# Tales From The Yawning Portal - 7 Classic Dungeons Updated To 5E!



## Charles Rampant (Jan 5, 2017)

So, we finally get an answer to the 'bring out smaller adventures!' complaints. Very interested to see this.


Sent from my iPad using EN World mobile app


----------



## Barantor (Jan 5, 2017)

Six of the seven set in Greyhawk, but it sounds like they are moving all of them to Forgotten Realms.... hopefully they have at least a paragraph about Greyhawk in there somewhere.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 5, 2017)

As someone who's never played any of these, I freely admit that I find this idea tremendously exciting.


----------



## flametitan (Jan 5, 2017)

Barantor said:


> Six of the seven set in Greyhawk, but it sounds like they are moving all of them to Forgotten Realms.... hopefully they have at least a paragraph about Greyhawk in there somewhere.




I don't know if that's entirely the case. They might leave the locations as relatively ambiguous, allowing for DMs to more easily drop them in whatever setting they please.

Personally, I'm curious to see how AL will handle this, as I doubt there will be a specific "storyline" this season.



TwoSix said:


> As someone who's never played any of these, I freely admit that I find this idea tremendously exciting.




As someone who only started playing D&D in 5e, I am also extremely excited, as while I know they're on DMsGuild, I've not had an opportunity to read any of these besides Tomb of Horrors, nevermind _play_ them.


----------



## pkt77242 (Jan 5, 2017)




----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure. 

If you are going to use the Yawning Portal why not just go ahead and use the biggest dungeon that sits under it and already has an entrance right there in the room? 

Sorry Wizards but your cross-overs are getting more ridiculous by the second.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 5, 2017)

Barantor said:


> Six of the seven set in Greyhawk, but it sounds like they are moving all of them to Forgotten Realms.... hopefully they have at least a paragraph about Greyhawk in there somewhere.




Mike Mearls, in the Forbes article, refers to stories being passed around in the Yawning Portal about legendary dungeons from a variety of worlds - I'm wondering if they might be introducing a little intra-planar travel to the different prime material worlds, via the story for this series of adventures...


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

Barantor said:


> Six of the seven set in Greyhawk, but it sounds like they are moving all of them to Forgotten Realms.... hopefully they have at least a paragraph about Greyhawk in there somewhere.




Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury are not really set in Greyhawk in any meaningful sense.  In fact, I'm trying to remember if they even use Greyhawk names for anything other than the mentions of deities (since those were the default deities from the 3e PHB).  So it's more like 4 of the seven.

What's really funny is that I've already run Sunless Citadel as a 5e adventure and I did it all on the fly with no prep beyond marking pages in the Monster Manual for the various beasties in the dungeon.  This product may be the first that actually gives me little to no utility since I own all of them except for "Dead in Thay" already.  It'll be interesting to see how they connect them all together.  And I suspect that at least Against the Giants will get a major revamp to make it a more modern adventure.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 5, 2017)

This is very appealing to me. I've been wanting smaller adventures, and I haven't actually played or run most of the classic dungeons. I'm sure there are some older players who have each of these in their original form, for whom this will be less interesting. On the other hand, there are going to be tons of players for whom this will be their first introduction to some classic adventures that have already stood the test of time.

I wonder if the Adventurer's League will be playing these.


----------



## doctheweasel (Jan 5, 2017)

They got the Yawn part right. 

I thought this is what DMs Guild was for.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 5, 2017)

If they're still trying to recover former 3.X players from Pathfinder, maybe they should have titled the new book "The Magnificent Meepo Returns"...


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 5, 2017)

Nah it will all be set in FR imo, they've done that with everything else. Until we get a SCAG equivalent for another setting they'll all be ported to FR. Not that it bothers me, you can astro that out easy as! But I'm very interested in this book, shorter adventures are better for me and my kids. Bring it on!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 5, 2017)

Sounds pretty good! I'm sure I'll be able to put each of these to use in some way.

Do you guys think that in a case of some of these, that they will have the entire adventure, or just one dungeon from it? Like, from Against the Giants, will they have all three giant lairs, or just one? 

I'm a bit curious about that....the way the announcement is worded, it sounds like it could be either way.


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

WalkingCorpse said:


> maybe they should have titled the new book "The Magnificent Meepo Returns"...




Here - take ALL OF MY MONEY!


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jan 5, 2017)

Jer said:


> Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury are not really set in Greyhawk in any meaningful sense.  In fact, I'm trying to remember if they even use Greyhawk names for anything other than the mentions of deities (since those were the default deities from the 3e PHB).  So it's more like 4 of the seven.
> 
> What's really funny is that I've already run Sunless Citadel as a 5e adventure and I did it all on the fly with no prep beyond marking pages in the Monster Manual for the various beasties in the dungeon.  This product may be the first that actually gives me little to no utility since I own all of them except for "Dead in Thay" already.  It'll be interesting to see how they connect them all together.  And I suspect that at least Against the Giants will get a major revamp to make it a more modern adventure.




Ironically I've played in both and run them as well, but never in Greyhawk. As a player I experienced them set in FR and as a DM I set them in my home setting.


----------



## 77IM (Jan 5, 2017)

Holy . (Can we say "" on ENWorld?)

It is truly a great time to be alive!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

Really looking forward to this.  And for those who didn't play D&D back in the 80s, even though the adventures were technically Greyhawk, it was more the norm than exception that people played in their own homebrew campaign worlds, and the adventures were designed to be drag and drop very easily.

Also, over the past few years with 5e, I have probably drag and dropped a dozen adventures into the 5e world.  It's easy.  Do not let setting compatibility worries stop you from buying this product, just like you shouldn't have used setting compatibility worries to stop you from buying Volo's guide.  You'd be missing out.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.
> 
> If you are going to use the Yawning Portal why not just go ahead and use the biggest dungeon that sits under it and already has an entrance right there in the room?



What's the Yawning Portal?


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.
> 
> If you are going to use the Yawning Portal why not just go ahead and use the biggest dungeon that sits under it and already has an entrance right there in the room?
> 
> Sorry Wizards but your cross-overs are getting more ridiculous by the second.



I'm willing to bet you a whole dollar the product will not say "this dungeon can't be place in the Realms" anywhere.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 5, 2017)

Jer said:


> since I own all of them except for "Dead in Thay" already.



Wasn't there a playtest D&D Next adventure with this name, or am I misremembering?


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 5, 2017)

77IM said:


> Holy . (Can we say "" on ENWorld?)
> 
> It is truly a great time to be alive!



Not only can you say  on ENWorld, you can say  and  too!


----------



## Staffan (Jan 5, 2017)

But the real question is: will there still be elf pudding?


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.
> 
> If you are going to use the Yawning Portal why not just go ahead and use the biggest dungeon that sits under it and already has an entrance right there in the room?
> 
> Sorry Wizards but your cross-overs are getting more ridiculous by the second.






    Laugh Sorcerers Apprentice laughed with this post

????????

This wasn't a joke post so I'm not sure what you are laughing with. You do realize that it doesn't say "laugh at" anymore?


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> What's the Yawning Portal?




The inn in the Realms that has the main entrance to Undermountain in its basement.



CapnZapp said:


> Wasn't there a playtest D&D Next adventure with this name, or am I misremembering?




From the Forbes article it sounds like that's probably it.  Mearls says just the dungeon will be part of this collection and not whatever other "broader campaign" elements that were around it.


----------



## Luchador (Jan 5, 2017)

This is awesome!

But the world was a harsher place back then.   Are players today ready for the TPK and other deaths that will happen in Tomb of Horrors and Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan?  

Getting killed by a trap is so impersonal and soul less.  RIP my first character, a halfling thief. I'd say his bones are still in the Tomb of Horrors, but, if I recall, a sphere of annihilation got him, so he's just. . . . gone.   =(


----------



## Fildrigar (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.
> 
> If you are going to use the Yawning Portal why not just go ahead and use the biggest dungeon that sits under it and already has an entrance right there in the room?
> 
> Sorry Wizards but your cross-overs are getting more ridiculous by the second.




Are you serious? Dude, they literally gave you what you've been spamming these boards asking for and you're complaining about it?


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> What's the Yawning Portal?




The Yawning Portal is a tavern in Waterdeep that was established by Durnan who was an adventurer. He, Mirt the Moneylender, and a few others, went in Undermountain (a giant dungeon under Waterdeep) and found lots of riches. He retired and took over the Yawning Portal. There is a giant well in the tavern that leads down into Undermountain.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

Fildrigar said:


> Are you serious? Dude, they literally gave you what you've been spamming these boards asking for and you're complaining about it?




No they didn't!!!! They gave me what I already have and I'm sure they plan on lumping them all into the Realms which means they will become part of the canon.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 5, 2017)

While I'm looking forward to the compilation, I'm slightly disappointed that the Mines of Madness didn't make the cut.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 5, 2017)

Staffan said:


> But the real question is: will there still be elf pudding?



I prefer cheesecake myself


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

Luchador said:


> This is awesome!
> 
> But the world was a harsher place back then.   Are players today ready for the TPK and other deaths that will happen in Tomb of Horrors and Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan?
> (




Hidden Shrine is not so bad, but I would never actually run a high level party that had earned those levels through Tomb of Horrors.  Tomb of Horrors is supposed to be nearly unwinnable without cheating or some damn good luck.  It was created as a con one-shot and that's the only way I've ever run it.  I've toyed with running it as a "dream" but the opportunity has never come up.

That said - if they're going to publish it in a collection like this it should be the original, deadly, nearly unbeatable Tomb of Horrors.  With sufficient warning to DMs who have never run anything but 5e AP material exactly how different the expectations for the adventure are compared to what they're used to running.


----------



## EthanSental (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm excited by this and looki forward to it!


----------



## Rhineglade (Jan 5, 2017)

OMG!  I can not freakin' WAIT for this product.  Sign me up now!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

If this was a book containing "brand new" adventures then it would be deadly.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> Laugh Sorcerers Apprentice laughed with this post
> 
> ????????
> 
> This wasn't a joke post so I'm not sure what you are laughing with. You do realize that it doesn't say "laugh at" anymore?





If I were to hazard a guess, of the two options available (Give XP, or Laugh), Laugh is closer to "FFS, this again!"

