• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

So, what makes 1e adventures so great?

Erik Mona said:
I think the near-absence of a "plot" is also a major factor in nostalgia for the "classic" modules. These adventures were not overly concerned about how your PCs got to the front door, or what motivation they might have for barging in and stealing a bunch of treasure. Most of the adventures dealt with player motivation in a single paragraph of boxed text or not at all.

Yep- and this "wide open" approach also made it extremely easy to plunk down any of the modules into YOUR existing campaign world pretty much wherever you wanted to put it. You could then weave just about any backstory into the module you wanted, detailed the surrounding area, detail how PCs got from wherever to the dungeon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Monte shares some of his thoughts on these issues in his blog ("A follow up" and "but why that nostalgia"):

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?montejournal

S4: Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and WG1: Temple of Tharizdun (which are companion modules despite the numbering) are an interesting case.

Each has creative and interesting bits and pieces. And while they both have backstories, they show the limits of the "plotless" aproach, and can be pretty jumbled. However, this style did leave things very open to fold into the bigger campaign,and in that sense worked quite well.

And, as an aside, between the two you have a fairly extensive wilderness campaign in addition to the two dungeons.
 

Thanks for the links.

I remember the Tharizdun module. Very creepy and foreboding, once you got past the critters. A lot of the early modules (S1, U1, etc) had that creepy "what's going on?" atmosphere to them that I haven't seen as much these days.

Or maybe I was just more gullible.... ;)

Telas
 

Reason #1 - That is all that gamers had and they came with decent stores, good maps and some memorable encounters.

Reason #2 - Everything seemed original at the time because there were no knockoffs yet.

Reason #3 - This was a shared experience for many gamers. Before the Internet and before the proliferation of homebrew campaigns these 25 moduals were things that many of us knew, experienced and loved no matter if we were in Ohio or California. We all had stories to share when we met at camp or in college or someplace similar.

Reason #4 - It was a product for D&D. If we loved D&D we didn't know any better because there were few other products to compare it to.
 



Telas said:
I remember the Tharizdun module. Very creepy and foreboding, once you got past the critters. A lot of the early modules (S1, U1, etc) had that creepy "what's going on?" atmosphere to them that I haven't seen as much these days.

I think that creepy 'what's going on' atmosphere is a casualty of increasing player meta-knowledge.

How many people here have read the introduction to the original DMG?

Do you remember being told that if you the DM found out any player had glanced inside the DMG in order to get a look at the rules, that you the DM were responcible for punishing that player's character ICly in responce to his 'cheating'? And we aren't talking just about 'rules' related to the sort of monsters or treasures that exist in the world, the original PH had no information at all on combat resolution, saving throws, or any other sort of thing not directly related to character creation.

And if the DMG was considered strange arcane knowledge off limits to the players, just consider how much stranger the insides of modules were. I'd been playing the game for a while before I ever read anything out of the inside of a published module. In fact, I owned B2 from the basic set for more than a year before I snuck a peek at the contents with the same sort of feeling as a kid sticking his hand in the cookie jar (it turned out ok though, because shortly there after I starting DM a new group of younger players). If you look at the old modules now (DM's only of course ;) ), you'll find that one of the 'charms' (and frustrations) of the old module is the number of encounters that featured unique situationally specific rules for handling this particular encounter. Every thing was creepy and strange literally because everything was strange and unique. There was nothing like comprehensive mechanics for handling much of anything. Gygaxian magic, as laid out in his traps and special encounters, was fundamentally strange, dangerous, and unpredictable (and incredibly arbitrary in its effects). Remember further that many of these early modules contained the first appearance of monsters that are now fundamental to the game and well known to every player right down to the AC and HD. But when these monsters first appeared, no one playing as a player knew anything at all about them and everything they did was completely new.

Second edition lost that atmosphere completely. Third edition brought some of it back (Monte is particularly good at it), but in turn it really opened the doors to player meta-knowledge wide open.
 


Our campaign is currently playing through most of the oldies for a couple reasons:

1. When I first ran them it was hack and slash all the way, now I'm looking at them as locations for role play (and a fair bit 'o slash).
2. My current players started after the first years and haven't played most of them. I run what I own and haven't used yet with the current group. The familiarity saves on prep time.
3. I bought all of the Return to ... modules. For reference, I'd like to run the group through the originals first in this campaign, and at some point we'll do the Return to ... modules as a new campaign including the events brought about by the original characters.
4. They are available in PDFs so I can print off a copy to mark up like crazy without devaluing the treasured originals.
 

Celebrim said:
If you look at the old modules now, you'll find that one of the 'charms' (and frustrations) of the old module is the number of encounters that featured unique situationally specific rules for handling this particular encounter.

I ran into that when I got back into DMing. I built a trap using the old AD&D rules, and found out later that the trap rules had changed. (Luckily the outcome would have been identical.) One of the problems I see with 3rd Edition is that creativity is getting stifled by rules. When you know all the options and their probable outcomes, the game devolves into a sort of IQ test.

On the plus side, the plethora of rules makes the game much more marketable. Everything's explained and laid out. Which probably explains the difference between "old schoolers" like myself and the "new breed" of players.

Telas
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top