Post originally by Matt Drake at 2005-02-08 07:14:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

My complaint with the dungeon was not the simplicity, it was the random and nonsensical nature of the thing. There was no reason to put the skeletons next to the troglodyte, or the dragon illusion, or a host of other bizarre choices.

I also have fond memories of some of my early games. My favorites were always the one with a sense of continuity. The best I remember playing - and I don't remember the name, I just remember loving it - was one where you have to defend a small fortress from attacking goblins, then invade their lair inside petrified trees, then travel overland to a lost canyon, get hunted by gnolls, meet a new race of people, and end up doing battle with a real bastard of a bad guy mage. Every part of that adventure was at least cohesive - it made some semblance of sense for the different parts to exist. They were all thoroughly fantastic, with centaur slaves and magic tapestries, but they made sense and helped to create a suspension of disbelief.

So not all old-school D&D modules were basically random, with a bizarre variety of monsters in nonsensical places. I can think back on a great number of modules where the dungeon parts fit together, from lizard-man swamp outposts to kobold-infested dragon's lairs (that one was a doozy). The creators of this adventure could certainly have used a little common sense in designing the adventure and made it feel at least a little more plausible.

Matt Drake