I could be totally wrong.  I guess I'll have to judge that by how many XP vs Laughs I get


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> If this was a book containing "brand new" adventures then it would be deadly.




Pretty sure this one can be deadly, too, if you swing hard enough.


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Meh. I like Against the Giants ... BUT WE JUST HAD GIANTS! Couldn't they have saved that for some, future, mega D-G-Q series or something?




If I had my druthers I would have preferred they swap out Against the Giants and swap in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  But I suspect I'm in the minority on that one.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

Jer said:


> If I had my druthers I would have preferred they swap out Against the Giants and swap in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  But I suspect I'm in the minority on that one.




Maybe, maybe not.  I was never huge into EttBP, but like lowkey said, we just had giants.  So while G1-3 are iconic, I would have rather seen the DQ series instead, or even EttBP over it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Mehppiness



Upvoted.


----------



## Luchador (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm glad they didn't try to turn the piece of crap Keep on the Borderlands into an actual good 5e thing.


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  I was never huge into EotBP, but like lowkey said, we just had giants.  So while G1-3 are iconic, I would have rather seen the DQ series instead.




But didn't we just have the Underdark and Drow and Demon Lords a year ago as well?  Out of the Abyss and the DQ series have a bit of overlap to them.

The tough part is that the AP out so far - other than the Tyranny of Dragons arc, I guess - is all "inspired by" classic AD&D 1e adventures.  Temple of Elemental Evil.  Against the Giants. The DQ series.  Ravenloft.  Any of those in the compilation would feel a bit like a retread even if the adventures themselves aren't all that alike in the end.


----------



## DM Magic (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.
> 
> If you are going to use the Yawning Portal why not just go ahead and use the biggest dungeon that sits under it and already has an entrance right there in the room?
> 
> Sorry Wizards but your cross-overs are getting more ridiculous by the second.




I'm curious if there's anything that Wizards of the Coast could do that would make you happy.


----------



## 77IM (Jan 5, 2017)

_We_ just had giants, but this book will be for sale for _years_ to come, and future newcomers to the hobby will probably get more enjoyment from the G series than from EttBP.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

Jer said:


> But didn't we just have the Underdark and Drow and Demon Lords a year ago as well?  Out of the Abyss and the DQ series have a bit of overlap to them.
> 
> The tough part is that the AP out so far - other than the Tyranny of Dragons arc, I guess - is all "inspired by" classic AD&D 1e adventures.  Temple of Elemental Evil.  Against the Giants. The DQ series.  Ravenloft.  Any of those in the compilation would feel a bit like a retread even if the adventures themselves aren't all that alike in the end.





FINE!  I would really like to see the Desert of Desolation series, and failing that, Hidden Shrine.

Happy now!


----------



## flametitan (Jan 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Meh. I like Against the Giants ... BUT WE JUST HAD GIANTS! Couldn't they have saved that for some, future, mega D-G-Q series or something?




I'm getting the impression that they're doing the G series _because_ of SKT, rather than despite it. It provides a side quest for your players to do while still being thematically tied to the overall storyline of fighting giants, and the nature of SKT allows you to easily drop it in at any time.

Theoretically it makes sense. Now, whether that's actually a good idea or not... *shrug*


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 5, 2017)

I like the list (and assume I'll find a way to incorporate _Against the Giants_ into SKT when I run it), except for _Sunless Citadel_, which I recall as completely unremarkable. It will be interesting to see how they convert _Dead in Thay_ for a normal campaign. It sounds like they're just going to drop in the Doomvault as a high-level "mad house" dungeon. Not sure how that will work.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 5, 2017)

DM Magic said:


> I'm curious if there's anything that Wizards of the Coast could do that would make you happy.



I feel like it would be Pathfinder's release schedule, with books for every previously released setting as well, but that's just a guess.


----------



## martinlochsen (Jan 5, 2017)

This is very cool! And it's got Lemmy on the cover!


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

DM Magic said:


> I'm curious if there's anything that Wizards of the Coast could do that would make you happy.




Fire Chris Perkins.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> I was going to say that, well, what do you do when there's no, "Shake you head and cry option," but that works too.



Totally meta, but I miss the old comments section for posts so bad.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Jan 5, 2017)

I like the idea of this book but not what I was hoping for.  It will be cool to play some of the old stuff in 5E nevertheless.


----------



## DM Magic (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> Fire Chris Perkins.




Maybe you'd be happier haunting forums that do things that make you happy then. Just a suggestion. 

I, for one, am ecstatic about this release. Can't wait to get it!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> I feel like it would be Pathfinder's release schedule, with books for every previously released setting as well, but that's just a guess.




How come when people want more material than what we are getting it is automatically assumed they want a big release schedule like Pathfinder?


----------



## Morrus (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> Fire Chris Perkins.




That's just nasty. Don't post in this thread again, please. And do not wish ill-will upon individuals on this site.


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

I wonder if this a way to also get these into AL play.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

DM Magic said:


> Maybe you'd be happier haunting forums that do things that make you happy then. Just a suggestion.
> 
> I, for one, am ecstatic about this release. Can't wait to get it!




I'm glad you are happy with it but I already have them sitting on the shelf. They are far better "classic" adventures they could have put out, or maybe even some brand new ones.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

darjr said:


> I wonder if this a way to also get these into AL play.




Ooohhhh, that's an intriguing idea.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> I was going to say that, well, what do you do when there's no, "Shake you head and cry option," but that works too.




Well you do get XP every time someone "laughs with this post".


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jan 5, 2017)

Barantor said:


> Six of the seven set in Greyhawk, but it sounds like they are moving all of them to Forgotten Realms.... hopefully they have at least a paragraph about Greyhawk in there somewhere.



Sunless and Forge are not set in Greyhawk?


----------



## BMaC (Jan 5, 2017)

This is excellent news.  I'm so happy we don't have to suffer through another realms-wide cataclysmic event and run around grinding rep for the Harpers.  It will be very interesting to see how they expand, flesh-out the adventures, and how they redo the art and maps.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> How come when people want more material than what we are getting it is automatically assumed they want a big release schedule like Pathfinder?



Because it's a relevant current release pattern that people are familiar with, and thus useful for making general comparisons?  Not to mention there are very few publishers even releasing a steady stream of material, so it's fairly hard to come up with another well-known metric.


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> The lack of inclusion, while including other S-series, makes me hope that they might have bigger plans for it. I SEE YOU, VEGEPYGMIES, HANGING OUT IN MY VOLO'S GUIDE!




Yes - the inclusion of Vegepygmies in the Volo's Guide not only made me happy as a fan of old material, it made me think that maybe somewhere down the road we may get another expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  Or perhaps some AP inspired by the EttBP.  I'd take either - I'm not a picky man.


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

And it is for season 6 of AL!!! Yaaaaahooooo!


----------



## alienux (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm excited to finally hear what Labyrinth is, and especially excited about what it is. Looking forward to this with great interest!


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

From Robert Adducci



> The next D&D book has been announced! This will be season 6 of D&D Adventurers League, more to come about that in a future announcement.
> 
> Which of these classic 7 adventures have you played or are looking forward to playing (or DMing)?
> 
> ...


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

Hmmm.. I'm worried that the originals might drop off DMsGuild while this is in print. I might have to get them.


----------



## guachi (Jan 5, 2017)

I'd be excited if I didn't already own these (except dead in thay, not a classic) in PDF ($5 on dndclassics!) or paper form (eBay!).

I'm happy these will exist in a 5e form. But I, like all the other APs, won't be buying this. Shoot, I own two of these from Dungeons of Dread hardback WotC published a few years back. If I didn't already own them, I'd be buying this. Or if I could get it for $25.

None of these dungeons would be on my personal top 15 of classic dungeons to do, anyway. Top 30, sure.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2017)

Interesting, so no "storyline" for this year...


----------



## Louis Brenton (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm thrilled with this.  Glad to have some shorter adventures, even if they're 5e reskinning of some classics.  Fascinated to hear how the upcoming Adventurer's League season will work in light of this.


----------



## Vampyr3 (Jan 5, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> What's the Yawning Portal?








The Yawning Portal inn, built in 1306 on the ruins of Halaster Blackcloak's old tower, gained most of its renown for being the primary open route to the Undermountain. A well within its walls led down into the first dungeon of Undermountain.The Yawning Portal was located on Rainrun Street in Waterdeep's Castle Ward between Waterdeep Castle and Snail Street.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 5, 2017)

that is AWESOME.

So much better then I imagined. 

It also raises some awkward timing issues for my campaign...but I will figure those out. 

Also, the ToH rumors turned out to be true. I just couldn't see them doing a single big adventure around it (like they did in 4e). But this is so much better in any case.


----------



## guachi (Jan 5, 2017)

If I can get the book for free, I'd be delighted to run these for my local AL shop. The non-AL campaign I run there is all old modules. (Though not these as they aren't my favorites)


----------



## flametitan (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm curious if they didn't put Undermountain in this so that the AL team could cover Undermountain (while the title of the book allows for an excuse for the AL season to be about Undermountain.)


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2017)

flametitan said:


> I'm curious if they didn't put Undermountain in this so that the AL team could cover Undermountain (while the title of the book allows for an excuse for the AL season to be about Undermountain.)





Ooooh, good call: maybe the big Undermountain Open was testing out stuff for the season adventures to gon on DMsGuild?

In that case, both ToH and Undetmountain theories would be right, at the same time...


----------



## ninjayeti (Jan 5, 2017)

These are (mostly) all fine adventures and I am glad they will be available to a new generation of players. It just seems like doing some 5E conversions of existing material (available as PDF and soon hopefully POD) is a bit weaksause to be the big, AAA, premium, semi-annual 5E product.  I seem to recall that WotC did a 3rd edition update of ToH as a free download back in the day - IMHO that seems like a better route for a simple conversion than a hardback that will likely be the only 5E material we will see for months.


----------



## Jer (Jan 5, 2017)

flametitan said:


> I'm curious if they didn't put Undermountain in this so that the AL team could cover Undermountain (while the title of the book allows for an excuse for the AL season to be about Undermountain.)




Now that's an interesting bit of speculation.  I'm assuming that they didn't put Undermountain into this because they're planning on eventually giving Undermountain its own AP all to itself and are just figuring out how to go about doing that in a single book AP-sized book.


