Worst D&D adventure of all time?

[Cam Banks]

For what it's worth, I think this, actually, expalins about 75% of the OOP D&D edition bashing that I've ever seen.

To be fair, it's sometimes a very good DM back in the day that explains why many people are fond of bad products. An excellent DM can make a really bad adventure quite a fun experience, and vice versa as you point out.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Hussar]

I'm similarly confused by this complaint. It's akin to having the DM introduce the scenario with something like "the Queen has lost her only daughter to ruthless bandits. The bandits are holed up in the mountains, and rumor has it that there's a giant or two helping them!"

And then having the players say, "Screw that, let's go adventuring in the complete opposite direction."

A plot isn't a railroad. It isn't even a railroad if, as a consequence of the unfolding plot, the heroes are left with only a few choices. This kind of setup is common in adventures now - the only case where it probably isn't is the "old school" location-based adventure which has no more plot to it than "go into dungeon, fight monsters, come out richer".

Cheers,
Cam

See, but there's a problem with that comparison. In DL, you have two choices - follow the plotline or die. Now, it's been more than a few years since I last read the DL modules, so maybe my memory is a little fuzzy, but, as I recall, in DL 1, if you chose to ignore the plot and head out cross country, you faced successively larger waves of bad guys until you either got back to the plot or you died.

That's railroading.

At no point, again, as I recall, could the players turn around and say, "Screw it, I want to be on the winning team. Hey! Mr. Dragonlord, sign me up as your newest recruit. As a gift, here's that gemstone guy you were looking for."

Again, any time the party tried to deviate from the plot, they faced successive waves of bad guys until they died.

If the party was more pragmatic than the adventure called for, they got slapped down. Hrm, we got all these refugees that we just saved, but, now they're complaining and slowing us down. Bugger that. Let's head up on our horses and leave these losers behind. Oops, not bringing the refugees sees you dead at the elven border. Thanks for playing.

The modules were full of things like that.

Yes, the modules had some fantastic art, and some great cartography. They even had some really brilliant dungeoncrawls. Xak Tsaroth was a whole barrel of fun. But that doesn't change the fact that a party who decided not to follow the script - died.

Sorry, but, if your plot requires me to follow the script or die, that's railroading. The fact that the package is pretty and the ideas are cool doesn't change that. When you have the END of the story already worked out before the game is even played, that's not epic roleplay, that's railroading. I'm all for epic story arcs where the actions of the players have real consequences. However, when the actions of the players have only one consequence, don't complain when people start talking about railroading.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Am I correct then in thinking that by this rationale all those adventure site adventures were railroads too?

I mean why would anyone in their right mind want to go into some hill giant fortress, Lolth's demonweb or some temple of elemental evil. If you don't do these adventures the dm will admit they have nothing else prepared, pack up, & turn on the telly. Surely this is a form of railroad too?

 

[Hussar]

But therein lies the difference. If the players decide NOT to go into that hill giant's fortress, they don't die. They just don't go into that hill giant's fortress.

Again, if the plot of an adventure tells the players that they HAVE to do follow the story or THEY DIE, then it's railroading.

If the consequences of not following the script is that I don't get to go on that adventure, well, that's my problem. If the consequences of not following the script is the automatic death of my character, well, how can you not think that's railroading?

 

[Joël of the FoS]

Ravenloft is a roach motel, PCs go in, nothing comes out. Any setting that is a one-off PC setting is by default a loser and waste of time. If you can't play your main PC there, why bother?

Let me tell you I disagree with this bold statement.

With a cheesy DM, Ravenloft can indeed be seen as a PC-killer setting. And that is dumb, indeed.

However, the setting has evolved from a "weekend in hell" type setting for PCs from other D&D setting (and while that has a lot of potential to be fun, it could be dull also with a cheesy DM with no creativity) to a setting where you play a native born Ravenloft PC.

So if you can't play something else then your "main PC", as you say, then indeed Ravenloft is not for you.

Joël

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If the players decide NOT to go into that hill giant's fortress, they don't die. ... or THEY DIE, then it's railroading. ... is the automatic death of my character

Where is this automatic death coming from? I ran the adventure about 10 years ago & while there were plenty of deaths I never came across the automatic death you'r talking about.

The draconians that showed up did not auto-kill, they could be outrun on horses or hidden from just like any normal encounter. Admitedly the Fizban & Kender mockery had to be banned to remove excess comic-ness, likewise some opportune dragons did not need to automatically spot the pcs.

I think you just didn't like the 'campaign world' rather than the modules. The campaign world was all about heroic struggle against the forces of evil. Sure it's fine to not like this campaign theme but you should not have been surprised by the modules staying true to it.

 

[Steel_Wind]

See, but there's a problem with that comparison. In DL, you have two choices - follow the plotline or die. Now, it's been more than a few years since I last read the DL modules, so maybe my memory is a little fuzzy, but, as I recall, in DL 1, if you chose to ignore the plot and head out cross country, you faced successively larger waves of bad guys until you either got back to the plot or you died.

That's railroading.

At no point, again, as I recall, could the players turn around and say, "Screw it, I want to be on the winning team. Hey! Mr. Dragonlord, sign me up as your newest recruit. As a gift, here's that gemstone guy you were looking for."

Again, any time the party tried to deviate from the plot, they faced successive waves of bad guys until they died.

With respect to DL1 - no argument. It is not only a railroad - it was an inepty done railroad.

DL2 - yes, but to a lesser extent.

After that point in a 12 module series, things ease up substantially and the railroad melts away until it's just plain gone. The statement " any time the party tried to deviate from the plot" is just painly not true over the course of a massive series of adventures. It is true over the course of the first 2.

The designers were struggling with the design of what was the first of its kind. I acknowledge some heavy-handed design horrors in DL1. But my point was not to dismiss the entire series for the sins of the first two modules.

As for the "what if the PCs join the bad guys" criticism: give it a rest. You won't see that plotline choice facilitated in any TSR or WotC product - then or now.

D&D is about being the players playing the heroes and defeating the bad guys. IF you want your game to be NOT about that - you won't find support for that option in a published adventure module by the game's creators.

That holds true whether it is Against the Slave Lords, Dragons of Despair, Temple of Elemental Evil or Sunless Citadel.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, I really liked the campaign setting. Liked it enough to buy all 16 modules, a hardback book and a rather large number of the books.

It still doesn't change the fact that its a railroad.

Take a look at DL 1. What happens if the party decides to leg it out into the wilderness? They run into repeated draconian patrols until, eventually, they die. Sure, it's not an automatic death in that you die in the first wave. But, eventually, after the umpteenth wave, you will die.

I'm still not sure how you can argue that this isn't railroading. If the party in any of the DL modules decides to break out of the mold, they die. They die a death of a thousand cuts as random encounters every couple of hours nickle and dime them to death.

I'm sorry, but again, an epic STORY is automatically a railroad. If the OUTCOME of the story is known before the dice are even rolled, it's a railroad. No matter what the PC's did, they had to follow the story, OR THEY DIED.

I'm sorry, but how is endless waves of draconians NOT an automatic death for the PC's?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm sorry, but again, an epic STORY is automatically a railroad. If the OUTCOME of the story is known before the dice are even rolled, it's a railroad. No matter what the PC's did, they had to follow the story, OR THEY DIED.

I'm sorry, but how is endless waves of draconians NOT an automatic death for the PC's?

The outcome was never known, the end of the modules gave about 6 possible endings.

Mine finished with Raistlin getting incinerated while some Rose knight smashed Berem's everstone with the hammer of Kharis on some anvil of judgement. They then fled the dark temple on some weak brass dragon they had saved earlier while a lich of the dark queen carried on blasting them.

While a literal interpretation might have an endless horde of draconians swarm the hills, I ran it more military like with main columns & a scorched earth on the periphery. You could beat a couple of groups, so long as you weren't traipsing into the main body, & reach the ruined lands beyond.

Then what? We're back to the opting out of the adventure & watching telly again. Or maybe the dm will be fine to make up some mad-max survival adventure which should be prepped in a couple of weeks. Of course you might want to opt out of that too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

D&D is about being the players playing the heroes and defeating the bad guys.

It's absolutely not limited to being that, not even according to their own books (WotC's), let alone other books, let alone countless GMs' and players' interpretations and preferences.

IF you want your game to be NOT about that - you won't find support for that option in a published adventure module by the game's creators.

While that's probably true to this day (I don't have access to the entire list and relevant details of each, as it happens), in the future.. who knows. WotC has really put 'playing the monster' into roleplaying on a larger scale than anyone else has, that I'm aware of... and that's just one angle.