D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[delericho]

Speaker in Dreams and SUnless Citadel from 3e were both great adventures...

Speaker in Dreams is okay, especially for being a diversion away from the norm of 3e adventures to date (including SC and FoF, but also the early 3e Dungeon issues).

Sunless Citadel is another adventure that is pretty good, but that tends to be over-rated. As with Red Hand of Doom, it is extremely well presented, but suffers for giving the illusion of considerably more choice than is actually present. Melan explains it rather better in this (very old) thread.

But it is right enough that WotC have produced some very good adventures, and it's certainly more enjoyable to dwell on those than the poorer ones.

(Edit: Eric Mona's post in the linked thread is also definitely worth a read.)

 

[Klaus]

Red Hand of Doom seems hands down a much higher quality than everything else. Anyone have an idea of why it turned out so much better?

Rich Baker talks about the development of Red Hand of Doom here: http://richard-baker.blogspot.com.br/2015/06/twenty-eight-adventures-part-13-red.html

 

[Parmandur]

Most WotC adventures tend to fail by presenting a large dungeon and then just calling it a complete adventure. Which was fine back in early 1st Edition days, but doesn't fly now. Dungeons are nice, and it's rare to even see a Pathfinder module without a crawl somewhere, but they're not the be-all-end-all and there needs to be more than just a series of interconnected encounters with a veneer of a plot.

This blog really emphasises some of the problems with the first couple 4e adventures:
http://elevenfootpole.blogspot.ca/
These are pretty emblematic of the design problems that started with 4e and are still somewhat around now.
So Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labyrinth I guess. I'm pretty down on Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and the Dreams of Red Wizards for having no idea how an ending works. And both GoDSC and the Tyranny of Dragons adventures fail from a basic plotting, in that they're focused around the bad guys gathering parts of a magic item, so to "win" the PCs just need to get one and hide it real well.

I also haven't heard great things about the "adventure path" series of modules that launched 3e. I hear the first two were good and after that they got so-so. I know Expedition to Castle Ravenloft was well received (I have problems with it though) and Red Hand of Doom was beloved. Other than that, I can't think of many adventures off the top of my head. Most of the 3e/4e adventures were fairly forgettable.

--edit--

And then I found this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Adventures-and-Locations-(Winners-Announced)

36 adventures, with 7 or 8 receiving better than mixed results. That's a 22% success rating.

OK, 22%: as a basis of comparison, how would TSR during their golden years rate? I have heard the legends of the Foreat Oracle, so there were some misses there...

 

[delericho]

OK, 22%: as a basis of comparison, how would TSR during their golden years rate? I have heard the legends of the Foreat Oracle, so there were some misses there...

Well, the Golden Age came to an end with the publication of "I6: Ravenloft" in 1983, and "N2: The Forest Oracle" was published in 1984, so...



More seriously: TSR published a lot of bad adventures too, and some of what are now considered classic simply wouldn't pass muster today. That's the inevitable problem with a comparison against a "Golden Age" - you're not actually comparing like for like, but rather the average of today versus the cream of yesterday's crop.

 

[Jester David]

Rich Baker talks about the development of Red Hand of Doom here: http://richard-baker.blogspot.com.br/2015/06/twenty-eight-adventures-part-13-red.html

Interesting.
I've found Rich Baker's adventure hit to miss ratio unfavourable but I always held up Red Hand of Doom as proof he had good adventures in him. Now I find out it was mostly James Jacobs...

 

[Parmandur]

So, I just crunched some numbers casually. As of "Out of the Abyss," 5E will have equaled the published adventure content from Wizards for 3E up through about the first year of Eberron, give or take (by page count). With another AP or two, they will have outdone all of 3E in terms of official adventure content.

Quantity ain't quality, but it does suggest how major a shift their current model really is...

 

[Morrus]

Is the writing, and nothing else, what everyone here is talking about? Because this thread seems to be discussing "quality" overall, which I presume is an aggregate for everything about the materials in question.

Well that answers the first half of my question. You're not just talking about writing.

So the second half was - do you feel the editing, layout, and art are notably superior to Paizo's work?

 

[Alzrius]

Well that answers the first half of my question. You're not just talking about writing.

So the second half was - do you feel the editing, layout, and art are notably superior to Paizo's work?

Er, your question didn't have a "first half" of anything. You stated as a declarative that the writing was what was under discussion, you didn't ask "if" that was the case.

You did ask if I thought that the other aspects of production were "superior," but that's still operating from a premise that I don't agree with - people are talking about quality overall, which is an aggregate of all of those things; the layout, writing, editing, artwork, etc.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, the Golden Age came to an end with the publication of "I6: Ravenloft" in 1983, and "N2: The Forest Oracle" was published in 1984, so...







More seriously: TSR published a lot of bad adventures too, and some of what are now considered classic simply wouldn't pass muster today. That's the inevitable problem with a comparison against a "Golden Age" - you're not actually comparing like for like, but rather the average of today versus the cream of yesterday's crop.

Heh, all happened before I was born. :-o

That's why I'm curious about overall: what percentage of TSR modules were even well thought of at the time?

 

[Morrus]

Er, your question didn't have a "first half" of anything. You stated as a declarative that the writing was what was under discussion, you didn't ask "if" that was the case.

You did ask if I thought that the other aspects of production were "superior," but that's still operating from a premise that I don't agree with - people are talking about quality overall, which is an aggregate of all of those things; the layout, writing, editing, artwork, etc.

I give up. I was just trying to ask a cordial question to understand your position, but you seem to have gotten your back up about something. If I offended you accidentally I apologise. And I'm still no wiser. Don't worry about it. My interest isn't strong enough to fight about it - your opinion will remain forever secret!

I'm off to Italy now! Via airports....