Wizards obsession with old adventures

[ken-do-nim]

Hi all -

Ravenloft, Demonweb Pits, now in the new online dragon they are returning to Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth ... why the obsession with 1970s/1980s adventures? Granted, the obsession actually started in 2nd edition with all the Silver anniversary editions.

Still I have to wonder, do today's players connect with the classics of yore? Is there really a feeling that though the 1st edition system is outdated, the adventures it spawned stand head and shoulders above anything written since?

Why can't there be a "return to Speaker in Dreams" - that was a great adventure.

I guess I'm just wondering if the marketing types at WOTC think the market is mostly nostalgia-driven. Personally I think the people who played the older adventures are largely still playing 1E/2E, and most of the 3E players could care less whether the adventure they are playing is a rewrite of a 30 year old adventure or something just written last year.

For those who are indeed familiar with the older adventures, do you think that the older ones are actually better, and that a revised 1st ed adventure is going to be better than a newly written one?

[Fax Celestis]

The Nostalgia Generation has more pocket change than the younger 3e-Boomer Generation, and is therefore a more profitable market to sell to.

[mudbunny]

It's quite simple.

More bang for less buck.

By updating old modules/adventures, they have something that they can sell, and it costs less for them to bring an old module/adventure up to speed (for which they already own all of the rights) than it is to acquire the rights to a recently submitted one.

[Ceres]

Aren't you being a bit too cynical, Fax and mudbunny? Personally I believe it is because the developers grew up playing the old adventures, and are simply nostalgic. A very human trait, though not necessarily good for the game.

[Fax Celestis]

Aren't you being a bit too cynical, Fax and mudbunny? Personally I believe it is because the developers grew up playing the old adventures, and are simply nostalgic. A very human trait, though not necessarily good for the game.

It's probably what all three of us have said, really. It just depends on who you ask.

Also, I'm not being a cynic: I'm thinking like a marketing rep.

[Matthew]

I think they just don't have that many Adventure ideas. The new Modules, from the excerpts I read, were pretty poorly written, but that doesn't mean the old ones were masterpieces either! Wizards focuses on rules and encounters, not Adventure Design.

It's a waste of time, in my opinion, play Modules using the rules they were written for and save yourself a headache.

[Tiki Snakes]

At the end of the day, of 1E adventure X was a good Adventure in 1E, then it was a good adventure. Does it stop being a good adventure simply because the way you work out who-stabs-what have changed?

The adventures, if any good, never stopped being any good, even if the rules were officially deemed to have. So, it makes perfect sense to, given the opportunity, update, sequelize, or re-imagine the product. *shrug*

[ken-do-nim]

So now I'm curious if the newer adventures will be considered classics. Will we have Red Hand of Doom revised for 4e?

[horseboy]

Well, bordering on blasphemy I know, but X1 3.x is better than X1 Bluebook. the work that they did to it was a whole lot better than the "Wonder the island, kill some stuff" that was presented in the original.

[Tokiko Mima]

Hi all -

Ravenloft, Demonweb Pits, now in the new online dragon they are returning to Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth ... why the obsession with 1970s/1980s adventures? Granted, the obsession actually started in 2nd edition with all the Silver anniversary editions.

Still I have to wonder, do today's players connect with the classics of yore? Is there really a feeling that though the 1st edition system is outdated, the adventures it spawned stand head and shoulders above anything written since?

Why can't there be a "return to Speaker in Dreams" - that was a great adventure.

I guess I'm just wondering if the marketing types at WOTC think the market is mostly nostalgia-driven. Personally I think the people who played the older adventures are largely still playing 1E/2E, and most of the 3E players could care less whether the adventure they are playing is a rewrite of a 30 year old adventure or something just written last year.

For those who are indeed familiar with the older adventures, do you think that the older ones are actually better, and that a revised 1st ed adventure is going to be better than a newly written one?

Everyone has a favorite adventure they'd like to play again. You have one too, apparently. WotC is just being efficient and remaking the more popular adventures. I think it's a great strategy. Long time gamers will buy them for the nostalgia factor, while newer gamers will buy them because they are fully developed stories, with everything in the background fleshed out already.

Plus, if WotC did a good job retooling the adventure then it's even better than the original because they get a chance to cut out the parts that didn't work in play. It also has to be a lot easier to convert and revamp an adventure than it would be to create an entirely new one.

[ken-do-nim]

Well, bordering on blasphemy I know, but X1 3.x is better than X1 Bluebook. the work that they did to it was a whole lot better than the "Wonder the island, kill some stuff" that was presented in the original.

Nope, not blasphemy. Many of the original adventures, X1 especially, presented a location without a plot. They expected the DM to furnish a plot that meshed with his or her particular campaign. Many people misunderstood that notion and ran the old adventures as written without customizing them. That is why you meet one gaming group which found X1 pointless as you've described, then you meet another which thought that X1 was incredible.