----------



## buzzardoftheages (Jan 5, 2017)

darjr said:


> Hmmm.. I'm worried that the originals might drop off DMsGuild while this is in print. I might have to get them.




I doubt it. The original Ravenloft is still for sale there.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Jan 5, 2017)

A few of us have already played in a 5e Undermountain.  Believe me, Halaster is alive and, well...

I think we'll be seeing more of him sometime soon.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Jan 5, 2017)

Yeah, that is my main thought after reading the interview - I'm sure that lots of work went into this (art, playtesting the encounters in 5e, rewriting them to be modern, etc) but it doesn't really seem to be a "storyline". I guess that the Neverwinter MMO will be doing their own interpretation of one or more of the dungeons to tie in, but otherwise it seems thin on the ground for narrative tie in.

Also Mearls says explicitly that they use monsters from Volo's, but reprint them in full. Core books and current adventure is apparently an important threshold for them, which I can see the merits of.


Sent from my iPad using EN World mobile app


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 5, 2017)

If I were an ex-publisher of a skeptical bent I'd suspect that "Undermountain-Themed D&D Open + This Title + This Content = Big Project Went Sideways and Now We Have to Fill the Release Slot." Even if I were that guy, I'd still be looking forward to this.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 5, 2017)

Barantor said:


> Six of the seven set in Greyhawk, but it sounds like they are moving all of them to Forgotten Realms.... hopefully they have at least a paragraph about Greyhawk in there somewhere.



The product page even says that some of the tales are "from across the planes", so no doubt other settings will get their due. And anyway I bet we'll be given information how to adapt adventures to various settings, as is normal in the adventure books.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 5, 2017)

From the interview, order of play seems to be:

Sunless Citadel
Forge of Fury 
White Plume Mountain
Hidden Shrine
Dead in Thay
Against the Giants
Tomb of Horrors

He notes that Tomb is for 13th-14th level characters.


----------



## Delazar (Jan 5, 2017)

I don't understand... is this just a collection of old adventures, updated to the 5e rules? That's... it?

I'm a huge fanboy, really, DnD can do no wrong for me... but this is just... lazy?

Maybe I got it wrong?


----------



## Luchador (Jan 5, 2017)

Delazar said:


> I don't understand... is this just a collection of old adventures, updated to the 5e rules? That's... it?
> 
> I'm a huge fanboy, really, DnD can do no wrong for me... but this is just... lazy?
> 
> Maybe I got it wrong?




Won't know for sure until it comes out, but the sense I got from the interview is that these have been over-hauled so much as to be basically new.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Jan 5, 2017)

The Forbes article also says that there will be new to 5e monsters in the book:

"There are a number of monsters that haven't shown up in Fifth Ed before that are in those adventures and those have all been updated. A number of the NPCs have been updated, especially the Third Edition adventures. They tended to use a Duergar wizard as a an enemy, things like that. We've updated those guys to Fifth Ed and converted them all over."


----------



## BMaC (Jan 5, 2017)

Delazar said:


> I don't understand... is this just a collection of old adventures, updated to the 5e rules? That's... it?
> 
> I'm a huge fanboy, really, DnD can do no wrong for me... but this is just... lazy?
> 
> Maybe I got it wrong?




The proof will be in the pudding.  For us old-timers having these iconic modules (that's what they were called) re-released and upgraded for 5th edition is like putting Keoghtom's ointment directly on a mid-life crisis rash.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

Delazar said:


> I don't understand... is this just a collection of old adventures, updated to the 5e rules? That's... it?
> 
> I'm a huge fanboy, really, DnD can do no wrong for me... but this is just... lazy?
> 
> Maybe I got it wrong?




I don't think it's lazy, and I think it's a good idea.  I mean, people have been complaining about wanting shorter adventures.  Usually that's followed up with this exchange:

"That's what the DMs Guild is for."
"But those aren't AL legal!!!"

Now WotC has just addressed that.  They just gave us a bunch of iconic shorter adventures that are now AL legal.  Great move by them, IMO.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

BMaC said:


> The proof will be in the pudding..




Pedantic alert!

It's actually, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

You may carry on now.  Sorry, but pet peeve of mine lol.  Along with "irregardless" and "I could care less".


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 5, 2017)

So with this product, you can now play the Tomb of Horrors with every edition of the game.

The original S1 for 1E
Included in the Return to the Tomb of Horrors for 2E
The revision of the module for 3E
The revision of the module in Dungeon Magazine 213 for 4E and D&D Next
Included in Tales of the Yawning Portal for 5E


----------



## Luchador (Jan 5, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So with this product, you can now play the Tomb of Horrors with every edition of the game.
> 
> The original S1 for 1E
> Included in the Return to the Tomb of Horrors for 2E
> ...




A thousand ways to die x 5 = five thousand ways to die!


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 5, 2017)

I’m curious if they’ll adjust the difficulty of Tomb of Horrors for modern sensibilities or leave at set at its original level of murder-machine. I’ve been itching to actually run ToH for years, albeit not with my group’s existing PCs. I’m not that mean of a DM, I think.

How this all translates into the next AL season will be interesting to see. It might be cool if they had a more scattered season, with some adventures involving, say, seeds of the Gulthias Tree from Sunless Citadel, and others about some lost tome of Acerarak. Pretty much using the adventures to expand the lore of the classics. 



Luchador said:


> This is awesome!
> 
> But the world was a harsher place back then.   Are players today ready for the TPK and other deaths that will happen in Tomb of Horrors and Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan?


----------



## JovialLichKing (Jan 5, 2017)

I think it's important to note that these classic modules will be updated and converted to 5e, which is a huge plus and super enticing in my mind. 

I have many of these in their original form but the hassle of converting them has caused me to avoid running them for my players.

So yeah, I'm stoked about this.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app


----------



## Luchador (Jan 5, 2017)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I’m curious if they’ll adjust the difficulty of Tomb of Horrors for modern sensibilities or leave at set at its original level of murder-machine. I’ve been itching to actually run ToH for years, albeit not with my group’s existing PCs. I’m not that mean of a DM, I think.
> 
> How this all translates into the next AL season will be interesting to see. It might be cool if they had a more scattered season, with some adventures involving, say, seeds of the Gulthias Tree from Sunless Citadel, and others about some lost tome of Acerarak. Pretty much using the adventures to expand the lore of the classics.




All I'm saying is that if your Halfling thief sees a really, REALLY dark tunnel-- send in the damn wizard first


----------



## jasper (Jan 5, 2017)

Hmm. I in.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Jester David (Jan 5, 2017)

Meh.
So much meh. 

It takes almost no effort to update products from 1e to 5e. I've done _White Plume Mountain_ and _Castle Ravenloft_ pretty much on the fly during the playtest. 
In his AMA on Reddit, in response to a question on converting old adventures to 5e, Mike Mearls responded with 
_"Yes, as long as they are part of the content covered by the Guild. I'd suggest extending the adventure with new content rather than just copying it, because updates to 5e are fairly easy. I think you'd need to add a personal spin to it to get attention."_
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/413uu7/dd_ama_with_mike_mearls_and_chris_lindsay_115/cyzk3tv/
Adding a framing device isn't "a personal spin".

And they *just* reprinted three of these in the _Dungeons of Dread_ S-Series compilation so it's not like they're hard to find. The rest will be on DMsGuild in Print on Demand shortly, if not PDF. That is if you're not able to find a used copy anywhere (which is unlikely given how often these were reprinted).

And we just got effective updates of the Giants adventures. I was pretty critical of _Storm King's Thunder_ initially as I felt it was just a retread, but this is *exactly* what this sounds to be. 


This just feels like a super, super lazy product.
There had better be a TONNE of extra monsters. And hopefully tweaks, surprises, and revisions to the adventures. I expect not just an update but a complete rewrite. We've learned a lot about adventure design since most were written. 


I know a lot of people wanted smaller adventures. Despite being able to strip out dungeons in _Princes of the Apocalypse_ and _Storm King's Thunder_ effortlessly. And despite the numerous small Adventurer's League adventures now on the DMsGuild. And despite the myriad past adventures that are easily updated.

Now, I'm not against that per se. But I'd rather that be NEW small adventures that are linked together. Where people can have those small adventure and I can have my story. Seven giant dungeon crawls lack that story.


----------



## Prakriti (Jan 5, 2017)

Here's a riddle for you:

In _Storm King's Thunder_, we were told that Artus Cimber and the Ring of Winter would feature in an upcoming adventure. 

So what do people think: Has the Ring been tied into one of these adventures? Do we have to wait another 6 months for the Ring of Winter to show up in a future AP? Or did Wizards just give up on the idea?

I do know that the Doomvault in _Dead in Thay_ includes a Temple of Winter, which has a Chosen of Auril in it. Last we heard, Artus had become a Chosen of Auril. So maybe they swapped out Hedrun (the original NPC) for Artus Cimber. But this is just 1 room in a 100-room dungeon, and not particularly important to the story. 

Given that fact, here's how the encounter might play out:

PCs: "Hey, you're Artus Cimber. A lot of giants are looking for you, you know."
Artus: "Oh yeah? Well, I've been here the whole time."
PCs: "Neat. They want your ring or something." 
Artus: "That's nice. Well, it was nice meeting you."


----------



## Barantor (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm in now that I saw the Forbes interview with Mike Mearls explaining that the Yawning Portal is only where the travelers are telling their tales and that some of them even travel to planes like Greyhawk. This means that Greyhawk is still the location for the ones which appear there, which I am greatful for. 

Also since it is "Against the Giants" it is really 9 adventures total if you break AtG into it's G1,G2 and G3 components of...
"Steading of the Hill Giant Chief"
"Frozen Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl"
"Hall of the Fire Giant Lord"

As far as Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury not being Greyhawk, it's mostly the deities that are used rather than the locations, though most that I knew put them there. 

If the Adventures League has side adventures or ones built around these then I will probably snag those as well when they hit the DMsGuild. 

One would hope that this means they might allow the DMsGuild authors to use Greyhawk, which I would be extremely excited about and might even throw in a few of my old gems.


