What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in
one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for one
reason or another?
For me it's X9 Savage Coast.
It is not a good adventure. There's basically no point to why you do
things in there, and it even tries to force a change of allegiance on
you for no reason besides "these guys are lawful so they are actually
the good ones".
In fact reading through the module I noticed that this whole scenario
made more sense for chaotic players than lawful ones. There are two
orders, and it is the chaotic one (The Brotherhood of Light) that hires
them to check on their lawful counterpart. And over most of the
adventure there actually is no reason to dislike either side over the
other, as both orders are quite shitty to the natives, both exploiting
and enslaving them. Maybe this was supposed to be shown as different,
but it isn't.
One part of the problem was that this whole module was clearly not
complete. It ends with a non-resolution after fighting a particularly
devious monster in a ruined city, but why you should fight it, or even
how you are supposed to reach the city without railroading is not really clear and needs to be worked out by the DM.
The answer came later in Dungeon Magazine: Tortles of the Purple Sage
was likely the stuff that was cut from the scenario, with some additions
that make it into another story. Put both of them together and you have
a quite impressive exploration scenario all along the Savage Coast and
the north of it. But for that you first would have to track down the two early Dungeon magazines this was published in, and put the work in to actually put them together.
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in
one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for one
reason or another?
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in
one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for one
reason or another?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:13:28 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in >>one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for oneTomb of Horrors, despite Dragon magazine's 2004 award. The whole thing
reason or another?
was Gygax's way of saying FU to arrogant high level players. He publicly challenged people who thought their characters were "invincible." It is
full of his particular brand of small dick energy.
C3 Lost Island of Castanamir...
...level of 2-4...
Characters toward
the higher end of the scale work really well
Nah, I was thinking exactly about not well regarded modules that still
are good. I think I will have a look at C3 then :)
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:13:28 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in >>> one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for oneTomb of Horrors, despite Dragon magazine's 2004 award. The whole thing
reason or another?
was Gygax's way of saying FU to arrogant high level players. He publicly
challenged people who thought their characters were "invincible." It is
full of his particular brand of small dick energy.
Seems like a fair take on S1, but as I understand it OP is asking the
other way round. Modules that are commonly frowned upon as being bad,
but *you* like none the less. So I guess modules from the *Dungeon
Magazine* list of "30 Greatest D&D Adventures of All Times" [1] don't
count as a rule.
I think that's why it got the award, because Good Gygax it's not a fair
or well written adventure. Why the hell did this evil wizard build all
this, complete with a counterfeit of himself, when he can suck people's
souls out at will? It's the ultimate in "Why is this even a thing?" What
is he doing there just sitting in that room anyway?
"Because otherwise there would be no scenario"
On 1/27/2024 8:20 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:55:09 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's why it got the award, because Good Gygax it's not a fair >>>> or well written adventure. Why the hell did this evil wizard build all >>>> this, complete with a counterfeit of himself, when he can suck people's >>>> souls out at will? It's the ultimate in "Why is this even a thing?" What >>>> is he doing there just sitting in that room anyway?
"Because otherwise there would be no scenario"
The scenario appears to be: "This lich is taking a thousand-year nap out
of sheer boredom. Do not bother him. He has gone to great, extremely
convoluted, and inefficient lengths to not be bothered."
It is a very, very silly module. Still, it has nostalgia.
Well, one of the issues is that it is basically a funhouse dungeon from
the early years. It was written for Origins 1975, and then refined over
the next years until it was published in 1978. DnD as a hobby was a year
old at that point. (and there already were players that claimed to have
seen it all and be able to beat any challenge...)
No, if I went for 'bad' I'd probably go with "T1-4 Tomb of Elemental
Evil." I know, I've just been declared heretic and a fatwah has been
issued against me. I stand by my assessment.
It's not that "Tomb of Elemental Evil" is without merit. It has a lot
of good ideas. I just don't think they are implemented - or at least,
they aren't presented - well in the module. It wants to be both a
giant open-world sandbox and tight dungeon-crawl module, but does
neither very well. The open-world feels barren and requires a lot of
effort on the part of the DM to fill in the details. The
dungeoncrawling feels generic, with uninteresting villains and
cartoony situations. Had the module either been smaller in scope - or expanded to be a much larger series - it might have been a more
effective adventure. As it is, it requires so much extra work from the
DM and players that you might as well just write your own adventure
entirely.
But if you want more traditionally bad modules, you need look no
further than the Spelljammer game. While they often were fun, they
were also poorly written, terribly balanced and often just ridiculous
in concept. Still, it's hard not to glean at least some enjoyment from
an adventure that might have you land your spaceship on a titan's back
to help him deal with his chronic eczema and giant space-fleas. ;-)
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:36:28 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/2024 8:20 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:55:09 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's why it got the award, because Good Gygax it's not a fair >>>>> or well written adventure. Why the hell did this evil wizard build all >>>>> this, complete with a counterfeit of himself, when he can suck people's >>>>> souls out at will? It's the ultimate in "Why is this even a thing?" What >>>>> is he doing there just sitting in that room anyway?
