What are the worst classic D&D adventure modules?

[JacktheRabbit]

Its one thing to not like the Dragonlance modules for their railroadyness, but don't make stuff up please. If you died in the Dragonlance campaign, you died. Maybe you're confusing it the Obscure Death rule for NPC's.This basically asks the DM to always keep in mind an "out" to explain how an NPC's body was never recovered so they can come back later. And all this was just a published way to do what DM's had been doing for years anyway: preventing their story from breaking when the PC's do something unexpected.

Actually it is true. There is a point in DL11 I believe (when the party is near the new Silvanesti in exile homeland) that it clearly says that new characters can be brought in if the main characters die and then even gives suggestions on new character ideas.

The implication is quite clear that the main characters are not to die up to this point.

 

[Beginning of the End]

[Edit: Just for the heck of it, I went back and read the credits and introductions to both modules. Nowhere is there an explicit mention of Lewis Carrol. There are some vague allusions to the 'land where Alice went' and such, but that is about as close as you get to the author acknowledging the actual source material.]

EX1, pg. 27: "It is presented in a light-hearted and zany spirit. In order to get in all the necessary details, however, not too much space can be devoted to really capturing the true spirit of Dungeonland. Therefore, the Gentle Reader is urged to read Lewis Carroll's story, Alice in Wonderland. Read this book carefully. You might even find you enjoy sections sufficiently to reread them. Do this just before you begin having your players adventure in Dungeonland, and then really let yourself go!"

EX2, pg. 26: "In order to be in the proper frame of mind for superior DMing of this module, I urge you to accept it as a fun experience first and foremost. Then, please pick up a copy of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. After you have finished reading this book (and that won't take long at all), you might find it helpful to re-read it. Then, with the intentions that the good Mr. Carroll had in mind when he penned this tale, undertake a masterful moderation of the scenario."

Again: I'm not defending the modules. I think they're poorly designed. But they are explicitly adaptations of Carroll's work.

Actually it is true. There is a point in DL11 I believe (when the party is near the new Silvanesti in exile homeland) that it clearly says that new characters can be brought in if the main characters die and then even gives suggestions on new character ideas.

The implication is quite clear that the main characters are not to die up to this point.

DL2, pg. 3: "Since these NPCs appear in later DRAGONLANCE modules, try to make them have 'obscure deaths' if they are killed: If at all possible, their bodies should not be found. Then, when the NPCs appear in later modules, you have a chance to explain their presence. (...) The same rule applies to the PCs on pages 17-18. Most of them have roles in future modules, and must be able to return to life somehow. This does not apply to PCs other than those who are part of the story." (emphasis added)

That's pretty explicit.

DL3, pg. 2: "Because DRAGONLANCE is a story, both heroes and villains often figure prominently in later modules. If “name” characters or villains should be killed, arrange “obscure deaths” for them. Their bodies should not be found. (...) When a “name” character no longer plays a part in the story, his death can occur. Player characters brought into this adventure from outside can be killed normally."

This is less explicit, but the implication is pretty clear that PCs who aren't brought in from the outside aren't to be killed. This text was repeated in DL4. In DL5 the section was expanded with a more explicit discussion of the comic book origins of the "obscure death" concept, and then--

DL5, pg. 5: "If the character is a PC, you can handle it the same way as an NPC (but tell the PC how he "miraculously survived" so that he can tell the others when he shows up), or you can create a short one-on-one adventure so that the PC can role-play his way out of danger."

This is followed by a list of ideas including comas, miraculous escapes, and being saved by an NPC.

The rule is not stated in DL6, although there are references to the DM applying the rule to the NPC Sleet. In DL7 the rule is again stated for NPCs, but PCs are not mentioned.

And then the ban on PC death was lifted in DL8.

DL8, pg. 2: "Beginning with this module, no PC is subject to the obscure death rule. If a PC dies in this or later adventures -- say goodbye!"

When the series was reprinted in the Dragonlance Classics trilogy, it looks like they tried to eliminate the PC application of the rule. (Which may be why some people think it never existed.) But it still creeps in by implication.

DLC2, Chapter 10, pg. 52: "Beginning with this chapter, no PC is subject to the obscure death scenario. If a PC dies in this or later adventures--say goodbye!"

DLC2, Chapter 13, pg. 73: "Remember that player characters are no longer subject to obscure deaths. If a PC dies, he's gone forever!"

 

[jdrakeh]

EX1, pg. 27: "It is presented in a light-hearted and zany spirit. In order to get in all the necessary details, however, not too much space can be devoted to really capturing the true spirit of Dungeonland. Therefore, the Gentle Reader is urged to read Lewis Carroll's story, Alice in Wonderland. Read this book carefully. You might even find you enjoy sections sufficiently to reread them. Do this just before you begin having your players adventure in Dungeonland, and then really let yourself go!"

EX2, pg. 26: "In order to be in the proper frame of mind for superior DMing of this module, I urge you to accept it as a fun experience first and foremost. Then, please pick up a copy of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. After you have finished reading this book (and that won't take long at all), you might find it helpful to re-read it. Then, with the intentions that the good Mr. Carroll had in mind when he penned this tale, undertake a masterful moderation of the scenario."

Well, I stand corrected!

Again: I'm not defending the modules. I think they're poorly designed.

Yes, starting with the lists of spells that won't operate in the modules for no other reason than they might aid the PCs in successfully navigating the adventures. There was some of that in Tomb of Horrors, as well, if I recall correctly.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, starting with the lists of spells that won't operate in the modules for no other reason than they might aid the PCs in successfully navigating the adventures. There was some of that in Tomb of Horrors, as well, if I recall correctly.

And Descent into the Depths - you can't teleport out. Lot more in the Outer Planar adventures, of course.

This doesn't bother me that much when you're using it in other-planar adventures (as Dungeonland is) as opposed to just changing the rules for normal adventures. In Dungeonland, things aren't as you expect, so it doesn't worry me that not all spells work as advertised...

Cheers!

 

[David Howery]

not sure I understand all the hate for Tomb of Horrors. Didn't EGG say that he specifically designed it to be a horrific PC-killing playground? It succeeds admirably in that.

 

[MerricB]

not sure I understand all the hate for Tomb of Horrors. Didn't EGG say that he specifically designed it to be a horrific PC-killing playground? It succeeds admirably in that.

Oh, it certainly does. Especially with inexperienced players with high-level characters. My group (back in the 80s) was entirely the type of group it was meant to humiliate.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that if I played it today with no knowledge of the module... I wouldn't go in! On the rare occasions I play D&D, my friends are surprised at how cautious I am in my play. That's because I know full well how DMs think... and especially the deadliness of certain types of play. (One interesting thing: although I've killed many a PC in the past, as I grow older I'm more attracted to story and role-playing over the challenge of combat/tricks. Hmm).

Of course, to truly appreciate Tomb of Horrors, you need to read Gary's introduction to "Return of the Tomb of Horrors"...

Cheers!

 

[TarionzCousin]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned "The Forest Lair of Pig Man" yet. Sure, some people claim P3 "The Lost Body Cavities of Pig Man" was worse--but at least it was sandboxy!

 

[NN]

The hate for "Tomb of Horrors" as a "worst" module is just grognard-baiting or ignorance. Theres other "adversarial" adventures done worse - and then theres the complete wastes of paper (eg: Gargoyle) that anybody, of any gaming style, would fnd useless.

 

[howandwhy99]

The hate for "Tomb of Horrors" as a "worst" module is just grognard-baiting or ignorance. Theres other "adversarial" adventures done worse - and then theres the complete wastes of paper (eg: Gargoyle) that anybody, of any gaming style, would fnd useless.

ToH is a muddled attempt, but it's best to remember it is one of the very first modules ever written. There is some great stuff in there and some serious problems. The number of death traps without any means of discovering or beating them is what most point out as the worst stuff. I'd agree.

As far as grognard-baiting, I hope not.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the way you have to play ToH to survive is not how some groups like to play the game. It caters to a specific playstyle and only that playstyle.

So it's not that they have to flex their brains in creative ways, it's that they have to play in way they don't enjoy.

To me the problem with ToH is simple. What is needs and what it wants are two different things.

What it needs are well designed characters whose players know them well and who after a long campaign have researched things like the demilich and will possibly have the weapons and equipment available to actually destroy the creature in the end.

What it wants is a one off adventure with generic pregenerated characters with no meaning. This means that no matter how well you do in the module the odds of the characters actually having the right items to destroy the demilich is almost nil.