----------



## Plaguescarred (Jan 5, 2017)

That's a juicy product packing a lot of adventuring for the price tag i mean 7 iconic adventures for 50$ Mirt the Moneylender must be behind it for sure that's too good of a deal to pass!!


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 5, 2017)

Bugger, this was not the David Bowie inspired Labyrinth that I was hoping for.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 5, 2017)

As an aside, this thread and news has been out for a couple hours now. And I've been on the forums most of that time. 
I actually skipped clicking this thread because the name made me think someone was updating the adventures for the DMs Guild. Literally, my first thought was that this was a fan effort. 

Even when I saw the cover, my initial reaction was that this was an ad for a PDF, likely on the Guild, and not the Spring storyline volume. 
At that point I was surprised but loved the idea, because people did want small adventures, and updating is a quick way of getting people that content. Get people adventures without a lot of man hours. 

When I saw the price and realized this was a hardcover there was a moment of disbelief. Then shock when I saw the date and realized _*this*_ was the spring "storyline" volume. 
Even now there are people I'm talking with on Twitter who think there's still a storyline book coming...


----------



## machineelf (Jan 5, 2017)

Greg Benage said:


> If I were an ex-publisher of a skeptical bent I'd suspect that "Undermountain-Themed D&D Open + This Title + This Content = Big Project Went Sideways and Now We Have to Fill the Release Slot." Even if I were that guy, I'd still be looking forward to this.




I sort of doubt it, since this is going to make so many D&D fans very happy. If this is a failure, they are definitely failing forward.


----------



## machineelf (Jan 5, 2017)

Delazar said:


> I don't understand... is this just a collection of old adventures, updated to the 5e rules? That's... it?
> 
> I'm a huge fanboy, really, DnD can do no wrong for me... but this is just... lazy?
> 
> Maybe I got it wrong?




Converting classic adventures to 5e rules and monsters is no light task. I'd gladly pay $50 to have 7 classics converted to my rule-set of choice. I don't think it's lazy at all. I've been hoping for something like this.


----------



## machineelf (Jan 5, 2017)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I’ve been itching to actually run ToH for years, albeit not with my group’s existing PCs. I’m not that mean of a DM, I think.




Great heroes need a great way to die.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2017)

Per the Forbes article, the seven were chosen to be strung together into a single campaign, if the DM wishes, or to be used as sidequests.

I don't have the adventures in question, so this would have some use to me, possibly.


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 5, 2017)

secondhander said:


> I sort of doubt it, since this is going to make so many D&D fans very happy. If this is a failure, they are definitely failing forward.




Even if I were that skeptical ex-publisher I referenced, I'd point out that I didn't call the product a "failure." Even if that guy thought it was a damage-control release necessitated by a major product delay and/or fiasco, that wouldn't automatically make it a "failure" or a product that wouldn't make some fans happy.

I'm a big fan of Wizards' strategy of three big products a year. I don't think a conversion book of various classic, not-so-classic, and playtest modules is a good fit for that strategy.


----------



## pming (Jan 5, 2017)

Hiya!

Well great googley-moogely (in a good way!). This may actually be the very _first_ 5e product that wasn't PHB, MM, or DMG that I want to buy.  Of course, now I have to save up the $65 it's gonna cost me up here...

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Zaran (Jan 5, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> If this was a book containing "brand new" adventures then it would be deadly.




Hopefully it's not the only thing coming out around April.


----------



## pkt77242 (Jan 5, 2017)

Some people just can't be pleased. 

"I am tired of APs, I want shorter adventures."
WoTC: "Here is a book of 7 shorter adventures."
"I didn't mean those shorter adventures."


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2017)

Zaran said:


> Hopefully it's not the only thing coming out around April.





I dunno, all signs point to this being the sole Spring release...


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jan 5, 2017)

The best way to start my gaming year!!
2017, the Year of the Dungeon!!


----------



## Osgood (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm pretty pleased with this news. I've wanted shorter adventures for a long time, but didn't see how they could fit into the current publishing model they are using. Sure, I'd rather they resurrect Dungeon magazine, but this seems like a good solution. I've run about half these adventures at some point, and I'm familiar with all except the Thay one (Not a Realms fan). I can see myself actually using this for more than pillaging statblocks and ideas.


----------



## Istbor (Jan 5, 2017)

While I have been playing this game for a good amount of years, I have only just now with this edition dipped my toes into the pool that is APs. I am pretty interested to see what some of the classics are like.  Even if they are a bit 'remastered'.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 5, 2017)

Actually think this would have been better if they did the whole 3E original "adventure path" collected together, without earlier wd and Thay stuff: 3E conversions are a pain, and those haven't been collected.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 5, 2017)

Greg Benage said:


> I like the list (and assume I'll find a way to incorporate _Against the Giants_ into SKT when I run it), except for _Sunless Citadel_, which I recall as completely unremarkable.




Sunless Citadel was good for showing off the low-level aspects of the new D&D. It had numerous skill checks for various things, several NPCs with class levels (combined with monstrous traits), and a boss fight where one of the opponents was particularly good at breaking weapons (showing off that sub-system as well). You also had a dungeon with two factions in it, which was kind of cool. Oh, and Meepo.



Matrix Sorcica said:


> Sunless and Forge are not set in Greyhawk?




Not really, no. Neither has any Greyhawk references beyond things like "one of the missing people was a paladin of Pelor."



BMaC said:


> The proof will be in the pudding.




The *ELF* pudding!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 5, 2017)

Jester David said:


> Great. Now you have it, at the cost of a storyline adventure. Happy?
> I hope this ends the complaining...




Considering your whole post was a complaint... I don't think...


----------



## gyor (Jan 5, 2017)

Another product I have no interest in.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 5, 2017)

pkt77242 said:


> Some people just can't be pleased.
> 
> "I am tired of APs, I want shorter adventures."
> WoTC: "Here is a book of 7 shorter adventures."
> "I didn't mean those shorter adventures."



I am one of those who wanted smaller adventures. But yeah, I was not hoping for a re-hash of old ideas. It makes reading the adventures more work than pleasure, and it's less likely that I will buy them. 


I was hoping for something more modern, like Reavers of Harkenworld, which I think is the best 4e adventure out there. A cool plot and pretty sandboxy feel to it. Easy to modify on the fly when your players don't follow the expected path of the adventure.

The book is probably a good fit for new DMs and there are bound to be a lot of those if one looks at the 5e sales. It just doesn't look like a good fit for me.


----------



## HawaiiSteveO (Jan 5, 2017)

I initially thought it was guild product as well.
People were wanting different things (Eberron/Planescape). I was hoping for something new . . . oh well.
That being said, I can see the appeal and presume this is going to sell like gangbusters. It has way more appeal to me than 1 huge adventure.
Giving Deadlands Reloaded a shot for a while, might be back to 5E by the time this is released, would definitely pick it up!


----------



## Staffan (Jan 5, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> I prefer cheesecake myself




YOU might, but the goblins of the Sunless Citadel clearly don't.


----------



## timbannock (Jan 5, 2017)

Blackbrrd said:


> I am one of those who wanted smaller adventures. But yeah, I was not hoping for a re-hash of old ideas. It makes reading the adventures more work than pleasure, and it's less likely that I will buy them.
> 
> 
> I was hoping for something more modern, like Reavers of Harkenworld, which I think is the best 4e adventure out there. A cool plot and pretty sandboxy feel to it. Easy to modify on the fly when your players don't follow the expected path of the adventure.
> ...




Hopefully that comes next (maybe not like "the next product released" but very soon in the pipeline) if this sells well. I think Curse of Strahd's strong showing probably spoke to them as, "hey, this stuff sells well, and if we can make a few modern tweaks or update some monsters, that's a bonus." It's low-hanging fruit to convert something and get some cash-flow to then divert towards something else that can be a bit more experimental and new.

Considering the nostalgia surrounding D&D as a whole, and the ease of this new edition for conversion, I think the idea that Tales can bring a whole new generation up on these classic adventures, as well as opening them up for Adventurers League play so easily, means that Wizards will get a lot of great feedback on really dungeoncrawl-centric adventures, which might be really useful towards to their future releases, too. Whatever player book they have in the works might benefit from some of this feedback, too, in terms of sussing out class option balance in a dungeoncrawl environment.

/conjecture


----------



## mankyle (Jan 5, 2017)

Mmmmm

Maybe they are linking the seven dungeons with the different pieces of the "Rod of Seven Parts"TM???

This could be a plausible link for the different adventures. I mean.... one piece lies at the end of every dungeon. If you defy all seven dungeons you will get an staff of untold power!!!!


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jan 5, 2017)

Yeah, it can probably sell well, especially with a show like Stranger Things basically being a promotion for it.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 5, 2017)

mankyle said:


> Mmmmm
> 
> Maybe they are linking the seven dungeons with the different pieces of the "Rod of Seven Parts"TM???
> 
> This could be a plausible link for the different adventures. I mean.... one piece lies at the end of every dungeon. If you defy all seven dungeons you will get an staff of untold power!!!!



Hmmmm, that's a pretty good bit of speculation!

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Jester David (Jan 5, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Considering your whole post was a complaint... I don't think...



No. my post was a childish whine, not a complaint.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 5, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 5, 2017)

So I can now run several adventures I hear so much good things about without having update them to 5e? Solid. 

I'll probably run them all in my Middle Earth campaign.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 5, 2017)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> Well great googley-moogely (in a good way!). This may actually be the very _first_ 5e product that wasn't PHB, MM, or DMG that I want to buy.  Of course, now I have to save up the $65 it's gonna cost me up here...
> 
> ...



Late March or early April. That's five pay periods. So put aside $15 each paycheque and you're golden. Or $8 if you go Amazon, getting the discount and an extra couple weeks.


----------



## bmfrosty (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm very looking forward to this.  I hope the AL adventures end up being conversions of other modules.  

Sent from my Pixel using EN World mobile app


----------



## robus (Jan 5, 2017)

All this rehashing old stuff is a puzzle to me. These dungeons mean nothing to me as a new DM. Is there nothing new in D&D 5e for WotC or is it all going to be a remix of classics?

