What are the classic adventure modules of 3E? (with a tally!)
- Thread starter Storminator
- Start date
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
If Thoughts Could Kill is a very good module. It had to be to get nominated. Psion covers very well what strengths it has. Would I have picked it over, say, Of Sound Mind? Nope. I'm not sure if it'll be considered a classic at some point in the future. Maybe it will.
So this is the thinking behind the "crunch good, fluff bad" brigade! You assume that all of us who don't want just crunch glorious crunch are after some 2E era FR supplement brimming with fluff that will never see in-game use. This is the problem with such simplistic models for viewing things - you never see things that don't fit your model.
Some examples:
Where do adventures fit into your crunch/fluff dichotomy? That's my main focus - apart from villains, what else does a campaign focus upon but adventures? This is stuff that players see, and it isn't fluff text - it saves time...a lot of time. As this thread proves, WotC's efforts in this department aren't very good if your vision of D&D goes beyond megadungeons and railroading. Nevermind, they don't sell - leave the adventures to d20 publishers and Dungeon magazine. Oh, and better release Races of Faerun, they're gonna need that fer sure...
Would you also dismiss Volo's Guides as "ego-stroking fluff which the players don't see", or stuff which directly ends up in a game? Inns they can walk into? What about city books from d20 publishers? Neither of these fit the cute little "crunch bad, fluff good" model that keeps on coming up. I also note that there's no room in your view of fluff to recognise that inspiration is something of worth in this game, and you don't need fluff to induce that. You failed to comprehend how the ELH (or any other product for that matter, I'm not suggesting that the ELH was lacking in soul - simply because I haven't bought it) could be technically correct yet completely lacking in inspiration and "soul", and because it was difficult to quantify, handwaved it away. Now I know why.
Last edited:
Storminator
First Post
Lets not focus on the off topic sniping please. It ruins a thread.
PS
PS
Furn_Darkside
First Post
ColonelHardisson said:
My only problem with ITCK was that it seemed to be more along the lines of an outline to an epic adventure- then an epic adventure.
I like it, and I intend to run it. I also intend to add a lot more to it.
Perhaps that is backlash to having an adventure written in a way that avoids railroading.
FD
tjasamcarl
First Post
Not quite..
Wow..you 'sent me packing' with the ELH debate? From what i can recall, your argument was blatantly sentimental, not relying on any critique of the rules, which were far and away the most valued valued aspect of most GAMING supplements, and instead relying on some foggy aesthetic bias which you failed to reasonably elaborate on. And comparing it to the Manual of the Planes, which was more a sourcebook than a rules supp, and saying because it they did not support the same thing and therefore the ELH failed is just a fallacy; you are critiqing it based upon what it is not as oppossed to what it is, but then, many of the more self-absorbed dms tend to gripe when any aspect of a product fails to meet their particular expectations..
You were making a number of statements before the ELH was released conscerning the 'mistake' Wotc was making in creating such a weighty supp. Your assumptions seemed to be that at such levels the rules encouraged 'munchkinism', another blatantly irrational argument that i hear all to often on these and other boards.
'All it could have been?' It was all it needed to be, supporting that aspect of the rpg which everyone at the table relys upon, the rules..
Pathetic.
BTW, i was commenting on FDP Mikes assertion that d20 publishers had 'caught up' to Wotc generally, not just adventures.
Wow..you 'sent me packing' with the ELH debate? From what i can recall, your argument was blatantly sentimental, not relying on any critique of the rules, which were far and away the most valued valued aspect of most GAMING supplements, and instead relying on some foggy aesthetic bias which you failed to reasonably elaborate on. And comparing it to the Manual of the Planes, which was more a sourcebook than a rules supp, and saying because it they did not support the same thing and therefore the ELH failed is just a fallacy; you are critiqing it based upon what it is not as oppossed to what it is, but then, many of the more self-absorbed dms tend to gripe when any aspect of a product fails to meet their particular expectations..
You were making a number of statements before the ELH was released conscerning the 'mistake' Wotc was making in creating such a weighty supp. Your assumptions seemed to be that at such levels the rules encouraged 'munchkinism', another blatantly irrational argument that i hear all to often on these and other boards.
'All it could have been?' It was all it needed to be, supporting that aspect of the rpg which everyone at the table relys upon, the rules..
Pathetic.
BTW, i was commenting on FDP Mikes assertion that d20 publishers had 'caught up' to Wotc generally, not just adventures.
Last edited:
Storminator
First Post
Can we stop the off topic arguing that obviously has nothing to do with this thread? If you just want to bitch at each other, make your own thread.
PS
PS
Psion
Adventurer
Last edited:
FDP Mike
First Post
Gaming Goodness!
I agree, Storminator, and I do apologise for being the one, in a way, to open the door for an off-topic tangent.
Let's bring things back "on topic," shall we?
