Favorite 2e published modules

[Narren]

I'll be starting a 2e campaign soon. What are some of your favorite published modules? It's set in Faerun, I don't mind adapting them a bit for campaign.

[Rhynn]

AD&D 2E adventures are usually more adventures with railroad plots than modules, but fortunately, the only thing you need to do to convert AD&D 1E modules is look up the new XP values for monsters (or the entire monster if you feel like it).

Ruins of the Undermountain is an exception. It's 2E, both over- and underwritten (the second is intentional and good; it's not a complete dungeon, it's a "get your own version of this megadungeon going" kit), but I love it. Just make sure your players never ever get their sticky fingers on it and read it through, because they'll home in on that 6,860,000 gp practically-impossible-to-find treasure trove in a heartbeat. (I have to suspect there's a typo somewhere in there; why even mention a 200,000 gp emerald if the rest of the gems are woth 6.66M gp? Good luck unloading those! The emerald's probably still undervalued for it's size, too...) Granted, I'd love to run a campaign where low-level PCs try to hold on to or dispose of that loot. (Plus I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they realize they've wasted millions of total XP finding such a treasure at a low level, since they can't get XP to go up two levels at once...)

Under Illefarn is a relevant favorite: it's a good 1st-level starter module set in Daggerford, right near Waterdeep.

Any of the classics are easy to fit into the North: The Village of Hommlet, GDQ (Against the Giants through Queen of the Demonweb Pits), Keep on the Borderlands, etc.

[Narren]

AD&D 2E adventures are usually more adventures with railroad plots than modules, but fortunately, the only thing you need to do to convert AD&D 1E modules is look up the new XP values for monsters (or the entire monster if you feel like it).

Ruins of the Undermountain is an exception. It's 2E, both over- and underwritten (the second is intentional and good; it's not a complete dungeon, it's a "get your own version of this megadungeon going" kit), but I love it. Just make sure your players never ever get their sticky fingers on it and read it through, because they'll home in on that 6,860,000 gp practically-impossible-to-find treasure trove in a heartbeat. (I have to suspect there's a typo somewhere in there; why even mention a 200,000 gp emerald if the rest of the gems are woth 6.66M gp? Good luck unloading those! The emerald's probably still undervalued for it's size, too...) Granted, I'd love to run a campaign where low-level PCs try to hold on to or dispose of that loot. (Plus I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they realize they've wasted millions of total XP finding such a treasure at a low level, since they can't get XP to go up two levels at once...)

Under Illefarn is a relevant favorite: it's a good 1st-level starter module set in Daggerford, right near Waterdeep.

Any of the classics are easy to fit into the North: The Village of Hommlet, GDQ (Against the Giants through Queen of the Demonweb Pits), Keep on the Borderlands, etc.

What do you mean by both over and under written?

But really, I don't mind adventures with railroad plots. I mostly read this things for inspiration, and discard what I don't want.

I'll have to check out the ones you mentioned, though. I've read through Return to the Keep on the Borderlands. How does it compare to the original?

[thorr-kan]

The Al-Qadim modules are uniformly brilliant (I might be biased), though the Wolfgang Baur and Steve Kurtz ones are that best. Kinda hard to convert to generic fantasy, though.

[Lord Torath]

What do you mean by both over and under written?
Overwritten: Too much detail, with not enough left up to the DM. Hard to make fit sometimes.
Underwritten: Not enough detail. The DM has a lot of work to do to fully flesh-out the area.
Undermountain has some areas that are very highly detailed, and many areas that are left entirely up to the DM.

It also has a "nothing you do here matters" theme to it. The PCs can never "beat" or "clear" the Undermountain, as there are plenty of half-mad apprentices to keep it fully stocked. If they clear one area, the next time they return, it will be restocked with new monsters and traps. Not something I generally look for in a campaign.

I've read through Return to the Keep on the Borderlands. How does it compare to the original?I like the original better. But Return is nice in that it supplies names for many of the NPCs in the keep, which is something surprising lacking from the original. So I run the original, but with stats and XP from 2nd Edition. This does mean I needed to re-do the all the clerics, as they don't get spells in BECMI until level 2.