X1 was redone in Dungeon magazine, correct? Which issue?

[bosssmiley]

Nope, not blasphemy. Many of the original adventures, X1 especially, presented a location without a plot. They expected the DM to furnish a plot that meshed with his or her particular campaign. Many people misunderstood that notion and ran the old adventures as written without customizing them. That is why you meet one gaming group which found X1 pointless as you've described, then you meet another which thought that X1 was incredible.

X1 was redone in Dungeon magazine, correct? Which issue?

Savage Tides adventure path: Dungeons #142-144 AFAIK. Don't have the last few Dungeons, so don't know if they went back there again.
The Isle of Dread also had Campaign Backdrop feature in Dragon, one of the #34X issues.

Liked the setting, glad they gave some context to it in the recent write-ups though.

And why re-hash old adventures? Simple: because old stuff is cool!

[Evil DM Mark3]

The stated reason is that people are asking for them.

I believe it.

On the WotC forums you can't go a month without a thread about a really old module turning up somewhere, and there where a lot more before they started these "expeditions to..."

[tannish2]

well im playing with a group of very old people (i am not) but they all are (and have been playing since original D&D) they play 3.5 and are already considering 4.0, the 3.5 ravenloft adventure was fun. i have never played any of the other ones, but im guessing they will be fun too. i hope they update all old adventures because lazy DMs need SOMETHING to run. and thats a simple source that people are semi-familiar with, but dont actually remember the details of.

[Jades]

There are just some adventures that all players should go through.

Like when my players start whining about how I'm just out to kill the PC's, I go back to Labyrinth of Madness and show them what a REALLY vindictive DM can do. Unfortunately, I have to go back to 2ed, which usually means teaching four or five new players how to play 2ed.

Could update to 3.5 myself, but I don't care enough to.

[Roderick_BR]

Hmm... maybe they are not for the "nostalgia" people?
They are taking old stuff, updating it, labeling it "classic" or something, and selling it to the new people.
Rather cheap, but not a uncommon thing.

[hamlet]

Yes, the older adventures are better IN MY OPINION.

Why? Because, for the most part, unlike today's adventures (how few there really are) they were a gold mind for a DM. They offered an adventure location complete with an interesting back story, a fun bit of "dungeon" to explore, and were loose enough that they could be plunked down any old place. They were also loose enough that they were VERY easy to customize and change.

Nowadays, adventures are reading like scripted soap operas. That goes double for adventure paths since they seem to hinge on the expectation that the PC's will happily follow along from plot point A to B to C to eventually get to big bad boss fight D . . . Can't say how many times I've seen somebody complaining about how their entire AP campaign was derailed because the PC's decided to do something slightly different than was written up in the adventure (like actually knock on the door of the guilty party acting on a hunch and take the fight to him in the first adventure rather than politely letting him go on his way).

Some of the best modules of the day included L1 and L2 by Lakofka. Buy them (or, almost as good, download them from Wizards) learn them, play them, love them. Probably two of the best written adventures I've ever seen. They give you a place, a backstory, and a happening and then expect you to fill in the rest. Entire campaigns can be had out of those two modules.

Word also has it that Lakofka is working on L4 right now.

[Fixer]

I played Return to Castle Ravenloft back when it came out in the 80s. I recall having a great deal of fun with it (although I also recall dying a lot and making new characters).

I, briefly, got to play through the new Castle Ravenloft adventure and I was pleasantly surprised by how the adventure felt. I didn't recall much from 20 years ago (I remember Strahd lived in the castle, and he was searching for the girl) so the new adventure's plot was new to me. The new creatures caught me off-guard and I had a great deal of fun (died a lot less than I recall dying in the 80s too). Until another party member broke the adventure, anyway. :(

I appreciate the revamping of old adventures. It lets me replay instances of my youth and share them with younger people who are playing through them for the first time.

[MrNexx]

As hamlet said, the reason Wizards is republishing old adventures is because they're good adventures.

[Jayabalard]

Also, I'm not being a cynic: I'm thinking like a marketing rep.

I agree.

people who played 1e AD&D generally have more cash to spend than people who started playing on 3e.

[sikyon]

I agree.

people who played 1e AD&D generally have more cash to spend than people who started playing on 3e.

Why? As you get older, income increases. However, so do expenses, like cars, houses, children, retirement, spouses (and their say over finances), etc. So older people may have more disposable income, but younger people have alot of discretionary income. Teenagers don't need to pay for food or shelter or utilities or that kind of stuff. Allowances are also going up, with more parents that try to replace spending time with their children with money. Furthermore, appeal to teenagers can have long-reaching effects. Branding at a young age is key, as well as introducing RP to mainstream markets. I would suspect that marketing to Teens is actually more profitable. A final note that Marketing to teens is more successful is that alot of older people simply don't have the time to play d&d on a basis that is nearly as regular. Less time playing = less money spent = weaker/less loyal customer base.