Disappointed that this isn't something bold and new. Wasn't Mearls saying he wanted to do new stuff?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2017)

robus said:


> All this rehashing old stuff is a puzzle to me. These dungeons mean nothing to me as a new DM. Is there nothing new in D&D 5e for WotC or is it all going to be a remix of classics?
> 
> Disappointed that this isn't something bold and new. Wasn't Mearls saying he wanted to do new stuff?




Isn't literally everything they've put out since 2012 new?  I don't recall any of the other campaign books or adventure paths being a remake.  Even Strahd is not a remake of I6 to the best of my knowledge, and that's about as close to a remake that I can think of.

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 5, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Isn't literally everything they've put out since 2012 new?  I don't recall any of the other campaign books or adventure paths being a remake.  Even Strahd is not a remake of I6 to the best of my knowledge, and that's about as close to a remake that I can think of.
> 
> I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.



Strahd very much was a remake. It was a straight reprint of I6 with extra contents preceding the adventure. Basically I6 with padding.


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

I wonder how AL will tie into this? They've said they wanted a closer tie between the two.


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

The castle was changed in some ways from the original.


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2017)

Also that reminds me of the other add-ons like the tarocha cards. I wonder what other products will accompany this book? Hi res digital maps would be awesome!


----------



## flametitan (Jan 5, 2017)

So I was listening to Dragon Talk, and they've explained why they chose the Yawning Portal name for the book.

Apparently it's because the Undermountain is the most likely way for adventurers to be dropped into other settings from the Realms, meaning that the Yawning Portal is almost certainly going to be where these stories are told to Realms based adventurers. So these adventures are most definitely _not_ in the Realms, but the Realms is still there as a framing device.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 5, 2017)

Jester David said:


> I hope this ends the complaining...




Hi, Mr. David. Nice to meet you. We're the Internet, and I'm afraid we have some bad news for you...


----------



## Salamandyr (Jan 5, 2017)

please don't update the art.  please don't update the art.

EDIT: didn't realize that was supposed to _be_ the art.  Oh well--the gibbering mouther looks nice.


----------



## M.T. Black (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm really excited to see this. It includes some of my favourite dungeons from past editions, most of which I only own in PDF (these days). It will be fantastic to get a beautiful new hardback with these adventures. There are many, many great adventures that have been written over the 40 year history of the game, and it makes sense to update these for 5e so that all the new players who have joined the hobby can enjoy them. 

I can see more anthologies like this being released in the future, and I reckon that is fantastic! I'd love to see "The Lost City" updated, for example, as I think it's a great level 1-3 dungeon. And "Keep on the Borderlands" as well.

Some folk were asking about how the Greyhawk adventures would tie in with the realms. On DragonTalk, they said that the premise was that stories of these "legendary" dungeons were spoken about in the Yawning Portal inn. There's also a suggestion that the inn might serve as some sort of inter-planar nexus.

WOTC have said a few times that all of their worlds are part of a shared world (a meta-multi-verse, so to speak) - so travel from the Realms to Greyhawk is not that big a deal.


----------



## Kostchie (Jan 5, 2017)

*yep*

I've just run Sunless Citadel - in the 4th ed world - using 5th ed rules and had a similar experience- easy to convert. Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain (which I own 2 copies from different eras)- those I am interested in- what do they do for 5th ed? Just reference the monsters, fill in the blanks or actually change the modules to allow for the difference in systems/challenge? 



Jer said:


> Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury are not really set in Greyhawk in any meaningful sense.  In fact, I'm trying to remember if they even use Greyhawk names for anything other than the mentions of deities (since those were the default deities from the 3e PHB).  So it's more like 4 of the seven.
> 
> What's really funny is that I've already run Sunless Citadel as a 5e adventure and I did it all on the fly with no prep beyond marking pages in the Monster Manual for the various beasties in the dungeon.  This product may be the first that actually gives me little to no utility since I own all of them except for "Dead in Thay" already.  It'll be interesting to see how they connect them all together.  And I suspect that at least Against the Giants will get a major revamp to make it a more modern adventure.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 5, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> As someone who's never played any of these, I freely admit that I find this idea tremendously exciting.



My first real AD&D game was _Against the Giants_, so I'll pick this up for that nostalgia. I ran _Sunless Citadel_ to pilot 3E, and better than half my current group played it then (holy carp! my daughter, who is playing with us, wasn't even born), so probably won't get use out of it. Otherwise, I don't think I've run/played any of them. Should be fun and a nice change of pace.



Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.



I've never heard of the Yawning Portal, so it also qualifies as being unobtrusive to me. After reading Mike's comments on why they chose the name, I'm actually fine with grabbing yet another name from the Realms. Actually, if they don't convert the Greyhawk adventures to be set in the Realms, I will public and fully recant my recent rants about the Realms-centricity in products.



Blackbrrd said:


> I am one of those who wanted smaller adventures. But yeah, I was not hoping for a re-hash of old ideas. It makes reading the adventures more work than pleasure, and it's less likely that I will buy them.



At the top of my wish list is a full, AP-style, hardcover adventure that's tightly coupled with Eberron. I really doubt I'll get it in the next three years, if ever. The fact that WotC is doing something different means that, well, they're open to doing something different. I'm not going to slam that door on them because they didn't do the Eberron book first. My one requirement is that they kept the (potentially minimal) original setting for each adventure and didn't hack the all into the Realms.

Greyhawk was the second most popular published setting turned up in their research. I would put pretty good money that a plurality, if not an outright majority, of Greyhawk fans are grognards of some fashion, whether native born or conditioned. This could be seen as a very easy win for WotC: They get to cater to their second largest fan base. They can show evidence that they are supporting settings that aren't the Realms, which is encouraging to another significant bloc. The newest of these adventures is something like 15 years old, which is a whole generation of gamers that has never player most of them. Finally, as long as they don't jack with the fluff too much, most of the work is already done, making it less expensive to product; they still have some conversion, typesetting, and printing, but it's a lower-risk product if any of the above are wrong. Seems like it should be a relatively easy sell to whatever brass may not want the to experiment. Relative to what, I don't know.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Jan 5, 2017)

I think the lens that WotC will judge this book by is simple:  if it makes more $ than other AP's, they will make more AP's with collections of short adventures; if makes less $ than other AP's, they will stick to "one big adventure" per AP for the foreseeable future; if make about the same, they will work another book like into the schedule in a year or two.....


----------



## timbannock (Jan 5, 2017)

MechaTarrasque said:


> I think the lens that WotC will judge this book by is simple:  if it makes more $ than other AP's, they will make more AP's with collections of short adventures; if makes less $ than other AP's, they will stick to "one big adventure" per AP for the foreseeable future; if make about the same, they will work another book like into the schedule in a year or two.....




Makes sense. If anything different, it'd be simply adding a third or fourth metric, like "maybe a Dungeon Magazine/compilation of smaller adventures is more worthwhile" (assuming it does well) or something along those lines. But ultimately, yeah, it's completely different from what they've done in 5e so far yet not too risky, so that lens makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Ghost2020 (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm glad there is more product coming out, always a good thing.

I am, however disappointed that it's rehashed stuff, i was hoping for something new. I understand that quite a large number of people have never played or run these adventures. I've run/played all of them except Dead in Thay.

The choices weren't terribly inspired either.

Dead in Thay was not a classic, not in the slightest. 

Why not I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City? A far superior adventure to Shrine.

Why not Ghost Tower of Inverness? Great dungeon, and plays quickly.

Against the Giants? Bleh. As people said, we just had giants.

Lost Cavern of Tsojcanth?

How about Tomb of the Lizard King? 

How about a trek through Undermountain to round it out at the end?

Tomb of Horrors is just tired. It doesn't make for super adventuring. The follow up 2nd ed boxed set and the 4th ed set were good as it expanded on the base story.

Why not see some basic or expert adventures converted too, just for the fun of it?

I'm sure it'll be a very good product, I'm just feeling it's fairly lazy on their part.
The upside is that a new generation will get to experience these classics (aside from Dead in Thay- NOT a classic  )
So there's that.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 5, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> What's the Yawning Portal?



A famous inn in the city of Waterdeep, run by a notable NPC (Durnan), famous for its passage to Undermountain.


----------



## 76512390ag12 (Jan 5, 2017)

Great. I love 5e, it's the first D&D I have ever really liked much (I played and reffed BECMI, AD&D1e, 3e and 3.5e, Pathfinder *and* played 0D&D, and 4e).
I have loved the styling and modularity of 5e, plus the way different traditions can be accomodated at the same table.
So I want to experience some of these older adventures in the 5e rule set with it all done for me, rebooted and re-illustrated. Lovely..

But I also understand why those who are die hards might not grok this, after all I am a longtime Glorantha-RQ fan and the new reprints of RQ2 left me cold, but hey.. if it's 3 books a year, then one of the other 2 might be lovely new stuff for you..

Peace out!


----------



## blancaberlin (Jan 5, 2017)

Sadly WotC rebrews the Same old teabags again and again  with almost every storyline. Is there nothing new to toll with the help of 5e .revenue exceotations of Hasbro seems to be very high and money to invest intolerant something new not be granted


----------



## Sammael (Jan 5, 2017)

flametitan said:


> So I was listening to Dragon Talk, and they've explained why they chose the Yawning Portal name for the book.
> 
> Apparently it's because the Undermountain is the most likely way for adventurers to be dropped into other settings from the Realms, meaning that the Yawning Portal is almost certainly going to be where these stories are told to Realms based adventurers. So these adventures are most definitely _not_ in the Realms, but the Realms is still there as a framing device.




Interesting. I disagree, because The Wild Goose (AKA The World Serpent Inn) in Arabel is _far_ more likely to serve as a nexus point for adventurers to visit other settings.


----------



## flametitan (Jan 5, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Interesting. I disagree, because The Wild Goose (AKA The World Serpent Inn) in Arabel is _far_ more likely to serve as a nexus point for adventurers to visit other settings.




Problem is Arabel is in Cormyr, not the Sword Coast. It doesn't sound like wotc really wants to move away from the Sword Coast just yet.