[Rhynn]

What do you mean by both over and under written?


Overwritten: Too much detail, with not enough left up to the DM. Hard to make fit sometimes.
Underwritten: Not enough detail. The DM has a lot of work to do to fully flesh-out the area.
Undermountain has some areas that are very highly detailed, and many areas that are left entirely up to the DM.

Pretty much this exactly.

RotU touches on the first three levels of the Undermountain (out of 8-9 plus another ~8 sublevels, although I don't think those numbers are even given). There's only a total of 70 rooms plus a bunch of special encounters, which covers less than half the map of the first level, and much smaller fractions of the second and third levels. This is bad if you want a dungeon to run; it's great if you want one to develop from great ideas (like I'm doing with it; I'm rewriting much of it, turning the first level into the "dungeon" it was historically - a place where the Lords of Waterdeep throw malcontents and criminals). That's what I mean by underwritten.

By overwritten, I mean that many individual rooms have incredibly long descriptions to no good end. Room #5 is described in 1605 words; at font size 8, it takes up 1½ pages in Word, double-paragraphed. It's mostly stuff like this:

This was Delbarran Thundreir, a NG 2nd level fighter from Zazesspur. If the bugbear body is shifted to examine Delbarran, one of his arms is still clutching the hilt of a short sword, buried deeply in the bugbear's body. His other arm holds a splintered wooden shield across his chest in a vain attempt to protect himself from a bugbear spear attack; in the end, that attack came from the rear.

Delbarran wears worn and rusty studded leather armor. His belt carries a sheathed dagger and a purse containing only a candle-end and 2 cp.

The sack under his foot contains only a blanket, a spare pair of (well-worn, and quite large) boots, and the brass hilt of a broken dagger. The lantern is of the candle-and-reflector type; its shutter is completely shattered, and its candle has disintegrated into tiny wax shards, but the rest could be straightened, to serve as a lantern lacking any hood for its light.

Maybe you like that level of detail, maybe you don't; certainly I think a good GM should be able to summon it up at need, but I don't think it's something you should write into a module/adventure.


It also has a "nothing you do here matters" theme to it.

I absolutely don't agree. The book is explicit, IIRC, that it'd be hard but possible to clear out areas. Indeed, I'd already planned for allowing this. The way I see Undermountain, people, factions, and powerful monsters/creatures/spellcasters clear out areas for themselves in it all the time. Sure, you're going to have to fight off wandering monsters very regularly (or, much better, make alliances with them), but maybe it may be worth it.

I don't think RotU itself even mentions very many of the apprentices that came later, much less make them an active part of the dungeon so far (since they lair much deeper); I think Trobriand, Murial, and Arcturia are mentioned, maybe even statted, but that's about it.

Anyway, the Undermountain isn't really a dungeon or adventure to beat; it's a megadungeon, which means it's a campaign setting or campaign fixture in its own right. It's an environment to have adventures in (much helped by the portals that can send PCs to far-flung places; I've planned to include an Isle of Dread style Lost World adventure with a random portal, etc.). There's practically endless room of expansion.

[Vertharrad]

The Night Below was and is the best module I've had fun with. and we nearly got out of book 2 if the GM hadn't been transitioning out...

[hamlet]

The best 2nd edition modules were never published as free standing modules for the most part. They were published in Dungeon Magazine. It's in those pages that you'll find the best material. I have a special love for issue #10, an "adventure" called "The Towers." Literally, an entire campaign in the space of a few pages. Definately worth the money if you want to go antique hunting.

One of the actual adventure modules that was great was Castles Forlorn, a Ravenloft module. Very good stuff, especially if you stitch "A Feast for Goblyns" into it, or at least a part of that latter module.

[BWR]

I have a soft spot for "Dead Gods". "Harbinger House" was fun too. Otherwise I remember having fun with a few of the Ravenloft modules.

[ken-do-nim]

Gates of Firestorm Peak by Bruce Cordell looks very cool, though I have never read it thoroughly.

