Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9412543" data-attributes="member: 2013">This is certainly a fair criticism, though I would argue that any adventure that attempts to give a deep example of each of combat encounters, realistic ecology, large swathes of exploration content, chances to engage in RP and intrigue, etc. will contain sufficient material as to disqualify it as an &quot;introductory&quot; module. As I have commented elsewhere, the most important operational word in the request for &quot;the best introductory module&quot; is &quot;introductory&quot; - I think the &quot;best&quot; module which incorporates everything you seem to be looking for will lose out on &quot;introductory&quot; in lieu of &quot;best.&quot;I admit to not being super-familiar with the OSR scene, but it was my impression that in general OSR gamers seem to be looking for some combination of:1. Reduced Rules Complexity2. Nostalgia/&quot;Old School Feel&quot; (how does this differ from &quot;preserve an idealized version of 1970's-1980's play&quot; I wonder? Serious Question)3. Using a system they are already familiar with (this is more for the older crowd that played these games and doesn't want to learn a new system, either due to laziness or more likely being happy enough with the old system to tolerate using it in lieu of using a more recent system with different - not necessarily more or less in number or severity - issues)4. Quick character creation (Kind of goes with #1), which means characters can be more disposable.I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of OSR, so I will just note having read your review from a decade ago that it seems that your issue with the module is mostly that it doesn't fit with your personal sensibilities (which your statement above kind of agrees with, noting it is popular with other groups &quot;but for [you] it's one of the worst&quot; and which your comments here and in your blog suggest that you found it over-simplistic and wanted something a little deeper/larger in scope, which is an opinion you are certainly entitled to for a &quot;module&quot; but I think it's worth pointing out as an experienced player looking for depth in a module, you are not really the &quot;introductory&quot; module's target audience.Thank you for linking this, it was an interesting read and I will probably poke around that blog for some more reading.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 9412543, member: 2013"] This is certainly a fair criticism, though I would argue that any adventure that attempts to give a deep example of each of combat encounters, realistic ecology, large swathes of exploration content, chances to engage in RP and intrigue, etc. will contain sufficient material as to disqualify it as an "introductory" module. As I have commented elsewhere, the most important operational word in the request for "the best introductory module" is "introductory" - I think the "best" module which incorporates everything you seem to be looking for will lose out on "introductory" in lieu of "best." I admit to not being super-familiar with the OSR scene, but it was my impression that in general OSR gamers seem to be looking for some combination of: 1. Reduced Rules Complexity 2. Nostalgia/"Old School Feel" (how does this differ from "preserve an idealized version of 1970's-1980's play" I wonder? Serious Question) 3. Using a system they are already familiar with (this is more for the older crowd that played these games and doesn't want to learn a new system, either due to laziness or more likely being happy enough with the old system to tolerate using it in lieu of using a more recent system with different - not necessarily more or less in number or severity - issues) 4. Quick character creation (Kind of goes with #1), which means characters can be more disposable. I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of OSR, so I will just note having read your review from a decade ago that it seems that your issue with the module is mostly that it doesn't fit with your personal sensibilities (which your statement above kind of agrees with, noting it is popular with other groups "but for [you] it's one of the worst" and which your comments here and in your blog suggest that you found it over-simplistic and wanted something a little deeper/larger in scope, which is an opinion you are certainly entitled to for a "module" but I think it's worth pointing out as an experienced player looking for depth in a module, you are not really the "introductory" module's target audience. Thank you for linking this, it was an interesting read and I will probably poke around that blog for some more reading. [/QUOTE]

Verification