Adventure trends

[Malrex]

Just a question for curiousity and not necessarily directed at anyone, but it comes from Bryce's latest review.

Does everything need to follow the same trend? It seems like that is what people look for and I'm not sure I understand the logic? Snake men adventure? then need crumbling temple. Dwarven mine? Then needs to be like Moria. Island adventure? Then needs to be like Isle of Dread. I'm not defending the particular product that was reviewed as the cover DOES actually have a temple on it and a snake lady and so I understand that IS a reason to ask where are the crumbling temple vibes or snakeman vibes, but just reflecting on some past adventure reviews. Dwarven mines definitely comes to mind because if it doesn't feel like Moria or whatever then it sucks, and I'm not sure why people want the same thing over and over and over and not something a little different.

If you keep following that trend and have expectations and comparisons, then I think it leads to the 'goblin in a hole' situation...no?

 

[squeen]

Different is good, but in small doses. Our desire for fantasy adventure taps into a rich and long history of literary tropes. The same is true for film. The author/DM sets up an expectation with a familiar environment and either:

(a) plays it straight and does such an excellent job of it, all are satisfied
(b) plays it 95% straight with a surprise ending (fun occasionally)
(c) twists the trope and plays it for satire

Most films these days go the (c) route and mock the genre. This is the Hollywood Hipster curse, and why the most directors actively destroy franchise they didn't create --- total egotists.

In terms of adventures, most want (a) plus an occasional (b).

It is next-level to invent an entirely new trope that totally rocks. Not impossible, but very difficult. Most existing tropes borrow from reality and just distilled it (e.g. Tucker's Kobolds = Viet Nam).

When I played in the 1970s, we mostly wanted a Tolkien (books, not movies) + Dr. Who + Star Trek (TOS) experience. We were definitely not Elric-heads and generally dislike playing with those who were because of the weird narcissistic vibe under the surface.

When I world-build, I try to put in pockets of all the tropes I can think of and steal shamelessly. Over long campaign play, I think it prevents boredom. One does not want to be a lowly peasant trapped in medieval Europe every session.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

So long as it's well-written, you can get away with twisting any trope you want. I think Bryce's problem is when it's not well-written, which he equates with missing marks for easy insertion of basic things like "crumbling wall vibes" and "claustrophobic feels". Without injected vibe the whole thing feels sterile, and I think that's what Bryce means when he rails against the omission of vibe-y descriptors like "crumbly walls". If the snake temple had "brilliant polished metal walls of an iridescent sheen", then I think he'd be equally happy as he would be with a "crumbly" ruin.

All that to say - your snake temple doesn't necessarily need to be crumbly, and your dwarf mines don't necessarily need to be Moria, but they do need to be *something*. If they aren't something then they're *nothing*, and that is what Bryce hates most.

 

[bryce0lynch]

and that is what Bryce hates most.

WRONG! I hate myself most.

But, yes. I think it's clear, sometimes, that the designer WANTS a certain vibe, and then they don't deliver on it. If you set me up and promise X then you should deliver X. And that tends to be the major problem, designers who kind of know what they want to deliver .. and tell you that, and then don't.

And, yes, I don't really care what the vibe is. I suppose someone could even deliver a lonely sterile dwarf temple well. Theoretically.

 

[Beoric]

What I don't understand is why clones of classic modules have to be worse than the originals. I mean, the originals are right there, there are decades of DMs talking on the internet about what they did with them, we have thousands of examples from Bryce regarding improving presentation. Hell, I think DMSGuild lets you do conversions that build on the existing modules. Goodman Games has been allowed to republish the modules and add bits to them. It should be possible to look at those old modules and clean up the glitchy parts, at least. And yet I was very disappointed with what Goodman Games did with B1 and B2, and from a skim of their version of S3 I don't think the "improvements" are any better.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

And yet I was very disappointed with what Goodman Games did with B1 and B2, and from a skim of their version of S3 I don't think the "improvements" are any better.

I was not disappointed with my copy of Into the Borderlands, but the 5e conversion of Tomb of Horrors (from Yawning Portal) did feel janky to me, mainly because ToH distinguishes itself with puzzles and abilities which are proving to be far harder to convert than monster mechanics. My players basically walked over 5e ToH like it was nothing; clearly something is broken there.

 

[Beoric]

Further to the title of this thread: https://dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2024/08/shadowdark-kids-will-be-alright.html

 

[squeen]

...clearly something is broken there.

So tempting...

 

[DangerousPuhson]

So tempting...

Quiet you!

 

[The1True]

mainly because ToH distinguishes itself with puzzles and abilities which are proving to be far harder to convert than monster mechanics.

I hear ya. I do a lot of conversion. ToH get's ruined by 3.5e's Take20 mechanic. A suitably high level thief will just automatically detect everything without even pixel-bitching. I solved that by making every trap a contest, which forced a one-time pass/fail roll to detect traps. Obviously, this leads to the dreaded pixel-bitching. I guess this happens in 1e as well though (after the 3rd trap in a row). The next thing is to hold on to the Save or Die mechanics and crank the DC's which can be quite surprising for 3.5e players with stratospheric Saves. The final thing is where the mechanics of a Trap/Trick are described, only allow Skill rolls to discover the Trap/Trick, and force the players to solve the puzzle the way it's intended.

I've been doing this with Barrowmaze. I've also been running the monsters with their lower Labyrinth Lord stats (subtracting the AC from 19 etc.) It takes the focus off of set-piece combats, allows for more combats (and thus more exploration), and has the added effect of imperceptibly wearing the PC's down so that they often end up stuck deep in before they realize that they're hemorrhaging resources. I do convert the big bosses, however.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

ToH get's ruined by 3.5e's Take20 mechanic.

