D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Alzrius]

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. 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!

Notwithstanding strawmen like "gotten your back up" and snark like "your opinion will remain a secret," nobody's fighting - I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion (though I'd guess it's pre-vacation jitters ).

Here's the thing though: I don't have a "position," unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that. I simply asked if the current trend in the quality of WotC's current releases was related to them contracting out their adventures - without saying what I thought that "trend" was, since I don't have an opinion on that front - and then clarified how I felt that contracting adventures to another company is different than hiring freelancers to write manuscripts (and thus why I don't think my original question is applicable to Paizo the way it is to WotC). That's all.

Do you feel a little wiser now?

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

Cool! Have fun!

 

[Jester David]

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.

But there's also the expectation that the company would learn from what came before and not repeat past mistakes, that they'd take the best of the old and mix that with the best of the new. That they'd learn what works and what doesn't. If a modern adventure emulating a 35+ yo adventure does a poorer job then that's a big strike against the product.

 

[Parmandur]

But there's also the expectation that the company would learn from what came before and not repeat past mistakes, that they'd take the best of the old and mix that with the best of the new. That they'd learn what works and what doesn't. If a modern adventure emulating a 35+ yo adventure does a poorer job then that's a big strike against the product.

Considering how much time is spent arguing those points on regards to modules, not sure that is doable to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Hussar]

But there's also the expectation that the company would learn from what came before and not repeat past mistakes, that they'd take the best of the old and mix that with the best of the new. That they'd learn what works and what doesn't. If a modern adventure emulating a 35+ yo adventure does a poorer job then that's a big strike against the product.

And, let's be honest here, TSR hardly learned from its mistakes. Many of the worst DnD modules came out of 2e. The whole massively railroady plotted series of modules with Mary Sue deus ex machina resolutions was largely a 2e thing. Dead Gods (I think that's the right series), the brutally bad Greyhawk modules like Gargoyles and Puppets. Things like that.

Even some of the worst Wotc modules are still head and shoulders better than those.

 

[Jester David]

And, let's be honest here, TSR hardly learned from its mistakes. Many of the worst DnD modules came out of 2e. The whole massively railroady plotted series of modules with Mary Sue deus ex machina resolutions was largely a 2e thing. Dead Gods (I think that's the right series), the brutally bad Greyhawk modules like Gargoyles and Puppets. Things like that.

Even some of the worst Wotc modules are still head and shoulders better than those.

Yeah... however "but this other company was worse!" is a pretty weak defence. Yes, TSR might of make some terrible adventures, but that doesn't make the WotC efforts better or fix the flaws of current modules.

TSR also produced a heck of a lot of adventures for multiple campaign settings. They did 30 over a decade for Ravenloft alone. It's very much an example of quantity over quality.
Plus, while more was known about gaming and adventure writing during that time than during 1e, they still knew less than we knew during most of 3e and 4e. It should go without saying that after thirty or forty years of gaming we should be better than after five or fifteen years of gaming. We've had time to learn and absorb the differences between railroads and sandbox, seen what works and what failed, and learned the lessons from what came before. The worst modern adventures should be better than average adventures from the past. Should be.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah... however "but this other company was worse!" is a pretty weak defence. Yes, TSR might of make some terrible adventures, but that doesn't make the WotC efforts better or fix the flaws of current modules.



TSR also produced a heck of a lot of adventures for multiple campaign settings. They did 30 over a decade for Ravenloft alone. It's very much an example of quantity over quality.

Plus, while more was known about gaming and adventure writing during that time than during 1e, they still knew less than we knew during most of 3e and 4e. It should go without saying that after thirty or forty years of gaming we should be better than after five or fifteen years of gaming. We've had time to learn and absorb the differences between railroads and sandbox, seen what works and what failed, and learned the lessons from what came before. The worst modern adventures should be better than average adventures from the past. Should be.

History neither progresses nor regresses; it wobbles.

 

[delericho]

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?

I don't know about the really old stuff - I started in 1988, and generally resisted pre-gen adventures for a very long time. However, I'm sure I recall a lot of the 2nd Ed modules (esp things like the "Marco Volo" series) getting bad reviews in Dragon. Things must be pretty bad if your own house magazine gives you a bad rating!

But there's also the expectation that the company would learn from what came before and not repeat past mistakes, that they'd take the best of the old and mix that with the best of the new. That they'd learn what works and what doesn't. If a modern adventure emulating a 35+ yo adventure does a poorer job then that's a big strike against the product.