As a kicker(2R mana), WotC is owned by Hasbro, I suspect that there is pressure to generate immediate returns. Furthermore, most of Hasbro's brands target pre-teen audiences with items such as action figures, or they target family fun such as monopoly. Items that can penetrate the teenage market, where toys start losing their appeal vs things like pants and fast food and booze and sex, fits in nicely with their corporate plan.

Lastly, I want to point out that there is a tendency that when things like nostalgia are challenged (typcially for the better), community perception is fouled by people who start going

"when I was playing 1st edition, dragons had 3 heads and spit acid gold! And they had wings made of razor blades! And laser guns comming out of their eyes! Even just looking at them forced a DC70 insanity check!"

Well, that was just me poking fun, but the fact is that those kinds of people will be really vocal, and the % of response that they have will not be proportional to the % of the population they represent. if 5 people really hate it, and speak out at 100% disapprovement, and 100 people like it at 10%, typically those 100 people won't care enough to start blasting back and forth with the other 5. Kind of like voting apathy, actually.


Personally, I started D&D quite recently. And I couldn't give a hoot about 1st or 2nd edition (and barely 3rd). It's just cause they don't matter to me. They don't have anything to offer me. I don't watch TV from 50 years ago. It is neither relevant to my interests or suits my taste. They're good shows, for sure, but I just don't care about them. It's gone. Over. And when people start talking to me about 1st edition it's kind of like they're talking to me about TV from 50 years ago... I don't care.

[horseboy]

"when I was playing 1st edition, dragons had 3 heads and spit acid gold! And they had wings made of razor blades! And laser guns comming out of their eyes! Even just looking at them forced a DC70 insanity check!"

All I want are some frickin' dragons with lfrickin' aser beams strapped to the frickin' heads! Is that too much to ask for, Number 2?

[ken-do-nim]

As hamlet said, the reason Wizards is republishing old adventures is because they're good adventures.

It may be the case that the old adventures stand the test of time while the newer ones crumble, but that's kinda sad. There should be classics of today too. The aforementioned Speaker in Dreams is one IMHO.

[hamlet]

It may be the case that the old adventures stand the test of time while the newer ones crumble, but that's kinda sad. There should be classics of today too. The aforementioned Speaker in Dreams is one IMHO.

Didn't really care for it. Tried too hard to be like the older modules, but insisted on having a strong story to go with it. You can't really merge the two styles succesfully.

You can have, IMO, two types of modules:

1)A module that describes a location, series of encounters, and provides useful history bits to help the DM create the campaign around it.
2)A story module that has little or nothing in the way of scripted encounters but provides a strong "plot" that the adventurers need to adhere to.

Trying to mush the two together results in modules like second edition modules. Those, by and large, were just terrible.

To be successful at 3e modules, Wizards needs to let 3e do what it does best. Write up a place. Give it a brief, none restrictive history. Don't pin it down exactly, just nice and loose. Put in some fun encounters, monsters, and situations. Traps are always good.

Then leave it at that.

Nix the overarching story that you have brewing in the back of your brain. That's not the module writer's job, that's the DM's job. Let the DM do his work and you do yours.

[ken-do-nim]

Didn't really care for it. Tried too hard to be like the older modules, but insisted on having a strong story to go with it. You can't really merge the two styles succesfully.

You can have, IMO, two types of modules:

1)A module that describes a location, series of encounters, and provides useful history bits to help the DM create the campaign around it.
2)A story module that has little or nothing in the way of scripted encounters but provides a strong "plot" that the adventurers need to adhere to.

Trying to mush the two together results in modules like second edition modules. Those, by and large, were just terrible.

To be successful at 3e modules, Wizards needs to let 3e do what it does best. Write up a place. Give it a brief, none restrictive history. Don't pin it down exactly, just nice and loose. Put in some fun encounters, monsters, and situations. Traps are always good.

Then leave it at that.

Nix the overarching story that you have brewing in the back of your brain. That's not the module writer's job, that's the DM's job. Let the DM do his work and you do yours.

You're totally right about module writing; no argument here. Too many modules try to script the events and you end up feeling like you are just rolling dice in somebody's screenplay. After a previous poster in this thread told me that dungeon 142-144 had the Isle of Dread redone, I went upstairs to the bookshelf to take a look at those issues. [Who has time to read everything when you get it?]. Really, I think it's a rewrite of Isle of Dread in name and shape-of-island only. And somehow the scripted plot of the dungeon magazine doesn't quite hold the same fascination for me as the do-it-yourself or let-a-plot-develop-on-its-own allure of the original X1.

