So what 3E adventures were worst?

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

As I recall, Speaker in Dreams actually had a pretty substantial web enhancement. Didn't change the plot, but it gave more city details, encounters, and NPCs.

Hmmm...maybe that would have helped. This was the only scenario in my entire life where I and my players both decided to just quit halfway through because it was so boring.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I will have to cast my vote for several sections of the Worlds Largest Dungeon. Some of the sections are good, but some of them are REALLY bad.

With you.

Honestly, I think your comment is a little more generous than I'd have given.

Most of it was bad. The rest of it was average.

 

[Gundark]

From what I've seen, none of the Age of Worms adventures are true stinkers.

Encounter at Blackwall keep was definetly a stinker. As well spire of long shadows was way too hard. Room 5 almost TPK'ed the group (twice )

 

[VirgilCaine]

But really and truly, in terms of dungeon design, The Tomb of Horrors (Acererak's Tomb), is just party killer nonsense. I was hoping that something inside the dungeon would pull things together and offer some cohesive explanation -- even for a twisted wizard's mind behind it story-wise -- but no. ToH is a roll-playing dungeon, not a roleplaying dungeon. The PC party survived the mutant 4-armed gargoyle and a lich, and several weird traps. (I guess there is some old school charm to be found in all of it!) It's a good thing my players' PCs are 12th level or they'd have rolled up several new characters by now -- what is the fun in TPK again and again? Ick!

If you're having TPKs in the ToH, then you are exactly it's audience.

The stuff that will really get you killed or messed up is easy to avoid--it's magical and not an item. Most of the traps are very low-damage or easy to avoid.
However, this is only the first 2/3s of the dungeon, my guys decided to cast Find the Path and cut to the last chamber, which is the worst part of the whole adventure, IMO, unless you change it.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

If you're having TPKs in the ToH, then you are exactly it's audience.

"If you're not having fun, Tomb of Horrors is delivering the play experience it promises". That doesn't sound like a defense.

 

[wayne62682]

I forgot to add: WLD was a stinker too, if you try to play it as a full campaign and not rip it apart and get sixteen or so individual dungeons to place in your world. My group tried to play it and... whoo boy I would have had more fun playing Gauntlet.

 

[Jhaelen]

My vote is for the initial Eberron adventures, too Shadows & Whispers. They were so bad, I stopped buying any Eberron material for a long time. I even analyzed them and started to rewrite the adventures to make them playable but it was a wasted effort. After removing the bad stuff nothing was left except for the backstory...

Most of the original WotC 'adventure path' modules have their problems. But none of them is so bad they couldn't be salvaged:

The first two are actually pretty good as written. Especially Forge of Fury was _very_ fun and memorable.

Speaker in Dreams: I just picked a couple of scenes from this one (e.g. the grimlock ambush and the final encounter in the baron's manor). I strongly disagreed with the idea of a mindflayer opening a gate to the lower planes.

Standing Stone: I'm currently playing this. So far it's going nicely, my players even enjoyed the labyrinth part! I've completely replaced/upgraded the encounters, though (the party's average level is 9). So far it looks as if they won't get what's really going on there, though - which is a pity but might help avoid a potential tpk.

Nightfang Spire: If I run this, I'm going to replace/remove several encounters (more encounter variety; no girallons, please...). All in all, I really enjoyed reading it, though.

Deep Horizon: No bat-men in my campaign! I'm going to run this but replace the Desmodu with a different race, probably Duergar. The adventure itself has some high-lights which should make it worthwhile.

Iron Fortress: After changing the map scale it might be runnable. I'm going to replace several encounters and change the backstory to turn it into a mission for the Githyanki to get access to some silver swords. Should work just fine.

Bastion of Broken Souls: I'm only going to attempt playing this if my campaign has reached its conclusion and my players are not ready to start a new campaign, yet. It doesn't make a lot of sense, imho, and looks like a campaign-ending-device to me.
I'd say it's the worst of the whole adventure path, but maybe that's just because 3E breaks down in the high end levels.

 

[VirgilCaine]

"If you're not having fun, Tomb of Horrors is delivering the play experience it promises". That doesn't sound like a defense.

That's not what I said.

If a group is having multiple TPKs in the ToH, then they're the people it was made for.
They're not going to have fun, they're supposed to be learning things from their experience.

Now, I could see a TPK from bad luck. The 4-armed gargoyle is very tough. But, IIRC, most of the traps and whatnot shouldn't kill the whole party. Unless very bad luck is involved, someone should be able to survive, but you never know how stupid people are going to be.