Gotta be diligent with those random encounter demons in that case. If the party is going to take a full Take20 to do something, you'd better believe that's coming with a time cost.

crank the DC's which can be quite surprising for 3.5e players with stratospheric Saves

Problem with DCs is that they're very level-prescriptive, and ToH is purposefully designed to be level-neutral. A DC assignment/conversion table would be good, something like "Character Levels 5-8: Easy DCs=15, Hard DCs=25; Character Levels 9-11: Easy DCs=18, Hard DCs=27; etc.".

 

[pwtucker]

Re: Malrex's original question, I think most fantasy fans come to D&D/OSR with the same cultural touchstones, the same ur-impulses, and yearn to recreate the same sensations/experiences of wonder that they all collectively experienced as kids.

Books, movies, key modules/settings - we're all mostly forged by the same fire, and thus when it comes time to craft a module, with all the vasty expanses of potential before us, we reach for the same set pieces, the same villains, and seek to evoke the same emotions.

Another Moria. Another Indiana Jones temple with snake people. Another thing that we personally love, that's special to us, but which we don't realize has already been done to death by all the bright-eyed apprentices before us.

Only time, bitterness, dissatisfaction, and the willingness to work past our influences allow us to eventually craft something new.

Maybe.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Definitely something to be said about using the shortcut hack into the mind's eye by deploying the familiar.

Question is: is that a good thing - facilitating what people expect to see - or does it serve to stifle innovation?

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I think these things that are done to death need doing no further, and that only the unique stuff stands out anymore. I don't need more orcs in a hole, I don't need more caravans attacked by dragons, I don't need more cultists performing a doomsday ritual... this stuff already exists in spades, there's literally nothing left to be said about them. Publishing more of it serves to harm more than help, particularly among veterans who have already lived these same adventures a dozen times over.

Uncoincidentally, I put less faith in reviews that shit all over innovation because it doesn't feel "classic enough" or doesn't hit that "mythic underworld vibe" or whatever. To rally against someone not doing something that's already been done to death is the epitome of asinine. I find that the people who reach only for the familiar generally do so because they are incapable of existing outside their comfort zone (which makes one ill-suited to be a DM, who must always find their mind amid the discomfort).

 

[Malrex]

Definitely something to be said about using the shortcut hack into the mind's eye by deploying the familiar.

Question is: is that a good thing - facilitating what people expect to see - or does it serve to stifle innovation?

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I think these things that are done to death need doing no further, and that only the unique stuff stands out anymore. I don't need more orcs in a hole, I don't need more caravans attacked by dragons, I don't need more cultists performing a doomsday ritual... this stuff already exists in spades, there's literally nothing left to be said about them. Publishing more of it serves to harm more than help, particularly among veterans who have already lived these same adventures a dozen times over.

Uncoincidentally, I put less faith in reviews that shit all over innovation because it doesn't feel "classic enough" or doesn't hit that "mythic underworld vibe" or whatever. To rally against someone not doing something that's already been done to death is the epitome of asinine. I find that the people who reach only for the familiar generally do so because they are incapable of existing outside their comfort zone (which makes one ill-suited to be a DM, who must always find their mind amid the discomfort).

ya...that was kinda of my point with starting this thread. Im in agreement with DP on this one. I just get confused if someone IS trying to do something different, then why try to compare it to Isle of Dread or Moria, etc. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but just see this alot on forums and not necessarily this one. Like every single island, even if its a snow covered in the mountains "ya, but that adventure is no Isle of Dread..." huh?

But I also agree about not nailing the vibe and sticking with it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think that as much as it is in our nature to associate more to the familiar tropes of the past because it is firmly charted territory, it is likewise in the nature of the reviewer to compare to existing works of the past because those works have likewise been "charted".

The process is thus: General consensus says that Isle of Dread is good > reviewer comes away with idea that since IoD is good, things like IoD must also be good > reviewer reads adventure that has similarities to IoD > reviewer does knee-jerk comparison of adventure to IoD in order to measure how good it is.

You see a lot of this in film review - for instance, people always comparing the new Star Wars movies to the old ones that are known to be good, and declaring the new ones bad because they aren't similar enough to the old ones.

 

[Avi]

You see a lot of this in film review - for instance, people always comparing the new Star Wars movies to the old ones that are known to be good, and declaring the new ones bad because they aren't similar enough to the old ones.

NAHH - The New star Wars stuff is objectively, just bad. No need to compare it to anything....

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Rogue One was excellent, and most of the Prequels weren't so bad if watched as a trilogy on their own (I loved Episode 1 as a kid, not so much as an adult, but still...)

Regardless, you hopefully understand the point I'm trying to make with the example though, right?

 

[Beoric]

Rogue One was excellent...

Oh, good start!

... and most of the Prequels weren't so bad ...

AAAAnd, you lost me.

 

[squeen]

I am not lying when I say I felt like Rogue One is the worst Star Wars movie ever made. It killed the franchise for me. Unlikable characters running hither and fro with no rhyme or reason like chickens with their heads cut off. Unmemorable and ineffective villain. Just awful.

For the life of me I can't figure out why millennials like it? Is it because they wanted to piss on the originals in some way, shape or form? Some insecure need to deflate and claim victory over past accomplishment?

It wasn't even bad Star Wars, or even bad SciFi, it was just flat-out a bad movie. Disjointed slow-mo war scenes does not make a masterpiece any more than CGI FX. WTF?!?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I am not lying when I say I felt like Rogue One is the worst Star Wars movie ever made.

You are very much in the minority on that one.

AAAAnd, you lost me.

Wait. Stop. Please. Come back. /s