----------



## Eubani (Jan 5, 2017)

Considering how much effort in the rule design went into capturing earlier edition feeling and courting grognards is it actually a surprise that so much 5e is rehash? Don't get me wrong I loved the earlier editions and the adventures.....BUT......they already exist and are still mostly available, and I already own nearly all of them. So what I want to see from WotC in the future is less looking backwards and more looking forwards. New rule ideas/methods, new creatures, new heroes/villains, new adventures, new player options (as in uncovered ground), etc. I know it may be risky as some of the fanbase needed a time machine not a new edition and that doing new stuff is more difficult than rejigging old material but it needs to happen. I understand many who sight 4e as to what happens when you introduce new into D&D but I think the issue in that case was too much too far in one go, But incremental change is required for a healthy game. I apologize if any of my thoughts above are a bit scattered or seem like some sort of attack.


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 5, 2017)

blancaberlin said:


> Sadly WotC rebrews the Same old teabags again and again  with almost every storyline. Is there nothing new to toll with the help of 5e .revenue exceotations of Hasbro seems to be very high and money to invest intolerant something new not be granted




I don't understand this line of thinking. Tyranny of Dragons wasn't a remake, Out of the Abyss wasn't a remake. Storm Kings Thunder wasn't a remake. Hell even the 2 adventures closest to being remakes (Princes of the Apocolypse, Curse of Strahd) weren't actually remakes. Are their adventures inspired by older adventures? Sure. Are they wholely unoriginal? Absolutely not. This is the first book that seems to be a full remake of a classic module, and it is remaking 7 of them. I see no issue with this and I don't see how WotC has been "rebrewing old teabags" for every book they have released.


----------



## Obvious_Ninja (Jan 5, 2017)

Oh... Sweet! Must have...


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Jan 5, 2017)

I am cool with this.

I kind of wish that they would go to three APs per year with one product devoted to small adventure nostalgia, one very Realms story focused and one more forward looking and trying out new things and genres. 

I might be willing to let go of the "plus one" non-AP product if each AP had an appendix of setting fluff, monsters, magic items, spells and player content if the player content was available for free PDF download.


----------



## Arilyn (Jan 6, 2017)

Eubani said:


> Considering how much effort in the rule design went into capturing earlier edition feeling and courting grognards is it actually a surprise that so much 5e is rehash? Don't get me wrong I loved the earlier editions and the adventures.....BUT......they already exist and are still mostly available, and I already own nearly all of them. So what I want to see from WotC in the future is less looking backwards and more looking forwards. New rule ideas/methods, new creatures, new heroes/villains, new adventures, new player options (as in uncovered ground), etc. I know it may be risky as some of the fanbase needed a time machine not a new edition and that doing new stuff is more difficult than rejigging old material but it needs to happen. I understand many who sight 4e as to what happens when you introduce new into D&D but I think the issue in that case was too much too far in one go, But incremental change is required for a healthy game. I apologize if any of my thoughts above are a bit scattered or seem like some sort of attack.



I agree completely, but WOTC is doing well, catering to nostalgia, at least for now.  This product announcement is creating a lot of excitement, so I assume most people are happy with the direction WOTC is going with their adventure design. Personally, I think a book of shorter adventures is a great idea, especially if they can be strung together, or used individually. I am not a fan of dungeon crawling, or those old classics, however, so it's not a product I will be buying. I prefer way more story in my adventures.  Fortunately, it isn't difficult to convert adventures from other sources to 5e.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 6, 2017)

So, the non-Thay modules come to 196 pages for $30 on DMs Guild right now; unsure what % of the 107 pages of Dead in Thay are looking to add to that, but ~256 for the final count is probable.  Not clear how much value-add they can do for these modules versus just running the 1E version on the fly from a $5 PDF...


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 6, 2017)

[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] just addressed that on Twitter: 5E stats and full color art (so, new art, one presumes, by and large).

Seems a hard sell, except for those of us who don't have any of the modules.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 6, 2017)

Other Twitter info: there will be guidelines for putting all these dungeons in other settings, Eberron is mentioned specifically, as is the Dead in Thay material getting setting conversion notes.

Part of the thinking is that there are enough storylines that people can't keep up in their home campaigns, so this material is to supplement that (throw G1-3 in the middle of SKT, maybe?)


----------



## Olive (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm totally down with this - might be just the thing for running a campaign with the kids.



BookBarbarian said:


> I'll probably run them all in my Middle Earth campaign.




Some grognard's head just exploded...


----------



## CrusaderX (Jan 6, 2017)

I like the idea of stringing these adventures into a campaign, but I wonder if they will tone down the deadliness of Tomb of Horrors.  I'm a fan of the original module, but it seems a bit cruel to have the ending of a long, hard-fought campaign consist of an adventure that will most likely result in several deaths, if not a Total Party Kill.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Interesting. I disagree, because The Wild Goose (AKA The World Serpent Inn) in Arabel is _far_ more likely to serve as a nexus point for adventurers to visit other settings.




I don't disagree but "world serpent" is much more generic and might be harder to trademark. Which is something WotC has to do for these titles.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 6, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> So, the non-Thay modules come to 196 pages for $30 on DMs Guild right now; unsure what % of the 107 pages of Dead in Thay are looking to add to that, but ~256 for the final count is probable.  Not clear how much value-add they can do for these modules versus just running the 1E version on the fly from a $5 PDF...



I'll pay a premium for stats I don't have to convert, full-color maps (and other art), and a book I don't have to get printed myself.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 6, 2017)

Book titles aren't trademarked, as far as I know. And honestly, "Tales from the World Serpent Inn" sounds a lot cooler than "Tales from the Yawning Portal."


----------



## Olive (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Book titles aren't trademarked, as far as I know. And honestly, "Tales from the World Serpent Inn" sounds a lot cooler than "Tales from the Yawning Portal."




I think titles are copyright, not trademarked - just try self publishing a novel called A Game of Thrones...

Edit: actually, I'm mistaken: http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/can-you-use-a-book-title-thats-been-used-before. But regardless, a more distinct title is stronger in terms of SEO and identity.


----------



## nicolas.carrillos (Jan 6, 2017)

Amazing news! Replying to a question I posed to him on Twitter about this product and setting diversity, Mike Mearls said: "The adventures include guidelines for setting each in multiple worlds. Including Eberron! #wotcstaff". Eberron is my favorite setting ever.


----------



## bmfrosty (Jan 6, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> I'll pay a premium for stats I don't have to convert, full-color maps (and other art), and a book I don't have to get printed myself.



This is my thought.  This seems like a great product for all but horrible grognards that can't be happy.  Probably pretty good for non-horrible grognards too. 

Sent from my Pixel using EN World mobile app


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

Wow, the scope of this release is genius. 

Folks that are feeling like they are on a bit of a tread mill with AP's get a break, cause this can be used in existing AP's. 
Folks who wanted high level things in AL get more high level things in AL.
Folks who, like me, are a bit of the grognard and want these classics updated get that.
Folks who are not doing AP's but just wanted 5e tested quality adventures from WotC get it as well.
Even folks that want a new AP can probably use it as such.

And it seems like an idea out of left field but kinda obvious after the fact, like many good ideas.


I wonder if the old school conversions on the DMSGuild inspired this a bit? I wonder if they were doing good enough to show WotC that this was a great idea?

I'm in the grognard and AP fatigue (only a little) camp, and the AL camp. I'm looking forward to this.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Interesting. I disagree, because The Wild Goose (AKA The World Serpent Inn) in Arabel is _far_ more likely to serve as a nexus point for adventurers to visit other settings.




The problem is that the World Serpent is more of a trap dimension than a useful adventure stop. Similar to the mists of Ravenloft. Once you enter, per the original concept of the inn, you have no idea where you are leaving to.
Whereas, the Yawning Portal is a true rest stop before adventuring, being the last bed til Undermountain and Skullport. And you can _choose_ to go anywhere from Skullport.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 6, 2017)

So they are flat out doing "D&D's Greatest Hits".

I'm glad. These adventures need to be "in print" in a very visible way. They are part of the collective experience of D&D players (well, maybe not Dead in Thay...) and new players and new DMs should have access to them (without needing conversion guides or PDFs). My only concern is that some of the modules (mostly AtG) were written for monsters of... different statistical levels. I wonder if they will be touching them up to make them conform to 5e statistics. 

Consider mine pre-ordered.


----------



## wildboar (Jan 6, 2017)

So are those DMs who don't run published modules (the majority according to WotC polls) just borked for content this edition?

If so, can we get something new? I get that Mearls is an OSR friendly guy (which is fantastic!) but so far we've just had reimaginings of the DL series, D/Q series, T series, I series, and G series of oldTSR modules. Now, with Tales from the Yawning Portal, we're literally just getting updates of older materials.

Don't get me wrong, I love the old stuff but would also love to see some new stuff. Especially since many of us run low magic/low fantasycampaign worlds where the gonzo high magic stuff noted above just won't work.


----------



## dagger (Jan 6, 2017)

I am interested to see the Against the Giants conversion.....I hope they really put some time into it. Tough module to balance I bet, especially a certain room in the first module.


----------



## vpuigdoller (Jan 6, 2017)

Im a lil bit intrigued by this compilation.  It kind of makes me wonder whats the point,  all of this are easily rum with little hassle from their original versions.


----------



## wwanno (Jan 6, 2017)

darjr said:


> I wonder if the old school conversions on the DMSGuild inspired this a bit? I wonder if they were doing good enough to show WotC that this was a great idea?




the point is that we (or I would better say I) don't need this book

1 - White Plume Mountain and Against the Giants --> Already converted on DMsGuild "Classic Modules Today"

2 - Dead in Thay --> was written with the playtest rules (very similar to 5e).

3 - Tomb of Horrors --> was converted to the playtest rules (very similar to 5e) in Dungeon #213

4 - Forge of the fury & The Sunless Citadel --> REALLY???????????

5 - GIMME UNDERMOUNTAIN! THE REAL ONE!!!!!



Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## flametitan (Jan 6, 2017)

wildboar said:


> So are those DMs who don't run published modules (the majority according to WotC polls) just borked for content this edition?




What their studies suggested was that even if you homebrew, there were relatively few people that didn't at least relentlessly take bits from modules they liked, so they're still supporting homebrewers by giving them ideas to lift and make their own.


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 6, 2017)

So while everyone is arguing/complaining/grognarding (That last one is a word... I think), I am over here wondering who everyone on the cover is. Obviously Durnan is front and center, but what about the other 8 faces?


