Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 5173710" data-attributes="member: 2525">I've never even heard of about 1/3rd of the adventures mentioned here.&nbsp; Now, I am not necessarily representative of the average of the community as a whole.&nbsp; But, if my experience is common, then it would be hard to call something &quot;classic&quot; if your average D&amp;D player hasn't even heard of it.I seem to recall Dungeon magazine was only read by around 20% of the community at most.&nbsp; If that is the case, I seriously doubt anything in Dungeon (and not subsequently published or re-purposed as its own module) would reach the level of being a &quot;classic&quot;.&nbsp; Same goes for a bunch of third party products which, while they may have been great, probably were not seen by most players.&nbsp; Perhaps some of the key names associated with a version of D&amp;D (like maybe Monte Cook) got enough exposure to possibly reach &quot;classic&quot; status with their third party produced products.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 5173710, member: 2525"] I've never even heard of about 1/3rd of the adventures mentioned here. Now, I am not necessarily representative of the average of the community as a whole. But, if my experience is common, then it would be hard to call something "classic" if your average D&D player hasn't even heard of it. I seem to recall Dungeon magazine was only read by around 20% of the community at most. If that is the case, I seriously doubt anything in Dungeon (and not subsequently published or re-purposed as its own module) would reach the level of being a "classic". Same goes for a bunch of third party products which, while they may have been great, probably were not seen by most players. Perhaps some of the key names associated with a version of D&D (like maybe Monte Cook) got enough exposure to possibly reach "classic" status with their third party produced products. [/QUOTE]

Verification