What are your favorite adventures (and why)?

[Mercurius]

This thread got me thinking about the classic adventures in D&D's 40-year history - and what makes a good adventure. The short, obvious - but perhaps sometimes forgotten answer is that that, first and foremost, it should be fun. That should be the starting point - the most important quality of a good adventure - and by "fun" I mean both to play and to run as a DM. It should also evoke wonder, involve an interesting story, and be contextualized in a back story rich in myth and legend, with numerous bits of intriguing lore. For the most part it should be multi-faceted (e.g. not just combat encounter after combat encounter), or consequently if it is relatively narrow in theme, it should do it extremely well (e.g. Tomb of Horrors). And of course it should have a challenging--and interesting--adversary to defeat, and exciting treasure to be gained.

I think just about any good adventure should include the above components, but there can be variations and, after the above general considerations are fulfilled, there are different directions a good adventure can take. I prefer adventures with a wide range of situations, but there could be great adventures of different types - ones that specialize in solving puzzles, or complex combat scenarios, or exploration, or political machinations, etc. But in most cases, the best adventures balanced a variety of experiences.

Those are just some of my thoughts, but now make it your own. What are your all-time favorite adventures and why? Try to stick to, say, three - but don't be limited to that number if you just have to discuss a fourth, fifth, seventh, tenth...

I'll start with a couple. For me the conversation has to start with Tomb of Horrors. I think I'm biased, though, as this was an adventure of my youth and I remember being totally awed by it - and horrified! The back-story was just so intriguing, and the tomb itself so mysterious and filled with interesting creatures and challenges. And, of course, the deadliness gave it an edginess.

I also loved Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth for its mixture of encounters and its almost haphazard "kitchen sink" quality. It was a vast and complex dungeon, although involved a lead-up wilderness trek, a very sexy vampire (before vampires were tiresome), and some cool magic items.

Finally, it isn't D&D, but I love the basic set-up of the Earthdawn box-set, Parlainth: the Forgotten City. Its a ruined city with a small adventurer's settlement attached to it called Haven from which numerous parties venture out into the ruins on "day trips." Earthdawn is one of my favorite settings so it is rich in terms of the background and lore.

There are numerous others worth mention - including all the A&D classics (e.g. Dragonlance, one of the most epic campaigns, and the Giants/Drow/Demonwebs sequence among manyothers) and ten there are ones I've heard are really good (Lost City of Barakus, Red Hand of Doom, Rappan Athuk, etc) but have never tried - and would love to hear more about.

Your turn!

 

[Argyle King]

Ghost Tower of Inverness
I played this for the first time ever earlier this year. The DM ran Ghost Tower via GURPS 4th Edition. While he wasn't using D&D rules, the game still had a classic D&D vibe. What I liked most about the adventure was that it forced the players to think. It's certainly not a "hack first and ask questions later" style of adventure, and I loved that about it. I loved that I was challenged to think and use tactics. For the people who wanted combat, that was there too. The challenges are well written and challenging without seeming impossible or unfair, and there is potential for a lot of freedom on the part of the players concerning how they choose to approach a challenge. I feel it does a good job of being a dungeon crawl without feeling like the same old ho-hum stuck in a cave somewhere hacking through kobolds for treasure routine. I enjoyed it so much that I sought it out and purchased it.

My only complaint about it would be that -strictly as written- there's not a lot of information about what the orb does or how the campaign should progress after the adventure. For a tournament module (which I believe Ghost Tower is,) that's not a flaw at all because the challenge was to compete against other groups. However, the vagueness can be a little less than ideal for an ongoing campaign.

That was an easily remedied complaint though, and I realized that the vague nature of the orb was a strength instead of a weakness because I had the ability to tie it to my campaign -or even other adventures- in just about any way I wanted. If need be, the orb can become something else entirely, and in at least one instance, I used Ghost Tower together with Mirror of The Fire Demon (a GURPS adventure) to create what I believe was a memorable story arc.

In fact, I'd like to see Ghost Tower used for a season of Encounters to test Next. I'd like to see that because I think it would be a great way to see how Next handles a variety of different encounter types and more than one pillar of play within the same adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Tower_of_Inverness
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/dungeonfantasyadventure1/


Red Hand of Doom
I'm not even quite sure where to begin with this one. Admittedly, it may be a touch of nostalgia on my part. All I can really say is that it's the adventure path I remember the most out of anything I've played in either 3rd or 4th edition.