 

[GQuail]

That's not what I said.

If a group is having multiple TPKs in the ToH, then they're the people it was made for.
They're not going to have fun, they're supposed to be learning things from their experience.

Now, I could see a TPK from bad luck. The 4-armed gargoyle is very tough. But, IIRC, most of the traps and whatnot shouldn't kill the whole party. Unless very bad luck is involved, someone should be able to survive, but you never know how stupid people are going to be.

This could degenerate into a somewhat OT rant (especially since it's the 3.X adaption of this adventure that came up in this discussion) but the statement that people should come to an RPG session not to have fun, but to learn lessons, is one t hat really sticks in my craw. ultimately, RPGs are about "fun" for me. Now, I appreciate that "fun" is a kind of vague thing that's hard to pin down, so other people finding things fun that I dn't is OK. But if you're telling me that a player group running an adventure having a crap time is the point of the adventure, then the adventure really ain't that hot, and I'd go as far as to describe that as "potential campaign killer"

I get that Tomb of Horrors was purposefully designed as that: a sort of "so you think you're so tough?" by Gygax for his pro players. I also get that it fits into some elements of 1E tone that players of that game consider important. And, when most people encounter it now, they must know exactly what it is going to do: or at least, the DMs must be playing it with that purpose in mind. I don't think it' sunfair to say that anyone surprised by the fatalness of the adventure is in a small minority indeed. ;-)

The party in question has people who have done it before, remember; so by your reasoning they've either already had their "learning experience" and so should find this easy, or they're just "stupid" and it's their own fault. And yet, not only are they struggling, but their DM is finding the whole thing dull and willing it to be over. This sounds like a pretty solid failure to me, one which the party is struggling through more out of social politeness and an urge to preserve the otherwise fun campaign than anything else, rather than a character building exercise they will pat themselves on the back about afterwards.


But I think part of the problem (as described in the original post) is that the players are playign the 3.X update - and much of what goes on in the Tomb of Horrors is, ultimately, modelled on more 1E thinking. I have a feeling that when you come against the four-armed gargoyle, the "count to ten and then collapse the ceilings", the "touch it and it turns out to be an artifact that kills you" and other such stuff in a game that has otherwise been in the far more gentle 3.X style of CR-based play, it ends up feeling a lot more arbitrary than it did in 1E. (And even in 1E, Tomb of Horrors has those who consider it not especially logical)

 

[VirgilCaine]

This could degenerate into a somewhat OT rant (especially since it's the 3.X adaption of this adventure that came up in this discussion) but the statement that people should come to an RPG session not to have fun, but to learn lessons, is one t hat really sticks in my craw. ultimately, RPGs are about "fun" for me. Now, I appreciate that "fun" is a kind of vague thing that's hard to pin down, so other people finding things fun that I dn't is OK. But if you're telling me that a player group running an adventure having a crap time is the point of the adventure, then the adventure really ain't that hot, and I'd go as far as to describe that as "potential campaign killer"

No, you run the ToH to teach your players a lesson in not being stupid. It's a Darwinian winnowing kind of thing. I certainly wouldn't run ToH for the same group twice, there's no point.

I get that Tomb of Horrors was purposefully designed as that: a sort of "so you think you're so tough?" by Gygax for his pro players. I also get that it fits into some elements of 1E tone that players of that game consider important. And, when most people encounter it now, they must know exactly what it is going to do: or at least, the DMs must be playing it with that purpose in mind. I don't think it' sunfair to say that anyone surprised by the fatalness of the adventure is in a small minority indeed. ;-)

Like I said, the adventure is more prone to death from bad luck or stupidity.

The party in question has people who have done it before, remember; so by your reasoning they've either already had their "learning experience" and so should find this easy, or they're just "stupid" and it's their own fault.

Heh? They've played it before? Why would one run it again with the exact same group?

I'll freely admit that ToH is not entirely intended to be a "fun" module. It's not something to do more than once with the exact same players.

And yet, not only are they struggling, but their DM is finding the whole thing dull and willing it to be over. This sounds like a pretty solid failure to me, one which the party is struggling through more out of social politeness and an urge to preserve the otherwise fun campaign than anything else, rather than a character building exercise they will pat themselves on the back about afterwards.

Well, since they've already played it, and they're struggling through it, then gee, don't play it again! There's nothing to be done for them.