Heh heh... see, your views on what makes for great modules is a wonderful example to why it's impossible to find any consistency of opinion on this subject... because my views on it look to be the direct antithesis of yours.I think 1e had a lot of great modules. The slavers, White Plume, The Giants, The Drow, even some of the less known ones were decent. It was the heyday of modules in my view. I've not seen that consistency since.
Outside of 1e, B2 was great. B1 could be great if the DM stocked it right.
Like I see the Against The Giants series and all I see are large maps filled with bunches of giants for which there's nothing to do but just to go through and kill them all. Which to me is exactly the kind of of module that I think is the least useful kind-- there's no story, nothing to hang your hat on except fighting. A lot of 4E D&D Insider modules were like that too... the only point was to have a series of battles (or "encounters") against various opponents, with just the barest hint of reasoning behind it. But my desires for a throughline as to why the characters are there and what they are doing (in addition to just fighting monsters) is not something that stands up to a lot of other people's reasoning for using modules.
You are not alone at all in your preferences on what makes for a great module, which is why none of us should ever take anyone else's opinions as gospel or an indication of an objective truth on what a good or bad modules is. All of us wants and needs so many different things from what a module or adventure can give us, that none of us are truly wrong. Every module will have its proponents and detractors.
Last edited: