Looking for good adventures to . . .

[cowsay]

. . . test players quality of play. I seek modules or adventures, published or homebrew, that are well designed to test the reasoning abilities of the players, adventures that reward players not merely for how well they build a character, but for how well they play it. Modules where good judgement surpasses luck are what I seek.

If you have recommendations along these lines and, perhaps, a brief rationale, I'd be most appreciative.

[yougi]

One I really like is PF's Last Baron's Tower, for lv5, where the PCs are in a city under siege and must assassinate/capture its baron. They have to figure out who's loyal to the Baron and who's not, a way to get in the castle.

Also along these lines is 1E's Castanamir's Island, for lv1-3, which is a pretty weird, highly magical place. Of course, to adapt it to 3.5, you must create new combat encounters if you want your players to have any chance of pulling through: one in particular has the 2nd level party fight 2 lv7 fighters in an enclosed space.

[cowsay]

Thanks, I'll check these out. I haven't played much pathfinder. Will it be difficult to convert from PF to 3.X?

I appreciate the suggestions and welcome others.

[yougi]

I think Last Baron was actually made by Paizo for 3.5, so it would be VERY simple to adapt to 3.5 :smallbiggrin:

But in general the adaptation from PF to 3.5 is very simple: many skills have been put together, so you have to be able to put them back in 3.5 terms; monsters are solved by simply taking the 3.5 version (PF gives more feats), and same for spells (some were changed); I personally rebuild opponents with class levels, as many classes were modified and I don't feel right using two different class systems in a single game (Paladin (they changed smite and LoH), Barbarian (changed rage) and Sorcerer (gave them bloodline powers) being the most obvious examples (at least to me), but most classes were).

Converting 1E to 3.5 is, however, a much different thing.

[Amphetryon]

. . . test players quality of play. I seek modules or adventures, published or homebrew, that are well designed to test the reasoning abilities of the players, adventures that reward players not merely for how well they build a character, but for how well they play it. Modules where good judgement surpasses luck are what I seek.

If you have recommendations along these lines and, perhaps, a brief rationale, I'd be most appreciative.

That's a. . . highly subjective test you're seeking to administer, there.

[cowsay]

That's a. . . highly subjective test you're seeking to administer, there.

I'm not sure I take your point. This isn't a "test" in the sense in which your teacher gives you a test, for which you get a grade, or in which there is some competition. What I meant by test was "challenge". I want to challenge the party's ability to play together, using their reasoning, their game acumen, and their good judgment. There are many adventures, published and otherwise, that let the players role-play, that enable battle against difficult foes, that make for a great story, etc. And all these are good elements of an adventure. But, I am hoping for an adventure where the author(s) arranged for scenarios in which the players had to rely on reasoning and cleverness to get through the adventure. For instance, while I think Tomb of Horrors is a great adventure, I don't think it really rewards cleverness; it rewards luck, power, and extreme caution. I'm looking for an adventure that makes sense and where the party can use that sense to contribute to their success.

[ArcturusV]

Usually not something you'll find, in my experience. Least not in DnD. It's different for other system of course. Playing Dark Heresy is a bit like that, because in Dark Heresy the LAST thing you want to do is just brute your way through something. Nor can you carefully poke, prod, and plod along since even interacting with things leads to insanity, death, or worse. So no endless careful experimentation and analysis like Tomb of Horrors. You have to have a quickness to you to assess dangers and act appropriately first. And know that pulling out your gun and blasting away is the last resort because most anything you face will mess you up if you try to go toe to toe against htem.

[cowsay]

Usually not something you'll find, in my experience. Least not in DnD. It's different for other system of course. Playing Dark Heresy is a bit like that, because in Dark Heresy the LAST thing you want to do is just brute your way through something. Nor can you carefully poke, prod, and plod along since even interacting with things leads to insanity, death, or worse. So no endless careful experimentation and analysis like Tomb of Horrors. You have to have a quickness to you to assess dangers and act appropriately first. And know that pulling out your gun and blasting away is the last resort because most anything you face will mess you up if you try to go toe to toe against htem.

That would be a bummer. I was rather hoping that there were great adventures that challenge players wits. Maybe others will know or find them.

[Amphetryon]

I'm not sure I take your point. This isn't a "test" in the sense in which your teacher gives you a test, for which you get a grade, or in which there is some competition. What I meant by test was "challenge". I want to challenge the party's ability to play together, using their reasoning, their game acumen, and their good judgment. There are many adventures, published and otherwise, that let the players role-play, that enable battle against difficult foes, that make for a great story, etc. And all these are good elements of an adventure. But, I am hoping for an adventure where the author(s) arranged for scenarios in which the players had to rely on reasoning and cleverness to get through the adventure. For instance, while I think Tomb of Horrors is a great adventure, I don't think it really rewards cleverness; it rewards luck, power, and extreme caution. I'm looking for an adventure that makes sense and where the party can use that sense to contribute to their success.
The thing is, Player skills and Character skills aren't the same thing, particularly in 3.X. The smartest Player at the table may revel in playing the Half-Orc Barbarian with sub-par mental stats; the socially awkward wallflower may want to be the loquacious Lothario-type Bard; the clumsy big guy may jump at the chance to play the Halfling Rogue who specializes in Sleight of Hand.

What I'm understanding you to be after is something that requires metagaming (requires the Players to behave as if they're cognizant of playing a game, rather than simply playing). I don't think 3.X is a good fit for that goal.

[cowsay]

That's not really it. I'm interested in having players demonstrate, in how they play their characters, things like: when to be quiet, when to capture and not kill an opponent, when to send only one player forward to investigate, when to run from an encounter rather than fight, when to refrain from using an area of affect spell that will do more harm than good, when to notice something about the architecture that gives a clue as to what might be coming next, when to distract or delay opponents in an encounter rather than just attacking, when to travel without light (even if some of the party can't see), when to use the rumors and hooks the party discovered to their advantage, etc. I'm not looking to test obscure game mechanics, per se, or to extol optimization. That barbarian's player could play more thoughtfully than the wizard's. I'm looking for scenarios where the players can shine through their play of their characters, rather than having the optimization lead the charge.

Obviously, I'm having a difficult time describing what I mean here. It is clearly my inability to be articulate. With luck someone will successfully scry my incoherence out of existence--at least for this thread. If not, I'll just keep trying.

Thanks for the interest so far and for your patience.

[georgie_leech]

You could always make your own. You're really not likely to find any modules that reward or require quick wits, at least without DM intervention. 3.E is a very rules-centric game, and one that is perscriptive rather than restrictive. In other words, the game is built around a limited number of possible actions and abilities, and most published modules reflect that.

[ArcturusV]

If I'm understanding you, and I think I am... this is going to be a hard line to ride.

One reason being that the type of adventure you're referring to leads to a lot of dead ends. Which isn't a horrible thing if you're doing something like a Detective Campaign, with each "Adventure" being a separate case. Some cases just wouldn't get solved.

But for a more narrative style, where plots build on the results of last session, that's a hard thing to do really. Least with any particular plot as making the wrong choice at the wrong time will result in entire plot lines being shut down.

This is why most adventure modules I've seen are written in a fairly linear fashion. Unless you do something really, really weird (I won't go through the dungeon! I'll hire a gang of Dwarves to tunnel around the dungeon into the treasure vault!)... you're going to run through most of the content of the adventure module anyway. Even to the point where I can think of things like the Icewind Dale adventure module... where it has a point that said "If the players aren't following his mission or don't feel like doing it, the halfling will use his Gem of Beguiling to force them to accept his mission".

Now, the other problem with that, is DnD, particularly if you have spellcasters in your team (Which you probably will) has so many ways to "fix" dead ends or wrong choices, that they aren't really obstacles so much as speed bumps. Oh... the bad guys just killed a critical witness because your players weren't fast enough/followed the wrong clue? They just find the corpse and cast Speak With Dead. You want them to figure out which of the "Clues" to something is true and which is a red herring? Well they could deduce it... or they could cast Augury. They need to find the safe path around a dangerous field of traps... or they can cast Wind Walk and just stroll over the whole thing.

The magic solutions often curtail that sort of adventure. It could be interesting if your party consisted of nothing but Fighters, Rogues, Warmages, maybe a Bard or a Ranger, etc. But it is a concern you have to think of.

Perhaps the only real way to do an adventure hitting the goals you want is to really play a Sandbox game, of which by definition means there are no real Adventure Modules for. Because you need an adventure that can survive Dead Ends, or circumventing dead ends, and that can be flexible enough to make Failure a very real option that doesn't instantly end the game.

[cowsay]

I think you get it, although, admittedly, it's not clear to me how what I'm looking for is inconsistent with publishing an adventure. With luck someone will find something. But I really appreciate the thoughtful commentary.

[Fyermind]

Kingmaker from pathfinder is not an adventure I've run, but I've heard it is quite good for this.

Red Hand of Doom (there is a handbook for running it floating around here somewhere) is a great 3.5 adventure. RHoD features a lot of chances to get closer to your goal (amassing victory points for the final battle and gaining reinforcements in this case) for making smart decisions.

I generally find myself restatting all the NPCs anyway, so the edition your adventure comes from is not very important.

[Amphetryon]

Kingmaker from pathfinder is not an adventure I've run, but I've heard it is quite good for this.

