What adventure module defines D&D to you?

[ExploderWizard]

I completely agree.

See below.
I understand needing/wanting some information and detail about the village and villagers. But really:
Bold emphasis in the original text.Bold emphasis in the original text.

Is the combat information necessary? Is the bold emphasis on the people's hidden valuables necessary? (The emphasis on their treasure always struck me as odd.) I think EGG did a better job with "town" NPCs in Keep on the Borderland.

Bullgrit

Combat info - yup. What if the village is attacked and the PC's must organize the militia to fight? What if the PC's are evil and want to kill them?

Valuables info-yup. If the PC's do kill them they are gonna want to take thier stuff.

Aside from that knowing the resources available in an area can become important in a lot of ways.

What if a bad guy kidnapped the leatherworker's wife or child, knowing about the necklace and demanding it as ransom? He could come to the PC's for help to get his wife back. The existence of that necklace could be important to how things play out. Maybe the leatherworker is a coldhearted bastard and pretends he doesn't have the necklace? Searching his place and finding it would matter.

The presentation is just solid dungeon stocking technique.
1) Define monsters, traps/tricks.
2) Place treasure.

The DM can make those details as meaningful as desired for his/her campaign.

 

[roguerouge]

It's fascinating that the vast majority of posters define DnD through modules at least 20 years old. Why is what you experienced first necessarily definitive of the hobby? I've played in or read all of these old modules and I'd never regard them as especially definitive of the game I play today.

 

[Gentlegamer]

It's fascinating that the vast majority of posters define DnD through modules at least 20 years old. Why is what you experienced first necessarily definitive of the hobby? I've played in or read all of these old modules and I'd never regard them as especially definitive of the game I play today.

I didn't experience B2 first. I went through other modules (such as "Eye of the Tralder") as the first real modules I encountered/ran. Later, when I found B2, read it, and DMed it, it so impressed me that I endorse it as the "if I had to pick one module to define D&D." My endorsement has nothing to do with nostalgia.

 

[Ariosto]

I did not pick what I "experienced first", because that was (as far as I know) not an "adventure module". Such published scenarios had little to do with my formative D&D experiences 30+ years ago. (Module B1 has some personal attachment, but now I would not offer it as the best example.)

My acquaintance with 2e modules is most unpleasant. I have had little to do with 3e and 4e modules precisely because what I have experienced is in key ways almost directly opposite what Dungeons & Dragons means to me. Necromancer Games has published some good stuff for 3e, but the question was not, "What module defines 3e for you?"

So, in part, I am just going with what I know. How could something I have never even met "define D&D" to me?? On the other hand ...

Does it not seem natural enough that the most definitive works might be those from the very period of definition? If someone asked for definitive classical, jazz, rock 'n' roll, etc., music, what would you expect? Some recent works might be good, even great, but that was not the question. Many others might be typical, but that was not quite the criterion either.

 

[pawsplay]

First, you kill a rattlesnake and takes its pizza money. Then you fight high noon style with a goblin. You meet a "cleric" who hangs out with dubious characters like "thieves." Bargle kills the cleric, and you pause to admire her pinup-like death throes. "Aleena! NOOOO!!!!" You proceed to make your saving throw and kill Bargle. Then a strange time warp occurs, and you go back in time and fail the saving throw, and get charmed by Bargle, waking up later with some hazy memories and bad feelings.

 

[mattcolville]

Is the combat information necessary? Is the bold emphasis on the people's hidden valuables necessary? (The emphasis on their treasure always struck me as odd.) I think EGG did a better job with "town" NPCs in Keep on the Borderland.

Bullgrit

It's necessary if you're doing it right. D&D is at its best when the players are free to create their own motivations. They have to be free to be unprincipled, unscrupulous, even thieves or assassins. The GM shouldn't assume they're going to choose to fall into the heroic archetype.

 

[Roadkill101]

I never used modules, having an active imagination, I always came up with my own adventures to run. I owned some modules (A, D & G seires, B4, N2 & 4, S1, T1 & Undermountain and recently have acquired B1, 2 & 3, T1-4) but never did anything but look through them or use the maps for my own purpose. Like others I've seen post, I never cared much for the way modules presented the adventure.

That all being said, some modules do stick out in my mind when it comes to D&D.
B2 because it was my first taste of D&D. I didn't really know or understand much of the game, but I remeber my character slew the Minotaur (the GM happened to make a fuss about it in the forms of shock and awe).
T1 because it was the first module and D&D item I owned.
Finally, Undermountain stands out to me as being the epitome of the mega-dungeon.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Castle Amber's high weirdness is something I particularly associate with that late 70's era off D&D.

I loved X2, primarily because of the NPCs, but it was the first module of which I remember thinking, "Wow, this single room is 100 feet square. Damn, that's big. And WTF ... a boxing ring?!"

I agree that X2 was very D&D, but IMO it was a little too caricaturish of D&D.

 

[roguerouge]

Does it not seem natural enough that the most definitive works might be those from the very period of definition? If someone asked for definitive classical, jazz, rock 'n' roll, etc., music, what would you expect? Some recent works might be good, even great, but that was not the question. Many others might be typical, but that was not quite the criterion either.

Not really. If I want to define a flower for somebody who's never seen one, I don't point to the seed or its root systems. If I want to define the medium of film, I don't point to Lumiere Brothers actualities, despite their excellence. If I wanted to define culture, I wouldn't focus exclusively on cave paintings or tribal taboos. It wouldn't even occur to me to turn to the oldest classical music first to try to define classical music. I'd define the nature of classical music first, then look for the best examples of those principles.

So, my process would be that I'd figure out what my definition of DnD was, the archetypes of the experience, then find examples of the archetypes from across the entire range of practice. Mine happened to come from 3e, not because of any inherent rightness of the edition (I've played everything from Red Box to 4e in the past five years), but because I genuinely think those three examples are the most readable archetypes of the DnD genre of gaming for me.

That's why I found it so unusual that so many people--not everyone, certainly--focused on one edition's modules.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I never used modules, having an active imagination.

This is your opening sentence? Seriously?