I like that the combats seem to have meaning. Pass or fail, the story can still evolve and progress; Red Hand is written in such a way that it has a ton of information, but is also flexible enough to lead elsewhere without throwing the story off the rails. I suppose it also hit a sweet spot for me because I'm a big fan of war campaigns, and it's not often that I see them done in a way which I consider to be done well when it comes to D&D. It remains, for me, the adventure from the modern era (3rd Edition and beyond) that is the most memorable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hand_of_Doom



The Adventure From The Pathfinder Beginner's Box
I think what I liked about this adventure was that it was very straight forward. It wasn't complicated; it was written in a way that gave me a very clear idea about why the characters were there, and why the players should care about the outcome of the mission. It got to the point, but still left enough bread crumbs scattered about to give me an idea of the world I was playing in, and what was going on it in that brought me to the entrance of the cave. I think it did a really good job of being an intro adventure for Pathfinder.

Overall, it might pale in comparison to the scope and impact of many other adventures. However, it's one of my favorites because it served the purpose it was supposed to serve - teaching a game, and it did so in a way that wasn't dry. It is one of the primary reasons (but certainly not the only reason) I feel the Pathfinder Beginner Box was a better product than the D&D 4th Edition Red Box. It helped make me want to buy into the product line.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/products/beginnerbox

 

[delericho]

I6 "Ravenloft"

The "Shackled City" adventure path is both the only AP I've run start-to-finish, and made for one of the four best campaigns I've ever run. Good stuff.

Bruce Cordell's "Shattered Circle" in the late-2nd Ed era is a personal favourite. It doesn't seem terribly well-known, but it was a lot of fun.

This thread got me thinking about the classic adventures in D&D's 40-year history - and what makes a good adventure. The short, obvious - but perhaps sometimes forgotten answer is that that, first and foremost, it should be fun.

I'm always wary of that as a criterion for a good adventure. If nothing else, if a group were able to avoid all of the weak areas of the adventure, that doesn't mean that those weaknesses aren't there. (For example, if the adventure is a massive railroad, that won't matter to the group who just happen to choose a matching route. But that doesn't mean it's not a railroad.)

But it also means that the quality of an adventure can only be discussed after the fact, and is entirely subjective - an adventure may be 'good' for one group, and 'bad' for another. I don't like that, because I'm convinced that there is such a thing as good and bad design that is independent of how it happens to play out for a specific group.

It should also evoke wonder, involve an interesting story, and be contextualized in a back story rich in myth and legend, with numerous bits of intriguing lore. For the most part it should be multi-faceted (e.g. not just combat encounter after combat encounter), or consequently if it is relatively narrow in theme, it should do it extremely well (e.g. Tomb of Horrors). And of course it should have a challenging--and interesting--adversary to defeat, and exciting treasure to be gained.

That's a good list, and things that I would like to see. Though I suspect that list isn't either a set of necessary conditions, nor a set of sufficient conditions. That is, you could have a good adventure that falls short on one or more of the above, and conversely you could have an adventure that does all of this, and yet still falls short.

 

[Will Doyle]

White Plume Mountain definitely ranks near the top of my list. It's pure gonzo D&D: swinging across boiling mud pools on chain-linked platforms, fighting through giant inverted ziggurats with crazed monsters on every level, kayaking down floating underground rivers, and so on. It's not got much of a story, but I'd still hold it up as an example of how uniquely fun D&D can be. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is similarly silly, but I prefer White Plume Mountain.
As a player, the D Series may well be my favourite published series (Descent Into the Depths of the Earth, Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, and especially Vault of the Drow). It's the classic Underdark campaign, and we played it with a fairly aberrant group of PCs that appropriately descended into backstabbing once they got embroiled with the Drow. I think we all died down there.

I played very few official adventures for 3rd edition, and none of them really grabbed me. Lots of great Dungeon magazine adventures from that period though (I yanked loads of encounters from Shackled City for my own campaign). I've probably played more published adventures for 4th edition: with Thunderspire Labyrinth being my favourite (although: while setting is great, I ended up rewriting most of the plot, including the main villain).

 

[Will Doyle]

Finally, it isn't D&D, but I love the basic set-up of the Earthdawn box-set, Parlainth: the Forgotten City.

Yes! Parlainth was excellent, and I still find myself drawn back to it at times.

Stormbringer's Rogue Mistress could be my favourite non-D&D fantasy adventure. Over the years, I've brought quite a few gamers into the hobby using that one. It's just great.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As far as D&D adventures go, L2 The Assassins Knot
It is a wonderful example of how an adventure can feature an active plot without being a railroad. In addition to the murder mystery adventure, the setting material included with the module can be used in the campaign long after the adventure is over.