Red Hand of Doom (there is a handbook for running it floating around here somewhere) is a great 3.5 adventure. RHoD features a lot of chances to get closer to your goal (amassing victory points for the final battle and gaining reinforcements in this case) for making smart decisions.

I generally find myself restatting all the NPCs anyway, so the edition your adventure comes from is not very important.
Having not run RHoD (or any published modules in quite some time), I'm curious how many of those are "smart decisions" and how many of them are "decisions the writer(s) personally approved of?"

In other words, is lateral thinking encouraged, or discouraged? Are "smart decisions" by PCs with low INT rewarded (thus rewarding the Player for not playing the Character in front of him as written), or penalized (potentially resulting in more "true to type" roleplaying, but also potentially grinding encounters to a halt if the one with the smart idea isn't the one playing the high INT Character)?

[ArcturusV]

Though ideally in that situation you should help out. Yeah, I got stuck playing the 4 Int guy. But if the DM is describing something that screams out CLUE... and the guy with 16 Int and 18 Wis just isn't getting it I'll probably tell him out of character "Hey... yeah, that's probably evidence of a collapsed tunnel. Go investigate that."

[Amphetryon]

Though ideally in that situation you should help out. Yeah, I got stuck playing the 4 Int guy. But if the DM is describing something that screams out CLUE... and the guy with 16 Int and 18 Wis just isn't getting it I'll probably tell him out of character "Hey... yeah, that's probably evidence of a collapsed tunnel. Go investigate that."

I am sincerely glad that solution works for you. I have seen several games where that would be called "metagaming," and actively discouraged on that basis. I am not sure whether or not your proposed solution fits the OP's requirements for testing Player skill.

[ArcturusV]

Well. I don't do that as a DM. As a player I would. I don't know if it's really a bad thing. I mean we're on the same team, cooperating. His character should have had the idea (After all, I got about an 11 int, 9 Wis in real life and I had the idea).

Never really occurred to me that someone would necessarily have a problem with that. Well... other than guys who have a problem getting help with anything. You know, the guy that went you get up you say "Hey, Hank, want me to get you something while I'm up?" and they respond with "What! I'm no cripple. My legs work. I could get something if I wanted it!"

[Fyermind]

The sorts of decisions encouraged are as in the spoiler so people don't read them by accident.


Not fighting the lich who is much stronger than the party but dealing with it instead. The players negotiate the return of it's phylactery for it ending it's alliance with the BBEG's army who was holding it's phylactery hostage.

Noticing the lead about giants and befriending the old weakened giant in the forest. They are given a huge gauntlet they can bribe it's friendship with.

Not making the elves mad.

Destroying the bridge only bridge across a gorge for miles to slow down enemy approach.

Etc.

[ArcturusV]

You should always make the elves mad. They are the most ineffective of the "innately better than thou" races out there. :smallbiggrin: All talk, no bite.

[Fyermind]

My preferred manner for making elves mad is to suggest that they multiclass wizard and ranger.

[Hyde]

Unfortunately, published adventures rarely pose a challenge to all but the most mentally deficient groups.

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is pretty solidly design, though our DM had to throw the entire second half of the dungeon at us to keep up from rofl-stomping it.

Otherwise, Tomb of Horrors is pretty much the ultimate in "do the wrong thing and you die". It's really, really stratifying, though- there's typically a single "correct" answer, and not doing it causes pretty much instant death.

Lost Caverns of Tsoj'canth wasn't particularly challenging, but was fun. We killed everything we were probably supposed to talk to, and talked to everything we were probably supposed to kill. Our DM was perplexed.

[ShriekingDrake]

Have you looked at Forge of Fury? While not every encounter is as you describe, some of them are exactly as what you seem to me to be describing.

I do like what you're seeking myself: encounters that challenge the players, regardless of what character they are playing--though like some here, I do like players to stick to their role-playing.

[graymachine]

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20051031a) is a link to the 3.5 version of Return to the Tomb of Horrors. Should be challenging, unless you have a party of optimizers on your hands.

[ShriekingDrake]

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20051031a) is a link to the 3.5 version of Return to the Tomb of Horrors. Should be challenging, unless you have a party of optimizers on your hands.

Shame the link on that page is dead.

[graymachine]

Shame the link on that page is dead.

Huh. I simply posted the first one google came across. Oh, well; I know that there is a message group, at least, out there that you can join that converted RtToH to 3.5 and has several files available.

[ShriekingDrake]

You know, another adventure you might consider is The Standing Stone. The whole thing is a ruse that the characters must figure out.