That would be really nice. Unfortunately, there seems to have been virtually no movement on the front of adventure design in years - as The Alexandrian points out, "Masks of Nyarlathotep" was published in 1984 and there's still almost nothing that can match it.

That's one of the reasons I was so glad to see the Delve Format - ultimately, it proved to be a failed experiment, but at least it meant people were trying to build a better adventure. (And, likewise, I'm glad to see Monte's experiments with hie "Weird Discoveries" product - which looks like it might be more useful.)

 

[delericho]

And, let's be honest here, TSR hardly learned from its mistakes. Many of the worst DnD modules came out of 2e. The whole massively railroady plotted series of modules with Mary Sue deus ex machina resolutions was largely a 2e thing. Dead Gods (I think that's the right series), the brutally bad Greyhawk modules like Gargoyles and Puppets. Things like that.

I'm not certain, but I think TSR went through a spell there where (a) they felt nobody actually used adventure modules anyway, so they didn't care, and (b) many of their designers didn't actually play the game all that often.

So it's not all that surprising that there was a drop in quality. Though there are at least a few gems in there - anything from TSR with Bruce Cordell's name on the cover is worth a look.

As for the TSR stuff prior to Gary leaving, I'm not sure. My best guess is that the quality was always somewhat patchy, and to an extent it's just that everyone knows Elvis and almost nobody knows the hundred other guys who were around at the same time. But it is also the case that around 1984, with "Ravenloft" and then the Dragonlance series, there was a distinct shift in the way adventures were constructed and presented.

 

[pemerton]

Of the ones that I have personal experience with:

Heart of Nightfang Spire
Deep Horizon
Bastion of Broken Souls (such a shame, this one - nice concept, bad execution)
Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
Expedition to the Demonweb Pits
Expedition to Ruins of Greyhawk
Keep on the Shadowfell
King of the Trollhaunt Warrens
Tomb of Horrors (the new 4e hardback one, not the PDF reissue of the classic)
Hoard of the Dragon Queen
Rise of Tiamat

I've also heard bad things about just about every 4e adventure, but most especially the rest of the HPE1-3 series (IIRC, there is one exception, though I forget which - P2 perhaps?)

I think Bastion of Broken Souls has a lot of interesting ideas in it. When I ran it (converted to Rolemaster, and as part of a long-running Oriental Adventures campaign) I ignored the silly dungeon at the and, and ignored the instructions to GMs that everyone will fight rather than negotiate. The NPCs were interesting (ones I remember include the slaad, the dreamlord night hag, the exiled god and the angel guardian of the gate to the exiled god's plane of exile) and likewise the premise.

Of the 4e modules I've got value out of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth and P2 Demon Queen's Enclave, although in both cases some modifications (to backstory and to details) were necessary. Including just ignoring a fair bit of needless filler.

 

[delericho]

I think Bastion of Broken Souls has a lot of interesting ideas in it. When I ran it (converted to Rolemaster, and as part of a long-running Oriental Adventures campaign) I ignored the silly dungeon at the and, and ignored the instructions to GMs that everyone will fight rather than negotiate. The NPCs were interesting (ones I remember include the slaad, the dreamlord night hag, the exiled god and the angel guardian of the gate to the exiled god's plane of exile) and likewise the premise.

Agreed. I really wanted to like BoBS, and agree it has a lot of interesting stuff in it that a DM can steal/adapt. Alas, as written...

Of the 4e modules I've got value out of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth and P2 Demon Queen's Enclave, although in both cases some modifications (to backstory and to details) were necessary. Including just ignoring a fair bit of needless filler.

One thing that's interesting about adventures in general is that very often a group can get a good experience even from a bad adventure - either the DM adapts the thing to mask to problems, or the group takes a path that simply avoids the problem areas (or it's just a really good group who would have had a good time regardless). I'm sure some people even had fun with "Scourge of the Howling Horde" or "The Forest Oracle" (played straight, rather than as a parody). Which can make discussions about quality tricky, to say the least - if your group had a really good time with FO, who am I to say it's a bad adventure?

To an extent, though, I think there is some justification in saying some adventure designs are simply flawed, in ways that might not be apparent in play. To give an absurd analogy: if the airbags on a car don't work but the driver never has an accident and so never learns this, does that mean it's not a death-trap?

(Incidentally, in theory I'd rather have this conversation in reverse: what techniques make for a good adventure structure, and why? Unfortunately, it's easier to find and point to examples of what doesn't work, by and large - especially since some of the very best adventures use the same techniques as some of the worst, and yet somehow come out unscathed.)