Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark Hope" data-source="post: 2734319" data-attributes="member: 27051">I was wondering about this when I ran the adventure last week - whether not it would stand the test of time.&nbsp; I feel that it compared well to more recent publications and held the players' interest throughout.&nbsp; It challenged them while remaining fun and, despite its reputation, is not really the series of inescapable death-traps that it seems.&nbsp; Clever play really does make a difference.&nbsp; I do agree with jdrakeh's comments, though, that it is something of a meta-dungeon, challenging the players as much as the characters, but I feel that there is room for this kind of thing in the hobby.&nbsp; Assuming that not all dungeons have that &quot;meta&quot; element, it's OK to have a couple that require that kind of approach, just for the sake of diversity and a different approach every now and then.(Of course, my analysis is only really valid for the current 3.5 version of the adventure.&nbsp; The 1e version might well be &quot;slaughtered in the reviews&quot; if it were published today in its original format, but imho that is a feature of how expectations have changed with subsequent editions of the rules, rather than a reflection on the adventure itself.&nbsp; The 3.5 version seems to me to strike a successful balance between staying true to the spirit of the original while maintaining a playability that is more appropriate for the current rules-set).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark Hope, post: 2734319, member: 27051"] I was wondering about this when I ran the adventure last week - whether not it would stand the test of time. I feel that it compared well to more recent publications and held the players' interest throughout. It challenged them while remaining fun and, despite its reputation, is not really the series of inescapable death-traps that it seems. Clever play really does make a difference. I do agree with jdrakeh's comments, though, that it is something of a meta-dungeon, challenging the players as much as the characters, but I feel that there is room for this kind of thing in the hobby. Assuming that not all dungeons have that "meta" element, it's OK to have a couple that require that kind of approach, just for the sake of diversity and a different approach every now and then. (Of course, my analysis is only really valid for the current 3.5 version of the adventure. The 1e version might well be "slaughtered in the reviews" if it were published today in its original format, but imho that is a feature of how expectations have changed with subsequent editions of the rules, rather than a reflection on the adventure itself. The 3.5 version seems to me to strike a successful balance between staying true to the spirit of the original while maintaining a playability that is more appropriate for the current rules-set). [/QUOTE]

Verification