[Barsoom]

Though ideally in that situation you should help out. Yeah, I got stuck playing the 4 Int guy. But if the DM is describing something that screams out CLUE... and the guy with 16 Int and 18 Wis just isn't getting it I'll probably tell him out of character "Hey... yeah, that's probably evidence of a collapsed tunnel. Go investigate that."

If I had 4 Int, I'd just get a pet rock. And I'd talk to the rock a lot in hushed whispers. And sometimes, very rarely, I'd get this expression of enlightenment, and I would manage to figure something out, thanks to mental advice from my wonderful rock.

"Yeah, they look tough. But you know what, Hardy thinks we can take them. And Hardy never steered me wrong. GO FOR THE EYES, HARDY! RRRAAARGH!" <chucks rock at enemy, charges>

[GilesTheCleric]

Our DM ran a fun one once where we entered an empty town, and all the townfolk were hidden in the church because they were scared of a ghost. More after the break.


The ghost (jonah) was killed by his wife, and wants to tell her that their child was possessed by a demon. However, the wife (hiding in the church) has been completely dominated by the demon-child, and won't hear any of it. There's a number of ways to solve the adventure, but our party went with a good, old-fashioned exorcism (I had taken a few levels of Church Inquisitor at that point). Unfortunately, things got messy and we ended up defeating it through combat.

It's in Heroes of Horror or Ghostwalk or something, I'm sure. Even though we play a sandbox game, we usually find our way into published modules. It works out well.

[ArcturusV]

I did the same thing, except my 4 int guy was a Sorcerer Gish, and my Familiar rocking 7 Int was the "Brains" of the outfit. Of course he'd talk to the Crab, and the crab would just clack claws, stare blanking, etc, as the were empathically communicating.

[yougi]

Well. I don't do that as a DM. As a player I would. I don't know if it's really a bad thing. I mean we're on the same team, cooperating. His character should have had the idea (After all, I got about an 11 int, 9 Wis in real life and I had the idea).

Never really occurred to me that someone would necessarily have a problem with that. Well... other than guys who have a problem getting help with anything. You know, the guy that went you get up you say "Hey, Hank, want me to get you something while I'm up?" and they respond with "What! I'm no cripple. My legs work. I could get something if I wanted it!"

Isn't there a place in the DMG (it might be of an earlier edition) that a high-IQ player playing a low-Int character just makes up for the low-IQ player playing a high-Int character? Basically, the first player tells the second player, but in game, it was the second character's idea all along.

I play in a game with two 12-year-old kids, and one of them plays a Rogue with 18 Int. I mean, the fact that he put 18 Int on a Rogue tells you the player doesn't have 18 Int. :smallbiggrin: Also in that game are a PhD student (me) and a university professor, playing low-Int characters (Bard and Cleric, if that interests anyone). Whenever we have a discussion about clues or plans, while they sometimes get things we miss (kids are great that way), it's obvious if we act as if we had 8 Int, no plans would get anywhere. However, the party's plans end up at a level somewhat resembling what would be planned by a party with our characters' various intellectual levels.

And you can say "well, there's kids", but I've played with adults who were much slower than 13 year olds.

[ShriekingDrake]

One somewhat interesting "fun house" adventure is The Abduction of Good King Despot. I think it could be tweaked nicely to make a fun, challenging adventure. I know that fun house adventures are not for everyone, but this one has a theme and might server your purpose with polishing.

[cowsay]

Anyone know where I can find The Abduction of Good King Despot. You don't seem to be able to buy it anywhere.

[DarkEternal]

Try the Diplomacy adventure from one of the Dragon(or it was Dungeon already, I forgot) magazines. It's made for a high level campaign(level 18), but it can be brought down. Still in the top three published campaigns I ever played. Intrigue, haggling, finding the culprit. I think the entire adventure has two or three encounters that are physical.

[cowsay]

Is it really just called the "The Diplomacy Adventure"?

[ShriekingDrake]

Is it really just called the "The Diplomacy Adventure"?

I think it's in Dungeon 144.

[cowsay]

Anyone know where I can find The Abduction of Good King Despot. You don't seem to be able to buy it anywhere.

This intrigues me. Anyone know where I can get my hands on one?

[ShriekingDrake]

I don't actually. It's looking pretty hard to find. In fact, I can't seem to put my hands on my own copy at the moment.

[rafaruggi]

Even though I never played or GM'd it, I read a bit of it, and someone also mentioned Kingmaker, for pathfinder. I'd take a look at it. It's really sandboxy, and rewards players for smart decisions. You are building a kingdom, and there are systems for a lot of things, like the economy, massive army battles, etc. I don't remember much of it right now, but it seems the kind of thing you're looking for.

[ShriekingDrake]

Sorry, Cowsay, I cannot find my original module. It may be at my friend's house. If I find it, I'll PM you, but I can't find it.