[Narren]

What exactly is the difference in an adventure and a module? I've always used the terms interchangeably, but I'm beginning to think that's incorrect.

[hamlet]

What exactly is the difference in an adventure and a module? I've always used the terms interchangeably, but I'm beginning to think that's incorrect.

Size, typically.

Also, "adventures" are typically part of grouped publications rather than standalones.

This is not, though, a hard and fast rule as some very short books are effectively adventures published in module form.

[Rhynn]

What exactly is the difference in an adventure and a module? I've always used the terms interchangeably, but I'm beginning to think that's incorrect.

I mostly use "module" to refer to the pre-2E stuff, which is sort of in a shared paradigm that the 2E adventures aren't exactly. 1E and Basic, pretty much. Usually, to me, a "module" gives you a location, or a couple of location, and then some general idea about what's going on and why the PCs might get involved; they're "location-based." An "adventure" is "plot-based," frequently goes scene to scene - this did not really start in 2E, but did become the standard then, and it really culminated in the 3E and post-3E era.

Incidentally, I don't really consider Ruins of the Undermountain a module at all - it's more of a "sandbox megadungeon starter kit" ... I just like it enough I had to mention it.

Under Illefarn is a classic module, in my view: you get a description of a settlement, some surrounding wilderness, and a dungeon. This is the exact same as in The Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Homlett. I even class DL1 as a module in this style (it's got a village, wilderness, and a dungeon), even though the DL series was pretty much the harbringer of the paradigm shift, and even DL1 is very "plot-driven" (PCs can't return to Solace between incursions into Xak Tsaroth, etc.).

It's completely arbitrary and not a real difference, and certainly not a generally shared definition of difference (or difference of definition!).

I guess if you wanted a definitive way to determine if something is a module, you'd look at the cover (or inside). B1 and B2, for instance, are called modules on the cover, and T1 is called one at the top of the introduction. By contrast, the 2E ones usually say "Official Game Adventure" on the cover. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Also, yes, the old modules rarely exceed 50 pages, while the 2E adventures can go a 100 or more, IIRC. Not a definite difference, though.

And, yes, I think a module should stand on its own, or at least not be intricately tied to others. I think GDQ are all modules individually, as are T1-T3.

[ken-do-nim]

I mostly use "module" to refer to the pre-2E stuff, which is sort of in a shared paradigm that the 2E adventures aren't exactly. 1E and Basic, pretty much. Usually, to me, a "module" gives you a location, or a couple of location, and then some general idea about what's going on and why the PCs might get involved; they're "location-based." An "adventure" is "plot-based," frequently goes scene to scene - this did not really start in 2E, but did become the standard then, and it really culminated in the 3E and post-3E era.

Incidentally, I don't really consider Ruins of the Undermountain a module at all - it's more of a "sandbox megadungeon starter kit" ... I just like it enough I had to mention it.

Under Illefarn is a classic module, in my view: you get a description of a settlement, some surrounding wilderness, and a dungeon. This is the exact same as in The Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Homlett. I even class DL1 as a module in this style (it's got a village, wilderness, and a dungeon), even though the DL series was pretty much the harbringer of the paradigm shift, and even DL1 is very "plot-driven" (PCs can't return to Solace between incursions into Xak Tsaroth, etc.).

It's completely arbitrary and not a real difference, and certainly not a generally shared definition of difference (or difference of definition!).

I guess if you wanted a definitive way to determine if something is a module, you'd look at the cover (or inside). B1 and B2, for instance, are called modules on the cover, and T1 is called one at the top of the introduction. By contrast, the 2E ones usually say "Official Game Adventure" on the cover. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Also, yes, the old modules rarely exceed 50 pages, while the 2E adventures can go a 100 or more, IIRC. Not a definite difference, though.

And, yes, I think a module should stand on its own, or at least not be intricately tied to others. I think GDQ are all modules individually, as are T1-T3.

That's a useful definition, thanks!

So, I guess CM3 Sabre River is an adventure, because it has a plot that takes you from dungeon 1 to dungeon 2 to dungeon 3, whereas Haunted Halls of Eveningstar is a module because it details one dungeon.