----------



## CFong (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm in the camp of 'can't wait for this to come out!' Looks to be tons of fun, and really look forward to running these. Honestly, I've been really happy with 5E's releases, with a few exceptions. Wonder how narratively connected these dungeons / areas will be (if at all.) I think I saw someone write something about the rod of 7 wonders. That'd actually be a brilliant way to connect everything. The super fetch quest, almost like an old school Nintendo game (i.e. find pieces of tri-force, find 4 crystals, etc.)


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

GarrettKP said:


> So while everyone is arguing/complaining/grognarding (That last one is a word... I think), I am over here wondering who everyone on the cover is. Obviously Durnan is front and center, but what about the other 8 faces?



Oh! Good question!

I see Acerack in the background. I think.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 6, 2017)

GarrettKP said:


> So while everyone is arguing/complaining/grognarding (That last one is a word... I think), I am over here wondering who everyone on the cover is. Obviously Durnan is front and center, but what about the other 8 faces?




The skull face in the upper-left corner is Acerack. I wager the giant eye is King Snurre. The horned face in the lower left is Nix or Nox from WPM. As for the others, I don't remember the modules well enough to connect them. (Major points lost for missing Meepo for SC).


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 6, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> The skull face in the upper-left corner is Acerack. I wager the giant eye is King Snurre. The horned face in the lower left is Nix or Nox from WPM. As for the others, I don't remember the modules well enough to connect them. (Major points lost for missing Meepo for SC).




My first thought for the lich in the upper left was actually Szass Tam since Dead In Thay is included. But maybe it is Acerack!


----------



## pukunui (Jan 6, 2017)

GarrettKP said:


> So while everyone is arguing/complaining/grognarding (That last one is a word... I think), I am over here wondering who everyone on the cover is. Obviously Durnan is front and center, but what about the other 8 faces?



The elf to the left looks like Aerisi from PotA.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jan 6, 2017)

The more I meditate on the cover the more inspired I become. What a fantastic image!

Why must Wizards of the Cost compel me so to part with my ample coinage?


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

The latest Dragon Talk podcast from WotC has a bit about the new book in their 'Lore you should know' section.

http://dnd.wizards.com/play-events/podcasts-livestream-games/monica-valentinelli


----------



## Hutchimus Prime (Jan 6, 2017)

This is a neat idea, and I'll get it, but with the pace of the releases (which has ensured some QUALITY product) and some of what I'd hypothesized that "Labyrinth" might be; I'm a little disappointed at the same time.


----------



## barasawa (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm really glad it's got Tomb of Horrors in it. 
That might even bump up sales when Ready Player One comes out, if it comes out. You know how hollywood will drop projects at any point if they feel like it. Unless of course the movie drops those chapters or totally glosses them over.


----------



## Prakriti (Jan 6, 2017)

I think we all agree that this book is sort of lazy (for lack of a better word). 

But I think that was by design. The upcoming mechanical expansion requires _way_ more thought, input, and testing than the previous fall releases (_Volo's Guide_ and the _SCAG_). They are giving themselves a little break this spring because they need that time to balance new subclasses and other mechanics.


----------



## robus (Jan 6, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Isn't literally everything they've put out since 2012 new?  I don't recall any of the other campaign books or adventure paths being a remake.  Even Strahd is not a remake of I6 to the best of my knowledge, and that's about as close to a remake that I can think of.
> 
> I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.




Princes of the Apocalypse is a rehash of Temple of Elemental Evil I believe? Strahd is a reboot, SKT is an homage to Against the Giants?

I'm not really in a position to speak definitively but my understanding is that OotA is the freshest thing they've done...


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 6, 2017)

Jester David said:


> ...
> 
> Now, I'm not against that per se. But I'd rather that be NEW small adventures that are linked together. Where people can have those small adventure and I can have my story. Seven giant dungeon crawls lack that story.




Not if each of the seven dungeons had a section of the Rod of Seven Parts in it...


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 6, 2017)

mankyle said:


> Mmmmm
> 
> Maybe they are linking the seven dungeons with the different pieces of the "Rod of Seven Parts"TM???
> 
> This could be a plausible link for the different adventures. I mean.... one piece lies at the end of every dungeon. If you defy all seven dungeons you will get an staff of untold power!!!!




Ninja'd by nearly seven hours....hmmmmmm.

Coincidence? I think not!


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 6, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> I think we all agree that this book is sort of lazy (for lack of a better word).
> 
> But I think that was by design. The upcoming mechanical expansion requires _way_ more thought, input, and testing than the previous spring releases (_Volo's Guide_ and the _SCAG_). They are giving themselves a little break this spring because they need that time to balance new subclasses and other mechanics.





I was about to say the same thing - I'm with this sort of product if it ensures that the quality of upcoming Big Book of Crunch is high. Granted, this in no way takes away anything from TftYP (hey, I think I'm the first to use the acronym!), since it does fulfill multiple requests (shorter adventures, non-FR adventures, updating classics, etc.) that various fan groups have been clamoring for...


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 6, 2017)

So, since we know that it will have some monsters yet to be updated for 5e in it, would those more familiar with the modules be able to suggest which ones they may be? It's been years since I've read/played any of them (although I do have fond memories of college sessions of _White Plume Mountain_ devolving into party infighting over the treasure)...


----------



## guachi (Jan 6, 2017)

Ghost2020 said:


> I'm glad there is more product coming out, always a good thing.
> 
> I am, however disappointed that it's rehashed stuff, i was hoping for something new. I understand that quite a large number of people have never played or run these adventures. I've run/played all of them except Dead in Thay.
> 
> ...




I'm quoting your post in its entirety because most of your "why not this adventure" alternatives are adventures I thought of as well. I think Saltmarsh or Reptile God are better low level modules. That Isle of Dread would be a cracking fun adventure in 5e. 

It's like one of those "Hits of the '80s!" compilations that has good songs in it but not the best songs.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 6, 2017)

Blackbrrd said:


> Yeah, it can probably sell well, especially with a show like Stranger Things basically being a promotion for it.




As  [MENTION=44909]barasawa[/MENTION] mentioned upthread, the movie version of _Ready Player One_ is scheduled for release soon (originally December 2017 but shifted to March 2018 to avoid clashing with _Star Wars_). I have not been following the development of the movie very closely, but _Tomb of Horrors_ is such an integral part of the plot of the book, I'd be surprised if it wasn't also featured in the movie. I think the fact that Warner Bros. are producing both _Ready Player One_ and the new D&D film increases the odds of that even further.

WotC would be foolish not to have a 5e product on the shelves which incorporates _Tomb of Horrors_ by the time the movie gets released, so it seems plausible that this was a factor in determining which dungeons to include in _Tales from the Yawning Portal_.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> I think we all agree that this book is sort of lazy (for lack of a better word).
> 
> But I think that was by design. The upcoming mechanical expansion requires _way_ more thought, input, and testing than the previous spring releases (_Volo's Guide_ and the _SCAG_). They are giving themselves a little break this spring because they need that time to balance new subclasses and other mechanics.



To be fair, Paizo's doing the same thing this year with the release of Starfinder - the other products are not as developmentally intensive so that a lot of extra attention can be paid to a later product this year.

So if we get a new rule expansion for 5e AND Starfinder in the same year, 2017 will be a banner year for me indeed! (Gaming-wise)


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2017)

DM Magic said:


> I'm curious if there's anything that Wizards of the Coast could do that would make you happy.




To be honest he did say what would make him happy right in the post - using Yawning Portal for Undermountain itself. I admit, that would have been an equally good use of this release, too, and world-appropriate, to boot. Even so, i'm not dissatisfied with the concept, there's some great modules in there. 

HOWEVER, I'm one of the ones who hope that Tomb of Horrors keeps its meat-grinder reputation. If not, it loses the whole point of the module's existance. To expand on the comment of the person who said the 4e Tomb of Horrors take was fun, if a version of the Tomb of Horrors was fun to play, a designer did something wrong.  Keep the Tomb of Horrors just shy of unplayably tough, thank you!


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 6, 2017)

I see they did not include the classic adventure, _Quest for the Impossible: Pleasing Corpsetaker._


----------



## Olive (Jan 6, 2017)

Henry said:


> HOWEVER, I'm one of the ones who hope that Tomb of Horrors keeps its meat-grinder reputation. If not, it loses the whole point of the module's existance. To expand on the comment of the person who said the 4e Tomb of Horrors take was fun, if a version of the Tomb of Horrors was fun to play, a designer did something wrong.  Keep the Tomb of Horrors just shy of unplayably tough, thank you!




Not being a believer in bad wrong fun, I hope they keep it deadly for the heritage of it all, but have extensive notes for those who want to make it actually playable in an ongoing campaign...


----------



## MerricB (Jan 6, 2017)

Olive said:


> Not being a believer in bad wrong fun, I hope they keep it deadly for the heritage of it all, but have extensive notes for those who want to make it actually playable in an ongoing campaign...




The fun thing is that it's likely to be the last adventure in the package, so making it deadly isn't as much of an issue. 

Cheers!


----------



## Olive (Jan 6, 2017)

MerricB said:


> The fun thing is that it's likely to be the last adventure in the package, so making it deadly isn't as much of an issue.




Certainly solves the old 'how do I end the campaign' issue!


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 6, 2017)

MerricB said:


> The fun thing is that it's likely to be the last adventure in the package, so making it deadly isn't as much of an issue.



Indeed, the _Forbes_ interview confirms this:


			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> To cap it off, if your characters have made it to 13th, 14th level, and hopefully you're not too attached to them because the final adventure in the collection is the Tomb of Horrors.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 6, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> I think we all agree that this book is sort of lazy (for lack of a better word).
> 
> But I think that was by design. The upcoming mechanical expansion requires _way_ more thought, input, and testing than the previous fall releases (_Volo's Guide_ and the _SCAG_). They are giving themselves a little break this spring because they need that time to balance new subclasses and other mechanics.




That is a fair point. 
I'm uncertain how much Perkins will be involved with that book though.
Although, the time overlap will be much more intense over the summer. So we'll see what that book is. Maybe by making this one simpler Perkins frees up more time for much much crazier summer schedule and can start that sooner...


