Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Glyfair" data-source="post: 2895542" data-attributes="member: 53">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).</blockquote>

Verification