Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5173087" data-attributes="member: 22424">If it's old and still popular (regardless of actual quality), it's a classic. Personally, I think the term is so overused these days as to be near-useless, especially whenever something is hailed as an "instant classic" - most often, it's all but forgotten within a year.In D&D terms, I think an adventure has to have been around for a fairly long time (say a few years), and still be widely recognised, if not widely played, to be considered a classic.Just two: "Sunless Citadel" and "Red Hand of Doom". Possibly the "Shackled City" Adventure Path (which isn't the best of the Paizo adventure paths, but gets the recognition for being the first).There are many other superb adventures out there, but I don't think any of them have the recognition to be considered classics.Not yet, but give it time."Keep on the Shadowfell" will probably be considered a classic for being the first. The "Scales of War" Adventure Path will likely go the same way."War of the Burning Sky" will probably become an "ENWorld Classic", but probably not in the wider market. Also, it's not official, of course.First 3e adventure I ever ran. Good times. I don't think it has the name recognition to be considered a classic, though.Don't have this one. Of the "Expedition" series, I have "Demonweb Pits" (which is a poor adventure, but contains the core of a really good campaign arc), and "Ruins of Greyhawk" (which is better, but still disappointing - perhaps because I didn't have the appropriate sense of nostalgia going in).A very good trilogy, and a personal favourite. The second part, in particular, is great. However, I doubt they have the recognition to be considered classics.It's no better than okay. Interesting for the format (which introduced the "Delve" format for adventures, which has since evolved to the familiar 4e format, and also made use of the "multiple booklet" format used in 4e), but the adventure itself is so-so.No. This adventure is absymal on just about every measure. Avoid at all costs.I'm inclined to agree that this will become considered a classic. Having neither read nor played it, I can't comment on quality, except to say that the reviews I have read have been deeply mixed. (And, of course, it's always hard to determine how fair those reviews are, or how badly influenced they are by edition-warrior issues.)The only one I have and have read (but not played/run) is "P1: King of the Trollhaunt Warrens".Frankly, it's just not a very good adventure. The skill challenge is almost completely pointless (and 'penalises' failure by giving the PCs an exciting fight followed by a bundle of nice treasure), and the adventure is almost completely lacking in meaningful choices. Essentially, it's just a path: kill A, kill B, kill C, kill D, finish dungeon 1, kill D, kill E, kill F, kill H, finish dungeon 2. Congratulations! You win!The reviews I've read of this one have been mostly negative. Hopefully, if WotC do another 4e Adventure Path, they'll have learned a lot about how (not) to put one together.</blockquote>

Verification