Another favorite would be I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City
This adventure features a great sandbox environment to play in and several power groups to play against one another. In addition, it is a cool dungeon/wilderness to explore filled with both the familliar and the freaky including the first appearance of the aboleth.

Not D&D but a great fantasy adventure, GURPS Harkwood
Intrigue and skullduggey going on amidst a medieval style tournament. The presentation of the adventure allows for a variety of choices of who the main villain will be while keeping all npcs still involved in the adventure. This really adds an extra dimension of difference and makes reusing the scenario that much more interesting.

 

[billd91]

I really enjoyed running the A1-4: Against the Slavelords series. I've done it under 1e and under 3e and it stands up very well. Not only to the PCs get to take on iconic bad guys, but there is a nice interlude of city intrigue to break up the dungeon crawling. Cap it off with an very differently styled dungeon crawl and I think you've got a great series. I think it's also a particularly good one because it's right as the PCs are entering and moving up the mid-levels - when they have enough endurance to adventure for a while, can do some very fun things, but can't run utterly roughshod over everything with too many wahoo powers.

Both I6: Ravenloft and S2: White Plume Mountain have been mentioned above. I've run or played them in 1e, 2e, and 3e and had a blast every time.

The Giant series, G1-3: Against the Giants, I've also worked with in 1e and 3e and it too stands up well (although the average PC party should be a bit higher level than the minimum levels in 1e). They tend to be muscular slogs, but G1 and G3 are both pretty dynamic environments in which fights can ebb and flow in a variety of fun ways. One thing to keep in mind for the 3e conversion - giants are a lot weaker at range than close up in 3e, which was not really the case in 1e. Consider giving giants the brutal throw feat often to keep the two editions on a more similar footing.

 

[Celebrim]

I6: Ravenloft - I6 is very nearly the perfect module. Considering the space constraints of the format, I think it's probably the best that could have been done. Tracy Hickman I sincerely believe to be the best module writer who has ever lived. The set up is very evocative. The villain is memorable. The set pieces are amazing. The module features literally the greatest dungeon map for the greatest dungeon ever created. However, the real awesomeness of the module is what happens when the DM adds his own craftsmanship to it. Expanding the depth of the Barovia by filling out the NPCs in the town, increasing the scale of the barony, and increasing the lead in to the set up so that the PC's feel like they are journeying into some dark corner of the world even before they get into Barovia. Moving the encounter with the Gypsy seer to before the entry into Barovia. Introducing Strahd even before the castle of Ravenloft, and setting up the competition between him and the PC's. All these things serve to increase the depth of the module and the possibilities for story telling. The main other change I'd recommend is increasing the parties level to the high end of the recommended levels. Played straight, Ravenloft is the most lethal module in TSR history. It makes S1: Tomb of Horrors look like a cake walk. It's as brutal or more so than even C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan played by the tournament rules. Played smart, Strahd is insanely powerful, and more than capable of using energy drain to put the party into a death spiral it can't recover from. The castle of Ravenloft is designed to separate the party, making them easy pickings for Strahd when he's in his active phases. I generally play Strahd without energy drain and even so, I generally TPK parties at the recommended level.

I3: Pyramid: Again, Tracy Hickman. Again, one of the most awesome dungeon maps ever created. And again, the main problem with this module is that it was condensed to fit into space constraints. There is supposed to be this interesting desert journey, but in all likelihood at the tiny scale of the map the PC's will traverse it in a single day without any encounters of note - much less thirst and hunger and hardship. There really isn't enough time in the set up to evoke the appropriate atmosphere or for the PC's to come to see the factions in the story as anything other than orcs/bandits/beserkers in different dress. Also, if any story cried out for the use of Schrodinger's Map techniques, this one does. The encounter with the lost city and the genii bottle really shouldn't be optional. Even if the party averts opening it, they should at least know of it.

CM3: Saber River: This one is mostly nostalgia for me, but it was the first time I encountered a module with real plot twists. Granted, I would probably see them coming a mile a way now, but as a 13 year old kid playing this module under a fantastic DM, the plot twists and the realization of what was really going on were perfectly timed and pushed my understanding of what was possible in an adventure from a story sense to a whole new level. I've been trying to recreate that experience, of, "My name is Kut'ter"..."Come here, Cutter", for my players ever since.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for the replies - they're very helpful and a lot of fun to read. Keep 'em coming!

I'm always wary of that as a criterion for a good adventure. If nothing else, if a group were able to avoid all of the weak areas of the adventure, that doesn't mean that those weaknesses aren't there. (For example, if the adventure is a massive railroad, that won't matter to the group who just happen to choose a matching route. But that doesn't mean it's not a railroad.)