[hamlet]

I mostly use "module" to refer to the pre-2E stuff, which is sort of in a shared paradigm that the 2E adventures aren't exactly. 1E and Basic, pretty much. Usually, to me, a "module" gives you a location, or a couple of location, and then some general idea about what's going on and why the PCs might get involved; they're "location-based." An "adventure" is "plot-based," frequently goes scene to scene - this did not really start in 2E, but did become the standard then, and it really culminated in the 3E and post-3E era.

Incidentally, I don't really consider Ruins of the Undermountain a module at all - it's more of a "sandbox megadungeon starter kit" ... I just like it enough I had to mention it.

Under Illefarn is a classic module, in my view: you get a description of a settlement, some surrounding wilderness, and a dungeon. This is the exact same as in The Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Homlett. I even class DL1 as a module in this style (it's got a village, wilderness, and a dungeon), even though the DL series was pretty much the harbringer of the paradigm shift, and even DL1 is very "plot-driven" (PCs can't return to Solace between incursions into Xak Tsaroth, etc.).

It's completely arbitrary and not a real difference, and certainly not a generally shared definition of difference (or difference of definition!).

I guess if you wanted a definitive way to determine if something is a module, you'd look at the cover (or inside). B1 and B2, for instance, are called modules on the cover, and T1 is called one at the top of the introduction. By contrast, the 2E ones usually say "Official Game Adventure" on the cover. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Also, yes, the old modules rarely exceed 50 pages, while the 2E adventures can go a 100 or more, IIRC. Not a definite difference, though.

And, yes, I think a module should stand on its own, or at least not be intricately tied to others. I think GDQ are all modules individually, as are T1-T3.

Better definition than mine.

T1 is always one of my favorite modules. I've used it a couple times myself in various settings, not always Greyhawk, and rejiggered it to fit circumstances, and played through it half a dozen times as a player, again rejiggered for circumstances. It's infinately adaptable.

Keep on the Borderlands is always good, but requires great investment on the part of the DM. You have to make it your own.

[Digitalelf]

I second using Dungeon Magazine as a source for adventures. The last issue containing 2nd edition material was issue #81.

Dragonsfoot has an excellent index of issues #1-81 you can download that goes through each issue one by one. It lists the adventures (by name) that each issue contains, and states each of the adventure's level along with a short description of the adventure itself.

It is an invaluable resource! :smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

T1 is always one of my favorite modules. I've used it a couple times myself in various settings, not always Greyhawk, and rejiggered it to fit circumstances, and played through it half a dozen times as a player, again rejiggered for circumstances. It's infinately adaptable.

After reading The Deed of Paksenarrion, I got to work on fitting T1 into my settings (very minor changes; mostly some notes and name changes for places not actually featured in the module, to fit it into either the Savage Frontier or my own world, whichever needs it first), and I'm thinking of converting it into HârnMaster (someone's KotB conversion worked great) because it fits wonderfully (the bad guys become Navehans, St. Cuthbert is Larani, the druidics are Peonians). I might make an Artesia conversion, too (Cuthbert is Islik, druidics are Yherans, Lareth is a worshipper of any Forbidden Cult; maybe set it in Daradja near the Vale of Barrows and replace the ToEE with Githwaine).

It's so flexible because it's so wonderfully simple. Heck, I might see about conversion notes for my gonzo-ACKS Dark Sun...

After I'm done with T1, I may do T2 (skipping T3), and definitely B1-3, maybe others from the B series.

[ken-do-nim]

After I'm done with T1, I may do T2 (skipping T3), and definitely B1-3, maybe others from the B series.

How do you differentiate T2 from T3? In reality there's just
T1 Village of Hommlet
T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil

[JohnnyCancer]

I remember playing A Paladin In Hell sometime between 1998-2000. It was a challenging, high-level planar adventure. It's pretty much just combat and environmental puzzles in exotic, evil locales. There's some interesting potential prizes to be won though, such as a mobile layer of the abyss. If you're willing to go off the rails a bit, there's an even greater prize to be had, though it probably comes with Asmodeus' everlasting wrath.