I recently picked up copies of the old Judges Guild adventures Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor and Citadel of Fire (both by Marc Summerlot). I dare anybody not to flip through them and not suddenly be seized by ideas and potential surging through their brain. Incidentally, those 2 have also been rewritten for 3.5E recently. With some of these old adventures, you don't really need a rewrite; they were so bare in the first place that even to run them in the system they were intended for you had to put in a fair amount of work.

So yes, I'm all for intriguing locales that the DM can use. That being said ... I had a heck of a fun time playing Speaker in Dreams. It really kept me guessing. It also really used a city locale well. The next one in the series, Standing Stones, was pretty good too. I guess I like plot twists, which is generally something you don't get out of a location-based adventure usually.

[DraPrime]

Some of these old adventures were very good. They deserve to be upgraded. Classics just don't die.

[Dervag]

Aren't you being a bit too cynical, Fax and mudbunny? Personally I believe it is because the developers grew up playing the old adventures, and are simply nostalgic. A very human trait, though not necessarily good for the game.

It's nostalgic, but they couldn't get away with doing something nostalgic if it weren't also profitable. Fortunately for them, it is both nostalgic and profitable.

Why? As you get older, income increases. However, so do expenses, like cars, houses, children, retirement, spouses (and their say over finances), etc. So older people may have more disposable income, but younger people have alot of discretionary income. Teenagers don't need to pay for food or shelter or utilities or that kind of stuff.

But all their money comes from someone older than they are.

As a rule, a middle-aged adult will have more disposable/discretionary income than a teenager, in absolute terms if not in relative terms.

Branding at a young age is key, as well as introducing RP to mainstream markets. I would suspect that marketing to Teens is actually more profitable. A final note that Marketing to teens is more successful is that alot of older people simply don't have the time to play d&d on a basis that is nearly as regular. Less time playing = less money spent = weaker/less loyal customer base.

On the other hand, these adventures will probably sell as well to teenagers as a bunch of random new adventures would, so they don't lose much of the teen market in this bid to capture more of the middle-aged market.

Personally, I started D&D quite recently. And I couldn't give a hoot about 1st or 2nd edition (and barely 3rd). It's just cause they don't matter to me. They don't have anything to offer me. I don't watch TV from 50 years ago. It is neither relevant to my interests or suits my taste. They're good shows, for sure, but I just don't care about them. It's gone. Over. And when people start talking to me about 1st edition it's kind of like they're talking to me about TV from 50 years ago... I don't care.

Except that 1st edition is in fact still around and there's a substantial community of people who still play it.

If you have a policy of never watching anything 50 years old, then there's some good stuff that you're going to miss out on simply because you assume that nothing old can be good. You will never see the Marx Brothers comedies, which are freakin' hilarious. You will never see some of the classic masterpieces of the moviemaking art, either.

And eventually, '50 years old' will include a lot of stuff that you don't think of as being old right now. For crying out loud, Star Wars is 30 years old already. Does the first Star Wars movie suck because it's old? Will it suddenly start to suck 20 years from now, when it's 50 years old? Will it no longer be 'relevant to your interests'? Will it no longer 'suit your taste?' Will you automatically be a weird old coot because you like a movie that was made 50 years ago?

Likewise, if you assume that any game system which came out before you started playing sucks, then you're missing out on some good stuff. You can really have fun playing First or Second Edition AD&D (they're pretty much the same basic game). Now, you can have about the same amount of fun playing Third Edition (at least, most people can). But it's very shallow to just wave your hand and go "Second Edition? That is so 1990s! I don't play that!'

[skywalker]

I've heard a lot of talk about "Tomb of Horrors" and I'd love to play it just once, to see what it's like. However, I've no desire to learn another system on top of the ones I already know, especially one that isn't as good. So the solution is for Wizards to update it for me, and I'll gladly pay for the chance to play it as a 3.5 adventure. As long as, starting right now, they make it 4e compatible as well.

[kpenguin]

I've heard a lot of talk about "Tomb of Horrors" and I'd love to play it just once, to see what it's like. However, I've no desire to learn another system on top of the ones I already know, especially one that isn't as good. So the solution is for Wizards to update it for me, and I'll gladly pay for the chance to play it as a 3.5 adventure. As long as, starting right now, they make it 4e compatible as well.

Wizards has already updated Tomb of Horrors to 3.5 and it's on their website for free.

[skywalker]

Wizards has already updated Tomb of Horrors to 3.5 and it's on their website for free.

Yeah I had this creeping dread as a wrote that post that a reply like yours was coming. Nevertheless, I would've paid for it, and I think my attitude is that of many others as well, regardless of the specific module in question.

It was still a dumb statement.