The reason I think we need to start with "fun" as a criterion is that it helps us weed out adventures that might be, say, conceptually brilliant but not so enjoyable as an RPG experience. I can't think of an adventure off the top of my head, but the RPG Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth comes to mind. I love the concept of it, but it seems fairly unplayable.

So while it may be entirely subjective, it is important to include because, first and foremost, rpging is about enjoyment - it is a shared experience. I can think of movies or books that are profound or executed with amazing craft, but just boring to slog through (Hal Duncan's Vellum comes to mind - gorgeous prose, but boy is it tediously pretentious).

That said, as serious-to-diehard RPG fans, we all experience much, even most, of the hobby outside of social interaction, outside of a shared experience. We're reading books, designing worlds and adventures, etc. An adventure might be our favorite on the level of being a fun read, but not so great as an actual gaming experience (I've wondered about this for Ruins of Undermountain, which is a lot of fun to browse through but I imagine would become tedious to actually play).

I suppose another way to look at it is that by "good adventure" I'm thinking more along the lines of entertainment value trumping the RPG-equivalent of literary merit or artistic value. The best of art is both; classics, I think, are often quite entertaining and of great artistic merit--at least the very best classics; many books and such that are considered "classics" I find to be quite tedious. For example, I'd much rather re-read the poorly written but enormously entertaining Dragonlance Chronicles than slog through The Grapes of Wrath again. But that is, again, subjective - which is why I'm asking for "favorite" adventures.

But it also means that the quality of an adventure can only be discussed after the fact, and is entirely subjective - an adventure may be 'good' for one group, and 'bad' for another. I don't like that, because I'm convinced that there is such a thing as good and bad design that is independent of how it happens to play out for a specific group.

Sure, I can agree with that - but do you think that an adventure can be "good design" but generally un-enjoyable for most?

This becomes a much larger conversation about art vs. entertainment, which I touched upon above. I think what you're saying is that the artistry is important and has some kind of objective, or at least, inter-subjective valuation.

In a similar sense that Russian River Brewery's Pliny the Elder IPA is, to any with a developed palate for beer, a far superior brew to Budweiser. Your average frat boy might prefer Budweiser, but that doesn't mean it is a superior beer. The craftsmanship, complexity of flavor, and quality of ingredients all make Pliny on a completely different order than Budweiser, so that they don't even seem like the same category of consumable. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with preferring Budweiser, but it does equate with a certain lack of "beer sophistication," what snobs call "boorish."

I suppose the equivalent of boorishness in D&D would be the most blatant hack-and-slash adventures which are entirely about Killing Things, Taking Their Stuff, and Leveling Up. What is usually pejoratively referred to as "power-gaming." Again, nothing "wrong" with it but it is rather un-sophistication compared to the most cutting edge Indie RPGs. But the problem, then, is that many Indie RPGs are designed for the sake of design - and for other designers. They might be conceptually clever and novel, but as experiences of wonder and joy, might be quite lacking or limited in scope, or without wide appeal. Like Transdimensional Bunnylords. Maybe fun for a tipsy one-off, but for a long-term, immersive experience?

I think there's an artistry to game design - to adventures, game engines, settings, etc. And all types of art have a kind of aesthetics scale, from lesser to greater. That said, this scale is largely determined by an inter-subjective discussion by a "community of the adequate." Picasso isn't "objectively" a great artist; he is great in relation to the history of art, and the zeitgeist of his time, as exemplary of a moment in the development of Western culture. The Beer Advocate doesn't rate beers based upon fraternity or dive bar polling, but on the impressions of people who are "adequate" to the task, that is, those who have a developed palate.

Pardon the soapboxing!

That's a good list, and things that I would like to see. Though I suspect that list isn't either a set of necessary conditions, nor a set of sufficient conditions. That is, you could have a good adventure that falls short on one or more of the above, and conversely you could have an adventure that does all of this, and yet still falls short.

Exactly - that was what I was trying to get across. It was meant more as an impressionistic illustration of what a good adventure is, but not definitive in any strict way.

 

[delericho]

Sure, I can agree with that - but do you think that an adventure can be "good design" but generally un-enjoyable for most?

Yes, and it's exactly as you say - an adventure that was designed for the sake of design, or that's a work of genius but unbearably pretentious, or something of that ilk.

And your comparison wrt "Dragonlance" vs "Grapes of Wrath" is also apt - as literature, there's no doubt which is the better, but that doesn't mean it's the more entertaining.

Very good post.