The Classic Dragon Reviews - Take 2

[jcfiala]

This issue gives us a look into the D&D convention scene. In those days the adventures from the major D&D tournament is reproduced as a commercial product and becomes a classic. Last year's D&D Open adventures were reproduced in Dungeon and is given a big thumbs down. Has the gaming public become jaded, or has the quality of those adventures taken a nosedive?

Well, I haven't seen that Dungeon Issue - which one is it? I'm already reading through G1-3 - I'm willing to do a comparison.

 

[Glyfair]

Well, I haven't seen that Dungeon Issue - which one is it? I'm already reading through G1-3 - I'm willing to do a comparison.

Issues #123, #124 and #125

Looking at it, I lost a year. This is the 2004 Open. The response means we probably won't see the 2005 Open produced.

 

[jcfiala]

Issues #123, #124 and #125

Looking at it, I lost a year. This is the 2004 Open. The response means we probably won't see the 2005 Open produced.

Is it the 'Shards of Eberron' that was the Open? I'm looking at the issues, and I'm not seeing any reference to a D&D Open

 

[Glyfair]

Is it the 'Shards of Eberron' that was the Open? I'm looking at the issues, and I'm not seeing any reference to a D&D Open

Yes, the Shards of Eberron was the name of the 2004 D&D Open.

 

[grodog]

While I don't know the answer to the quality bit, I would hazard a guess that the early Con modules did well because they had zero competition. It's easy to be on top when you're the only game in town.

To some degree that's true, but Judge's Guild had been cranking out modules for a few years before TSR really jumped onto the bandwagon. That said, I still disagree with the comment in principle because...

I think that most groups demand a little more in the way of story and background from adventures now which makes tournament modules somewhat separate from what is actually being played around the table. But, sorry, I'm pontificating. I'll go away now.

...the GDQ series remains one of the most popular module sets in D&D's history: it was the top choice of the Top 30 D&D adventures as published in Dungeon awhile ago. Part of that is, I think, because the series has a well-balanced share of new challenges (new in 1978, since drow didn't exist, per the 1e DMG's 2 line throw-away description under "Elf" ), and that PCs gradual uncovering of the plot is quite fun to play: the modules challenge tactically in combats, strategically in long-term planning/how to survive extended forays into the depths of the earth, and the players are peeling the layers of the onion on a classic D&D mystery. Good stuff that still hold up well, especially in comparison to much of the adventure drivel published today.

There, now I'm done pontificating

 

[grodog]

Aside: one of the many things I miss about the industry moving away from publishing convention tourneys is that running a module as an AD&D Open would provide you with hundreds of playtesters, which would really put an adventure through its paces. This would help to catch lots of bad design elements that would then be corrected before a module was published.

Playtesting in general seems to be far less common for most published modules (as well as many game systems additions, like new feats, spells, magic items, etc.), and even the ones that are tested more thoroughly still lack the full-treatment that a major tourney would provide (a la the A-series modules).

This doesn't really apply to the G-D modules, since EGG worte them and the tourney DMs ran them from the modules (which just means that they were published after being tested on the smaller scale of the Greyhawk campaign's usual 30-50 participants vs. a tourneys hundreds).

 

[Hussar]

Sure, the G-D modules are number one. But, then again, how many forgettable modules are there from the era. Without the lens of nostalgia, would you REALLY want to play Tomb of Horrors in a serious campaign? Or, really, any of the S modules?

Hey, I loved those modules. I played or DM'd a fair chunk of them. But, while the Dungeoncrawl series seems to be drawing on the nostalgia factor, I wonder, in terms of sales, how they stack up against, say, Fane of the Drow and the other WOTC offerings of late.

 

[Glyfair]

Hey, I loved those modules. I played or DM'd a fair chunk of them. But, while the Dungeoncrawl series seems to be drawing on the nostalgia factor, I wonder, in terms of sales, how they stack up against, say, Fane of the Drow and the other WOTC offerings of late.

I don't know, that whole series actually has a feel for me of those days. Strip the maps from the offering and you essentially have a number of encounters that can be tied together for an adventure without a lot of unnecessary fluff. Isn't that what D1-3 essentially are (especially D1-2)?

 

[Hussar]

Alright, stack it against Shackled City then.

There is a point to remember too. The modules we played and what was played at the tournaments were pretty different. I can'T recall the G series exactly, but I know the Slaver's series A1-4 bore only passing resemblance to the tournament modules. To play the tournament version, you had to strip out 2/3rds of the adventure.

 

[Glyfair]

AThere is a point to remember too. The modules we played and what was played at the tournaments were pretty different. I can'T recall the G series exactly, but I know the Slaver's series A1-4 bore only passing resemblance to the tournament modules. To play the tournament version, you had to strip out 2/3rds of the adventure.

From my scanning of the reports it sounded like the DMs ran the modules as written (at last the G-series, the D-series wasn't covered in detail). The difference was largely how the players might have tackled it. In a convention game you had to be a lot more goal oriented than you might be in a home game. A least one quote stated the players would be suprised how much they missed when they read the adventure at home.

Besides, I really wasn't suggesting the adventures shouldn't get polishing for publication. That would be fine with me.

I suspect one difference would be the attitude of the company at the time towards conventions. The RPGA is clearly the one in charge of these events now. WotC has, IIRC, exactly two employees as part of the RPGA. When they get backlogged do they get more help directed towards them? No, they put a note on their homepage that things are going to take a longer time to be processed.

Now, in 1978 the conventions were a significant focus of TSR. It's no question that all the primary employees were veterans of conventions and felt they were important. They likely made sure to give them their "A" material. WotC, however, doesn't seem to feel that way.

Yes, they put their regular designers on things like the D&D Open, but it is their strongest effort? Instead of a strong adventure, suitable for publication, they seem to focus on selling the events by "exclusivity." You'll only be able to play in those adventures if you go to one of a few events. In 1978 TSR focused on having these major events be from published material. In fact, some events gave participants copies of the module as prizes (look at some of the printing variations from these adventures that were con-only versions).