Fair enough, and I was thinking in more "general" terms -- but within the specific context of this discussion about adventures. (By the way, this whole thread definitely tells us all at least one thing: there are a lot of excellent adventures available!) I would like to take the time to dispute you regarding the lack of quality and rules "balance" in d20 products, yet that again could stray off-topic -- as well as take too long. Look carefully, for example, through the stats in Deities & Demigods or Epic Level Handbook: do all deities and/or creatures have proper stats (pay attention to the feats for some of them)?
Early on, sure, some of the first adventure products contained rules gaffes and problems (the, um, overabundance of treasure in NeMoren's Vault offers just one example). Since then, d20 publishers have steadily reduced those gaffes and problems to the point where, now, we rarely, rarely hear about them anymore. In this respect, I do truly believe that the best and most dedicated adventure producers are right on par with WotC in terms of rules implementation, which seems to be your primary concern. Moreover, consumers choose products much more astutely these days, which encourages publishers to ensure consistent, quality use of the rules.
Still, a potential "classic" 3E/d20 adventure can have its share of rules issues. Along with NeMoren's Vault, adventures such as Rappan Athuk (the first one in particular) and Freeport are in no way free of rules mistakes. DMs, though, can fix such things, if they're vigilant enough . . . because the focus should fall on the story, the setting, the atmosphere -- the PCs. Granted, now and then a product might have so many problems that it cannot be easily "fixed"; however, these are the products that we have not heard about in this thread. Casting all d20 publishers aside in a sweeping judgement simply shows a lack of exposure to the very good work being done by several of them.
Many have suggested that "classic" status relies upon a product's level of exposure as well as, say, its "fun" factor (i.e., those events that become fond memories later on). I would add further that the "fun" factor can in a way rely a good deal upon the quality of a product's rules implementation: if the DM need not worry (overly much) about the rules, she can focus on running a great adventure.
Well, that's enough from me at the moment . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.S. Say, Storminator, are you willing to do a tally of the "votes" so far? Seeing the totals would be intriguing, I think.
Storminator said:
I agree, Storminator, and I do apologise for being the one, in a way, to open the door for an off-topic tangent.
Let's bring things back "on topic," shall we?
Fair enough, and I was thinking in more "general" terms -- but within the specific context of this discussion about adventures. (By the way, this whole thread definitely tells us all at least one thing: there are a lot of excellent adventures available!) I would like to take the time to dispute you regarding the lack of quality and rules "balance" in d20 products, yet that again could stray off-topic -- as well as take too long. Look carefully, for example, through the stats in Deities & Demigods or Epic Level Handbook: do all deities and/or creatures have proper stats (pay attention to the feats for some of them)?
Early on, sure, some of the first adventure products contained rules gaffes and problems (the, um, overabundance of treasure in NeMoren's Vault offers just one example). Since then, d20 publishers have steadily reduced those gaffes and problems to the point where, now, we rarely, rarely hear about them anymore. In this respect, I do truly believe that the best and most dedicated adventure producers are right on par with WotC in terms of rules implementation, which seems to be your primary concern. Moreover, consumers choose products much more astutely these days, which encourages publishers to ensure consistent, quality use of the rules.
Still, a potential "classic" 3E/d20 adventure can have its share of rules issues. Along with NeMoren's Vault, adventures such as Rappan Athuk (the first one in particular) and Freeport are in no way free of rules mistakes. DMs, though, can fix such things, if they're vigilant enough . . . because the focus should fall on the story, the setting, the atmosphere -- the PCs. Granted, now and then a product might have so many problems that it cannot be easily "fixed"; however, these are the products that we have not heard about in this thread. Casting all d20 publishers aside in a sweeping judgement simply shows a lack of exposure to the very good work being done by several of them.
Many have suggested that "classic" status relies upon a product's level of exposure as well as, say, its "fun" factor (i.e., those events that become fond memories later on). I would add further that the "fun" factor can in a way rely a good deal upon the quality of a product's rules implementation: if the DM need not worry (overly much) about the rules, she can focus on running a great adventure.
Well, that's enough from me at the moment . . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.S. Say, Storminator, are you willing to do a tally of the "votes" so far? Seeing the totals would be intriguing, I think.
tjasamcarl
First Post
I apologize..
To FDP Mike and others. Wotc does make its share of editing mistakes and given the topic of this thread, i will freely concede that many topflight d20 publishers have caught up with Wotc in terms of applying the core rules to adventures. I was referring more to rules additions, which i still believe wotc, for all the flac they, still dominates...
But hey, my bad....
To FDP Mike and others. Wotc does make its share of editing mistakes and given the topic of this thread, i will freely concede that many topflight d20 publishers have caught up with Wotc in terms of applying the core rules to adventures. I was referring more to rules additions, which i still believe wotc, for all the flac they, still dominates...
But hey, my bad....
Similar Threads
