Why do 3e/3.5e modules suck?

[Sir Whiskers]

...So, we've got a mostly abandoned sea-side city with lots of canals and eerie empty buildings. Cool. We've got a flooded prison to which evil people cannot willingly go. Cool. And we've got a giant storm just looming ominously in the distance. Cool.

Cool. That's the missing element in too many published adventures. When I read an adventure, if I'm not saying "cool" every few pages, it's probably a waste of my time. And I have to admit, in general I don't often say "cool" when reading 3E adventures.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

So it appears to me, based on this thread and others similiar, that there are a lot of people out there who want modules that take next to nothing to use it, want a plot-line that is totally original, yet fits seemlessly into your on-going campaign or home brew world. Plus the ecology and the politics of the module most be completely fleshed out and explained, and still fit into with what you have going in your on-going campaign or homebrew, or it must be perfectly written to whatever your tastes are, despite the fact the author doesn't know you and can't read your mind.

I, on the other hand, am happy if it has good maps, good NPC's/monsters that are fully and correctly statted out, and a handful of good ideas that i can use for inspiration. I do everything else i need to do to make it fit my campaign.

That is why I like Necromancer and the others i have mentioned. They say here, this is a neat setting I have come up with, here are a bunch of NPC's, locations, Magic item recomendations, treasure recommendations, and plot arc ideas, etc... Use what you will and add/modify to your hearts content.

They literally ask you to add/modify to your hearts content. they tell you to make the module your own. That is what i do and that is the kind of module I like to see.

I think you've summed up two approaches to using modules, but I don't think most GM's fall into just one or the other camp. I often strip elements from modules for use in my campaign (which is why I like Necromancer too). But if I'm looking for an adventure idea, I want more than room descriptions, stat blocks, and maps. I want a hook. I want something that will make the experience different. I want something my players will enjoy. Basically, the "coolness" factor I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[cleaverthepit]

Ranger

Heck yeah I am serious, that sounds like an interesting idea.

 

[Ssyleia]

I suppose it depends on your style of play:

You'll find excellent NPC's and enemies in 3rd Edition modules
You'll find extremely complex diplomacy issues, often with a "heaven/hell" note in 2nd edition modules published between 96 and 97...
You'll find elaborate plots and combat-easy adventures in 2nd Edition modules published between 89 and 95
You'll find challenging dungeons and elaborate traps in 1st Edition modules

I guess Zeitgeist is a great determinant in what you'll find in a given module depending on the year of publishing.

I will take the time recommend my favorites according to category:

Adventuring:
Horse Lords (1990) - This also ranks as my favorite published module of all times - it's so manylayered. Thank you again Troy Denning

Intrigue/Mystery:
Feast of Goblyns (also 1990 I think) - This Ravenloft Module has it all...

Role Playing:
In the Shadows (1992 I think) - Surviving this Ravenloft Module will not be by the "Power of thy Sword"

Dungeoneering (Low Level)
Curse of the Azure Bonds (1989) - A RPG version of the best selling Computer RPG by SSI. This is hack'n'slash as good as it gets...

Dungeoneering (Mid Level)
Return to the Tomb of Horrors (1996 ?) - Mean Traps, mean monsters, great storytelling even for a Hack'n'Slash Module

Dungeoneering (High Level)
Throne of Bloodstone (1989) - I've run this module 4 Times by now. Only Once the players managed to get to Act 2 (of 4) This is a challenge for epic adventuring groups who love rules lawyering, min/maxing and tactical combat...

Storytelling:
DL 1 - 15, the original Dragonlance modules
Those modules are unique in that they are both encounter driven and event driven. Sometimes things happen, even if the PC's are not there. If they are, however, they can influence those events. As a series an experiment and a masterpiece...

So - this is my opinion, feedback appreciated ;-)

 

[Emirikol]

2e modules are better to read, 3e modules (at least some) are better to play. Aaron

Thanks man. You hit the nail right on the head. The formatting and layouts are much easier to run and play.

The old scenarios REQUIRED you to memorize the entire scenario before playing it. The new ones run a lot easier and are more easily modified. The old ones made me feel like this guy: http://sickjokes.internetdj.com/media/pictures/nosepick.jpg


Jay H

 

[billd91]

2e modules are better to read, 3e modules (at least some) are better to play.

An interesting observation but not one I'm sure I totally agree on. Railroading is just as likely in any other written module, because it depended on the DM.
I think it has to do more with the Back to the Dungeon philosophy of 3E design. I find that quite a few 3E adventures I've read, aside from some really good ones in Dungeon, are terribly dungeon-crawley like 1st edition modules were. And for the most part, while fun to play, those weren't much to read. It wasn't until the Temple of Elemental Evil with its extensive historical setting information and parts of the I series like the Desert of Desolation trilogy and the awesome Ravenloft that I came to see any of the modules as actually being well written from the standpoint of actually being a pleasure to read.
The main reason for this was the general lack of flavor text in many of them, the lack of a coherent story other than hacking through a dungeon for some motive given in the adventure setup paragraph(s), and the lack of any personality given to the NPCs.
The modules may have been minimalist (and returning to being so with 3E) which has its uses for DMs who already know what they're doing. But it doesn't make them any more fun to read. More like more fun to make the necessary modifications.

 

[pogre]

Hmm...

Just remembered DireKobold.com. I haven't subscribed, but have been considering. What's everyone's opinions of the quality of their adventures.

I was subscribed for a time, but I think it has failed. I got on board for Wil Upchurch's adventures, which are decent, but there has not been a new adventure since October. The owner has stated on his message board that:

So where does this leave the site? Well for starters because of (well-founded) public outcry I'm posting this before I've 100% (I'm like 90%) decided on the plan, so I can't tell you everything but I can tell you this:
1. For those subscribers who are unhappy and just want out (generously pro-rated) refunds will be offered.
2. After the next adventure, DireKobold adventures will be sold individually for between $5-$12 (depending on the length) and released about one every month or two (once again depending on the length).
3. In general the adventures are going to run longer, have more setting info and more new OGC.
4. Subscribers will not have to pay for the adventurers individually, but rather they'll get them for free.
5. At some point the face value of the new adventures will vastly exceed the amount of money a subscriber has paid (especially since we're going to stop renewing memberships) at which point current subscribers will have to start buying the adventures individually just like everyone else.
6. Stand alone Xenogenic NPC's and encounters will be released once a week (starting this Saturday), to help fill the void between adventures.

In another message he promised an adventure for Midnight in March. To my knowledge that never happened.

Cool idea - apparently not practical. The owner was a very stand-up guy and gave me a very generous refund on my subscription.

 

[Eosin the Red]

For me it's not just the modules that are dry and flavorless, it's all the supplements as well. It's one of those weird quirks of life that in 2E where the rules were kind of bleh that the focus in modules and supplements wasn't on the rules, but on the flavor instead, but now in 3E where the rules are so strong that the rules have become the focus of things instead.

I think this is pretty strait on (IMO). The focus has steered away from the story.

I also think that the whole idea of being afraid to lock down a cool setting in a module (as mentioned earlier) is part of the problem.

 

[Snoweel]

My favorite adventure is Dragon's Crown for Dark Sun, which showcases many features of the setting: man-eating halflings, thri-kreen, psionics, sorcerer-kings, the history with the proto-sorcerer-kings wiping out large groups of preservers, the Sea of Silt, and so on.

W3rd.

It was Dark Sun's Arcane Shadows module in particular that led to my initial post.

Now admittedly, Dark Sun modules require much more extensive rewriting than most in order to fit them into a homebrew, but it can be done.

Entrenched bad guys are still entrenched bad guys. The world mightn't be a lifeless desert but it's still a horrific place to live (for whatever reason) and the-benevolent-NPC-who-is-mortally-wounded-at-the-start-of-the-adventure-and-becomes-the-MacGuffin-that-must-be-taken-to-a-special-place-in-order-to-begin-the-healing-of-the-world remains just that.

However, to give an adventures strong ties to the setting, you need to LIMIT it to that setting. Running Dragon's Crown in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk would require so much rewriting that it would be easier to make a new adventure from scratch. In today's crowded marketplace, and with the competition from Dungeon in the adventure bit, most publishers can't afford to limit the potential audience for their adventures. So, instead the adventures become generic and dull.

I disagree.

The Slavers! module (by TSR) I mentioned earlier is designed to be run in Greyhawk. It required an extensive rewrite to fit into my homebrew, yet the fact that it was written for a specific setting meant that it came equipped with its own setting hooks - all I had to do was replace Greyhawk references with ones of my own device.

Had the module been generic like the multitude written for 3.x I would have had to do a lot more work coming up with the whys of this module's inclusion in my setting.

That's the problem with generic modules - they work so hard to not be attached to any particular setting that they may as well take place underground.

So ultimately I disagree that a module being written for a particular setting makes it less versatile. On the contrary, a module written for no setting in particular ends up looking like it was written to be played in a vacuum.

And as for 3.x stat blocks, what with the proliferance of house rules in my campaign (and I'm sure I'm in the majority here), I have to rewrite them anyway.

 

[rounser]

Agreed Snoweel, those Dark Sun modules were a high water mark for D&D adventures. As a player, I didn't even really notice or care about the railroading because they were so involving, with a variety of challenges, choices (so it seemed) and scenery.

That's the problem with generic modules - they work so hard to not be attached to any particular setting that they may as well take place underground.

So ultimately I disagree that a module being written for a particular setting makes it less versatile. On the contrary, a module written for no setting in particular ends up looking like it was written to be played in a vacuum.

Yep, and they seem to bring out less creativity from the authors than ones written for a specific setting, as well, perhaps because a setting lets them hang character, scenery and plot components on a rich and inspirational context.

And I think it was Steve Miller that pointed out that the differences between the "generic slush" D&D settings (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Mystara, most homebrews) are largely negligible, and that it's childs play to adapt modules from one to the next. The problem is perhaps mental barriers at the customer end...not everyone's as openminded as Steve Miller, and able to shrug and substitute the Cult of the Dragon for Dragon Highlords, or see past the Greyhawk logo on the cover.