"Because otherwise there would be no scenario"
The scenario appears to be: "This lich is taking a thousand-year nap out >>> of sheer boredom. Do not bother him. He has gone to great, extremely
convoluted, and inefficient lengths to not be bothered."
It is a very, very silly module. Still, it has nostalgia.
Well, one of the issues is that it is basically a funhouse dungeon from
the early years. It was written for Origins 1975, and then refined over
the next years until it was published in 1978. DnD as a hobby was a year
old at that point. (and there already were players that claimed to have
seen it all and be able to beat any challenge...)
Yup. I'm aware of the history. And boy did those players grind Gygax's
gears. Thus, the entire module is pure vengeance.
But it _is_ the first published puzzle dungeon. I love puzzle dungeons, because you get to use your brain instead of dice, so I love ToH as a
guilty pleasure.
But this puzzle dungeon? Yeah it was written with _malice_. It was a commentary on roll playing vs. role playing, and the fact that players
had turned their brains off.
It is true. D&D consisted entirely of silly dungeons, where inexplicably
the monsters got harder the lower you went in 1975, and none of them had
to eat. Gelatinous cubes cleaned up any possible way of marking the
mazes. Everything was 10x10x10', with the occasional double-wide hall. It
was in its infancy. Nethack is a great representation of the game at the time. I was a contemporary of that period, though I never played boxed
set.
But the question was "name a module that is objectively bad," and IMO all
of that era is objectively bad, at least a bit. I would not run White
Plume Mountain in this day and age, classic that it is. I would run Inverness. But ToH is doubly bad, because it is specifically written as a huge FU. A demonstration that the DM can always call "Rocks fall,
everyone dies." The module practically does that at several points. Quite literally when you defeat the false lich.
On 1/27/2024 11:12 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:36:28 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/2024 8:20 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:55:09 +0100, kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
I think that's why it got the award, because Good Gygax it's not a fair >>>>>> or well written adventure. Why the hell did this evil wizard build all >>>>>> this, complete with a counterfeit of himself, when he can suck people's >>>>>> souls out at will? It's the ultimate in "Why is this even a thing?" What >>>>>> is he doing there just sitting in that room anyway?
"Because otherwise there would be no scenario"
The scenario appears to be: "This lich is taking a thousand-year nap out >>>> of sheer boredom. Do not bother him. He has gone to great, extremely
convoluted, and inefficient lengths to not be bothered."
It is a very, very silly module. Still, it has nostalgia.
Well, one of the issues is that it is basically a funhouse dungeon from
the early years. It was written for Origins 1975, and then refined over
the next years until it was published in 1978. DnD as a hobby was a year >>> old at that point. (and there already were players that claimed to have
seen it all and be able to beat any challenge...)
Yup. I'm aware of the history. And boy did those players grind Gygax's
gears. Thus, the entire module is pure vengeance.
But it _is_ the first published puzzle dungeon. I love puzzle dungeons,
because you get to use your brain instead of dice, so I love ToH as a
guilty pleasure.
But this puzzle dungeon? Yeah it was written with _malice_. It was a
commentary on roll playing vs. role playing, and the fact that players
had turned their brains off.
It is true. D&D consisted entirely of silly dungeons, where inexplicably
the monsters got harder the lower you went in 1975, and none of them had
to eat. Gelatinous cubes cleaned up any possible way of marking the
mazes. Everything was 10x10x10', with the occasional double-wide hall. It
was in its infancy. Nethack is a great representation of the game at the
time. I was a contemporary of that period, though I never played boxed
set.
But the question was "name a module that is objectively bad," and IMO all
of that era is objectively bad, at least a bit. I would not run White
Plume Mountain in this day and age, classic that it is. I would run
Inverness. But ToH is doubly bad, because it is specifically written as a
huge FU. A demonstration that the DM can always call "Rocks fall,
everyone dies." The module practically does that at several points. Quite
literally when you defeat the false lich.
I agree with it being objectively bad, and ushering in the era of
players vs. DM that took decades to right.
However it was "Favorite Bad Module." Some people love it *shrug*. I
don't, and It doesn't sound like it's your favorite either. I can >appreciate it for what it is, but I'd never play or DM it again, unless
in 5e just to see how badly it was neutered (improved.)
What's a bad module? Well there's The Forest Oracle I guess, but I've
never run it. T2-4 I hate, but many seem to love.
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in
one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for one
reason or another?
On 2/6/2024 10:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in >>> one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for one
reason or another?
Good question!
I cannot think of any in particular, but I hated the early Dragonlance
adventures because they railroaded the hell out of us.
But did you like them though?
(I never liked the DL series, too railroady)
On 2/6/2024 10:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:
What are your favorite bad modules? The ones that are objectively bad in >>> one way or another, but somehow you still kind of like them for one
reason or another?
Good question!
I cannot think of any in particular, but I hated the early Dragonlance
adventures because they railroaded the hell out of us.
--
Let's go Brandon!
But did you like them though?
(I never liked the DL series, too railroady)
justisaur@yahoo.com wrote:
What's a bad module? Well there's The Forest Oracle I guess, but I've
never run it. T2-4 I hate, but many seem to love.
Which modules are those? If memory serves, only The Village of Hamlet was published.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:47:55 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,607 |