In my time, I've played many modules which are considered classics by whatever rough consensus you can gather on the internet. While it seemingly doesn't happen too often that a published module transcends the community of the game it was specifically written for, it does happen. And looking back, having run a good deal of them, most earn their reputation.

Let's have a look at some examples off the top of my head:
- Masks of Nyarlathotep (CoC)
- Caverns of Thracia (OD&D)
- Temple of Elemental Evil (AD&D)
- The Enemy Within (WHFRP)
- Ravenloft (AD&D)
- The Great Pendragon Campaign (Pendragon)
- Griffin Mountain (RQ2)
- Dead of Winter (Hârnmaster)

What makes these adventures great?
Are they great? If not, why do you disagree?

Now I understand that there is hardly an objective measure of what these modules do right. And many of them follow vastly different formats, some being adventuring locales and others being more event-driven, etc.
But just maybe there are yet uncovered commonalities that go beyond the implications of the system they have been written for.

What say you?

Great adventures create an interesting situation that the players want to interact with as their characters. If you look at each of your examples none of them are a simplistic situation that leads from point a to b to c. Each does the all the fundamentals at least an acceptable level and has one or more unique and outstanding elements. They are interesting because they not about just one thing and have multiple elements interacting with each other. And those particular products do it in a way that not overwhelming for something done as a leisure activity.

Well, the adventures you listed are all classics.  They have many qualities, such as those that estar mentioned, which make them effective and evocative at the table.  But beyond that, they have reputations built on decades of good memories - so their "greatness" in terms of actual gaming content is somewhat inflated and unapproachable. I'm not saying they aren't great adventures, they certainly are, but new adventures with similarly great gaming qualities will never eclipse these classics in the collective imagination.  These were the first crop, and therefore the milestones by which all others will be judged.  As an analogy, new bands will never surpass the Beatles or Led Zeppelin in "greatness" because those bands were the pioneers, the innovators, and the inspiration for all that followed.  They will forever be the measuring sticks of "greatness," no matter how good any new competitors might be.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1032928Let's have a look at some examples off the top of my head:
- Masks of Nyarlathotep (CoC)
- Caverns of Thracia (OD&D)
- Temple of Elemental Evil (AD&D)
- The Enemy Within (WHFRP)
- Ravenloft (AD&D)
- The Great Pendragon Campaign (Pendragon)
- Griffin Mountain (RQ2)
- Dead of Winter (Hârnmaster)

What makes these adventures great?
Are they great? If not, why do you disagree?

I don't know enough about the last two but, apart from Ravenloft, the others are mega-adventures or campaigns in their own right, not a "standard" size adventure. That quality alone represents a significant time investment for a group. I infer a few things from that:

1. The overall quality of the experience is good/unique enough that a significant number of participants will try to play it through to completion.

2. The length of play allows for more investment in group dynamics (player at least as much as character), which is generally rewarding.

3. Completing that campaign is associated with a significant feeling of success compared to smaller adventures, which will be reflected in how people perceive it and share their recollections of it.


Other than the length, however, I don't see a lot in common between them. They have different styles, encourage different types of play, some are railroady, some aren't, etc.

Rather like what estar wrote above:

My experiences and idea of what I think of as the adventures I've been most entertained by, are the ones where it feels like there is an actual situation that the characters are in, and they have choices and dilemmas about what to do, room to do quite a variety of things in a variety of ways, and what happens plays out in interesting, dynamic and unpredictable ways that make sense but are often unexpected and entertaining and there's a strong feeling that a lot is at stake and things could turn out in a variety of ways and what they players choose to do and how they do it and whether they succeed or not has an effect on at least their personal outcomes, and that none of that is artificially contrived or forced to work in limited pre-planned ways. Thus, the players remain interested, engaged, and inspired to use their creativity and cleverness and to play as their characters would when faced with a complex dynamic challenging situation.

I tend not to buy and very rarely to use published adventures (especially not as-published) because:

* I usually prefer to run campaigns and/or make up my own adventures.
* They tend not to be dynamic fully-detailed locations set up the way I'd want.
* I have to learn the whole thing someone else wrote, which takes time and is harder for me to make sense of and remember and track during play than something I came up with myself.
* They don't tend to be what I'd want to run.
* They're often written for an expected sequence of events with an expected groups of PCs with expectand so you get a location/situation where many things are the way they are partly in order to provide a difficulty level balanced for an expected party of adventurers.
* They tend to have more scripted pre-planned stuff than I want.
* Even some of my best players who can compartmentalize OOC knowledge, have been tempted and/or bothered by the possibility of players reading/playing published material and having OOC knowledge.

All of those adventures listed, in very different ways, managed to create a powerful sense of immersion on players.

Quote from: estar;1032939If you look at each of your examples none of them are a simplistic situation that leads from point a to b to c. [...] They are interesting because they not about just one thing and have multiple elements interacting with each other. And those particular products do it in a way that not overwhelming for something done as a leisure activity.

I agree. Good insight.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1032957But beyond that, they have reputations built on decades of good memories - so their "greatness" in terms of actual gaming content is somewhat inflated and unapproachable.

There's certainly truth to that. I had a hard time naming a module that was newer than, say, 1990. Maybe "The Thousand Thrones" for WHFRP2?

Quote from: Skarg;1032985My experiences and idea of what I think of as the adventures I've been most entertained by, are the ones where it feels like there is an actual situation that the characters are in, and they have choices and dilemmas about what to do, room to do quite a variety of things in a variety of ways, and what happens plays out in interesting, dynamic and unpredictable ways that make sense but are often unexpected and entertaining and there's a strong feeling that a lot is at stake and things could turn out in a variety of ways and what they players choose to do and how they do it and whether they succeed or not has an effect on at least their personal outcomes, and that none of that is artificially contrived or forced to work in limited pre-planned ways. Thus, the players remain interested, engaged, and inspired to use their creativity and cleverness and to play as their characters would when faced with a complex dynamic challenging situation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033222All of those adventures listed, in very different ways, managed to create a powerful sense of immersion on players.

Yeah, meaningful choices are certainly one of the driving elements for immersion in my campaigns.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;10329802. The length of play allows for more investment in group dynamics (player at least as much as character), which is generally rewarding.

3. Completing that campaign is associated with a significant feeling of success compared to smaller adventures, which will be reflected in how people perceive it and share their recollections of it.

I don't know if length and hightened sense of accomplishment are a reason in and of themselves. After all, Hoard of the Dragon Queen is long and involved, and most people who've played it (me included) say it's so-so at best. But yes, you are right, length is definitely a contributing factor.

Then again, I think single session adventures are a newer trend, relatively speaking.