each with 6 set encounters plus 1 side encounter.
There are several environmental challenges, including environmental obstacles in some combat encounters. Other than a very slight chance of a “wandering” encounter, (with enemies not from the numbered rooms ), all challenges and encounters are completely isolated in their set placement. There is no defense movement of the enemies for reacting to the PC invasion. Every encounter is a distinct challenge, appropriate to the PCs’ level.
The text explains why the named boss opponents are in the adventure and guarding the McGuffin. Heck, even some of the non-boss enemies get names and explanations/motives: there’s a romantic couple, (a fighter and a sorceress), and a fallen knight, (known by at least one of the PCs). There’s also mention of how the non-humanoid monsters get care and food.
The final set-piece encounter for the whole adventure, (scheduled for only after the party has found the McGuffins), is dependent on how hard or easy the PCs have found the linear challenges. The text says, directly, that the final challenge can be omitted if the party had a hard time, or it can be scaled up if the party had an easy time with the other challenges.
I didn’t bother noting treasure, (monetary or magical), in this adventure because I’ve explored that aspect of “New School” v. “Old School” elsewhere on ENWorld and on my own web site.
And, to be fair, there were several “Old School” aspects in this adventure, but I’m not pointing them out this time, because I was only interested in seeing if “New School” elements actually existed in it. From how I understand the distinction, I think the above details are considered “New School.” Is this what everyone else understands, or have I misidentified anything?
Bullgrit
Last edited:
