What are the worst classic D&D adventure modules?

[DragonLancer]

A lot of the early modules were truely awful and I find it amazing that some us (myself included) still see them as classic. I would never run them but just owning them gives me some squee value.

The whole deathtrap style modules (Tomb of Horrors for instance) for me were a waste of time. I could never get exxcited about such adventures.

To be fair I don't think there have been many good ones. Publsihed modules are far too heavy on combat and lacking in reason and plot.

 

[TerraDave]

Put another one in for tomb of horrors. I lost 8 of my thief characters in that death pit. When finally we reached the demi-lich I lost it and used the burning module to light my first joint. Gary Gygax was an unprecedented gaming visionary but his fantasy ideal was a few shades more brutal than mine, though I will admit it was a valuable dungeoneering experience. Also the 2e rehash return to the tomb of horrors somewhat redeemed it in mine eyes an I still stick Acerak into any campaign I can.

Reading through this again, this is probably some of the highest praise I have seen for a module and the impact it can have.

 

[lordxaviar]

I never liked:
B8 Journey to the Rock
B9 Castle Caldwell and Beyond
H1-4 Bloodstone Pass series (there was a tarrasque in a room as part of a test!)
WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure
WG7 Castle Grehawk (although if played for laughs, maybe)
WG9 Gargoyle
WG11 Puppets

Hey now I liiked Puppets.. first exposure to dyvers, I even fit it into the Dyvers living greyhawk campaign, though it was ignored by the powers controlling that mess

X-1 isle of dread... a king kong story line... pretty weak.. has my vote.

 

[lordxaviar]

The whole deathtrap style modules (Tomb of Horrors for instance) for me were a waste of time. I could never get exxcited about such adventures.

To be fair I don't think there have been many good ones. Publsihed modules are far too heavy on combat and lacking in reason and plot.

very true on ToH... I always used the modules as a beginning, spent way too much time re-writing some of them.

Like one of my Fav... N-1 I even redid the map because it didnt fit for a town of 300. and no one was related to anyone else etc...

 

[Frankie1969]

In terms of low quality, I would vote for pretty much anything written by Dale "Slade" Henson.

But in terms of damage to gaming as a whole, I would vote for B1 and B2. TSR begged, borrowed & outright stole so many great ideas from Tolkien, but one concept that they sadly failed to import was the master-apprentice relationship at the start of an adventurer's career. Sending groups of 1st level characters off on their own was a terrible design decision. RPGs as a whole would be so much better, IMO, if mixed-level parties were the standard.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't think that they have been mentioned yet, so allow me to add my own two least favorite modules to the list - EX1: Dungeonland and EX2: The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. I understand that both modules are supposed to represent a kind of side trek from a normal dungeon but, this is no excuse for sloppy, unoriginal, design.

Both EX1 and EX2 suffer from an extreme dearth of creativity, being largely cribbed from Lewis Carrol with little (if any) attempt made to hide that fact. Also, for me, combining the absurdity of Lewis Carrol with the arbitrary deadliness of Tomb of Horrors resulted in some of the most unfun play I've ever experienced in D&D.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'll tell you something else that bugs me about older modules (and even a fair few more recent ones). Stupidly laid out dungeons with pointless U shaped bends in the middle of an otherwise straight corridor or irritatingly shaped rooms that could just as well be square or retangular (the original Temple of Elemental Evil suffered from this bucket loads). Why did designers and module authors think this was/is a good idea?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Both EX1 and EX2 suffer from an extreme dearth of creativity, being largely cribbed from Lewis Carrol with little (if any) attempt made to hide that fact.

They're explicit adaptations of the material. I'm not a particular fan of them, either, but this is like critiquing the LOTR movies for being largely cribbed from J.R.R. Tolkien with little (if any) attempt made to hide the fact.

I'll tell you something else that bugs me about older modules (and even a fair few more recent ones). Stupidly laid out dungeons with pointless U shaped bends in the middle of an otherwise straight corridor or irritatingly shaped rooms that could just as well be square or retangular (the original Temple of Elemental Evil suffered from this bucket loads). Why did designers and module authors think this was/is a good idea?

(1) Because the assumed playing style included player mapping: Chambers with unusual dimensions and non-linear corridors would confuse player maps unless care was taken in-character to map accurately.

(2) Because it's more realistic. Look at actual floorplans of actual buildings. Most rooms aren't actually perfect squares.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Haven't read the whole thread, but the worst ones I've read, run, or played include:

• Gargoyle
• Child's Play
• Dragonlance Classics
• Castle Greyhawk (WG7)
• Forest Oracle

 

[jdrakeh]

They're explicit adaptations of the material.

Well, clearly, they're copypasta Lewis Carrol. My problem is that I think the authorial voice tries to pass them off as some kind of largely original innovation and downplay the significance of the source material. I've even had forum conversations in the past where fans have tried to defend them as entirely original work merely inspired by Carrol rather than explicit adaptations. And I can't see that at all.

[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.]

[Re-Edit: All of that aside, the modules have some serious design flaws, IMO, starting with the arbitrary ruling that certain magics don't work 'just because'. Robbing the players of their powers just because you couldn't find a way to design the adventure in such a way that said powers wouldn't break it? Classic crap design.]