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 6, 2017)

I'll be very, very interested in this as it'll be a wonderful hands-on guide to converting older material to 5e should I ever want to go that route.

That said, along with some other above I'm wondering how they're going to keep these modules as edgy as they used to be given 5e-as-written's lack of level-drain mechanics and other such niceties.  ToH can still be deadly as hell if only because of the traps, of course, but White Plume might lose some grit.  And I suspect they're all going to be much less lucrative than their original versions - so, lower risk, lower reward.

I've either played in or run (or both) every one of these except Dead in Thay, which I don't know at all.

And as for Sunless Citadel, it's an adventure that plays much better than it reads.

Lanefan


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 6, 2017)

Henry said:


> To expand on the comment of the person who said the 4e Tomb of Horrors take was fun, if a version of the Tomb of Horrors was fun to play, a designer did something wrong.




Listen here, Henwen...


----------



## Sammael (Jan 6, 2017)

Curmudjinn said:


> The problem is that the World Serpent is more of a trap dimension than a useful adventure stop. Similar to the mists of Ravenloft. Once you enter, per the original concept of the inn, you have no idea where you are leaving to.
> Whereas, the Yawning Portal is a true rest stop before adventuring, being the last bed til Undermountain and Skullport. And you can _choose_ to go anywhere from Skullport.




Yes, it's the last stop before Undermountain and Skullport, which means that in order to get to Skullport, you first have to _survive Undermountain_, and then you have to _survive Skullport_, and then you have to actually find a portal that actually leads you anywhere.

Whereas with the World Serpent Inn, you can get it to actually point to any location in the known Multiverse.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Jan 6, 2017)

It's not as though anyone can just walk up to the entrance to the World Serpent Inn, walk inside and go off wherever they want. 

It's a high level haven for a reason, and even then it's not that easy to make your way where you want to go in the multiverse. 

Whereas the Yawning Portal accepts most anyone who has already made it into Waterdeep proper, and more than one novice adventuring party had made their name by paying the minor fee to take the ride down into Indermountain a time or three, and then returning with riches and tales of daring adventure. 

Speaking of, one need not plumb Undermountain's depths in their entirety to find one of its many portals; you can encounter them at any level of play, per the needs of the DM.

Undermountain was made exactly for what's a WotC is doing. Plenty of DMs (like me, and the ones I games it's back in the days of 2E) have done exactly the same thing.  

********

This is another must buy book for me. Looking forward to it.


----------



## werecorpse (Jan 6, 2017)

I wanted some new smaller modules to fit into my game. This isn't quite what I wanted but it's close enough.

I'm glad they have shown that everything they produce doesn't have to be big single themed adventure paths

I will be very interested to see how they convert these adventures. I own all except Dead in Thay and have run most in previous editions. I have run Sunless Citadel & Forge of Fury converted to 5e and currently run a lot of converted previous edition adventures.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 6, 2017)

D&D has become the 40 year old guy who still wears his highschool football letterman jacket every day and spends his nights sitting in a recliner drinking Bud Light and flipping through his senior yearbook with tears in his eyes thinking "those were the days."


----------



## Sammael (Jan 6, 2017)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of people treat Undermountain like a roller coaster in a theme park instead of a deathtrap dungeon run by an insane epic mage  yes, many adventurers go there - and, IMC, maybe 10% ever come back.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Jan 6, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> I think we all agree that this book is sort of lazy (for lack of a better word). .



No we don't. On the other hand, assuming that others think the same as you _is_ lazy.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> As someone who's never played any of these, I freely admit that I find this idea tremendously exciting.



Seriously? Hand in your D&D licence now, please!

[sblock]I own ToH, WPM, AtG, Hidden Shrine and Sunless Citadel. I've run bits of ToH using RM as my engine, but the PCs (and players) felt the risks were too great and abandoned it. I've run all of AtG back in the AD&D days; used bits of it in a RM game but with ogres for hill giants and minotaurs for fire giants; and most recently adapted G2 to my 4e game.

I've looked at running Hidden Shrine a couple of time but (mild spoiler inside my spoiler tags)[sblock]it looks like a real meatgrinder as written, at least in AD&D.[/sblock] One day I want to run WPM - but that would have to be as a one-off; it's too crazy to bring into a regular campaign![/sblock]



TwoSix said:


> What's the Yawning Portal?



OK, so you redeemed yourself! (I think it's some silly FR thing - maybe the tavern on top of the dungeon in Watereep?)


----------



## happyhermit (Jan 6, 2017)

The Human Target said:


> D&D has become the 40 year old guy who still wears his highschool football letterman jacket every day and spends his nights sitting in a recliner drinking Bud Light and flipping through his senior yearbook with tears in his eyes thinking "those were the days."




Really? That guy is super popular with teenagers and kids? As successful as he has ever been? Can be seen all over new media like Youtube and twitch with celebrities and popular figures and is working with them ie; Pendleton Ward, Matt Mercer, Chris Hardwick, etc.?

Interesting, up here drinking Bud light basically means expulsion from society.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 6, 2017)

happyhermit said:


> celebrities and popular figures and is working with them ie; Pendleton Ward, Matt Mercer, Chris Hardwick, etc.?



I have no idea who these people are.

In fact, I just googled them and I still have no idea who they are and what warrants their celebrity status. 

Damn my advanced age.


----------



## GCooper (Jan 6, 2017)

Can't wait to see how they all come together in one book - reformatted and such!!


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jan 6, 2017)

robus said:


> These dungeons mean nothing to me as a new DM. Is there nothing new in D&D 5e for WotC or is it all going to be a remix of classics?



If they are new to you, why do you care?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2017)

BookBarbarian said:


> I'll probably run them all in my Middle Earth campaign.





Olive said:


> Some grognard's head just exploded...



Yes, that was mine that you heard! (I'm also in Melbourne.)


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 6, 2017)

happyhermit said:


> Really? That guy is super popular with teenagers and kids? As successful as he has ever been? Can be seen all over new media like Youtube and twitch with celebrities and popular figures and is working with them ie; Pendleton Ward, Matt Mercer, Chris Hardwick, etc.?
> 
> Interesting, up here drinking Bud light basically means expulsion from society.




That guy is absolutely popular with teenagers.

He buys them beer in exchange for companionship and weed.


----------



## happyhermit (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> I have no idea who these people are.
> 
> In fact, I just googled them and I still have no idea who they are and what warrants their celebrity status.
> 
> Damn my advanced age.




What ever warrants "celebrity status"? Whenever someone mentions a "celebrity" someone says "Who is that?"  note, I said "and popular figures". They are just people who a lot of other people watch. I could have mentioned many more widely known celebrities such as Vin Diesel (who played a session on camera with Mercer) or whatever, but that's hardly the point. When Matt Mercer sits down to run a D&D session on twitch something like 1 million people will watch, many live plays have several more millions of views on youtube later. The audience on those shows and mediums skews heavily towards under-30, to say the least.


----------



## happyhermit (Jan 6, 2017)

The Human Target said:


> That guy is absolutely popular with teenagers.
> 
> He buys them beer in exchange for companionship and weed.




D&D does give out some free stuff, UA and videos, you think that is enough to make them so popular? If so, they are smarter than I thought.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Jan 6, 2017)

The Human Target said:


> D&D has become the 40 year old guy who still wears his highschool football letterman jacket every day and spends his nights sitting in a recliner drinking Bud Light and flipping through his senior yearbook with tears in his eyes thinking "those were the days."



And during the day he is the Coach of the football team of that same high school, leading them to the state championship!


----------



## Sammael (Jan 6, 2017)

happyhermit said:


> When Matt Mercer sits down to run a D&D session on twitch something like 1 million people will watch, many live plays have several more millions of views on youtube later. The audience on those shows and mediums skews heavily towards under-30, to say the least.



Well, as I said, it's my advanced age (37)  the very concept of twitch boggles my mind - why the blazes would I want to watch other people play games when I can play them myself? But I know I'm hopelessly out of date.


----------



## happyhermit (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Well, as I said, it's my advanced age (37)  the very concept of twitch boggles my mind - why the blazes would I want to watch other people play games when I can play them myself? But I know I'm hopelessly out of date.




Is 37 really "advanced" age? What does that even mean, like Advanced D&D?  

Anyways, I am very out of date on very many things, but I like podcasts and recently some of these youtube videos (though ironically not Matt Mercer's Critical Role I mentioned), as I listen to them when doing other stuff, like driving.


----------



## Delazar (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Well, as I said, it's my advanced age (37)  the very concept of twitch boggles my mind - why the blazes would I want to watch other people play games when I can play them myself? But I know I'm hopelessly out of date.




Why do ppl watch football on TV instead of playing it themselves? I guess it's the same reason.

I'm 38, and a follower of Critical Role. I watch (well, listen to) CR every week, not only because it's enjoyable, but I also learned A LOT about DMing by following Matt.


----------



## wedgeski (Jan 6, 2017)

I would have preferred something in the same vein, but with new material. Still, I have no doubt I can mine this, so it'll be added to the shelf.


----------



## wedgeski (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Well, as I said, it's my advanced age (37)  the very concept of twitch boggles my mind - why the blazes would I want to watch other people play games when I can play them myself? But I know I'm hopelessly out of date.



You're 37 but you're talking as if you're 77! 

I'm well into my 40's and I spend a large portion of my leisure time either watching these things or having them on in background (live D&D is particularly good for the latter). Starcraft, Heroes of the Storm, D&D, even X-Wing battle reports! Not to mention multiple board-game streams. A great way to unwind and chill out, too.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 6, 2017)

happyhermit said:


> Is 37 really "advanced" age? What does that even mean, like Advanced D&D?



Yep, that's exactly right


----------



## Staffan (Jan 6, 2017)

robus said:


> Princes of the Apocalypse is a rehash of Temple of Elemental Evil I believe?




Not really. It shares the concept of "cultists worshiping Elemental Evil in a semi-shared dungeon and not liking one another", but beyond that they're highly different.

D&D has been around for over 40 years. It would be very difficult to make adventures that *don't* use some of the same themes as old ones. I mean, back in the 90s we had an adventure trilogy about reclaiming one of the Dales from Zhentish occupation - does that mean that any adventure dealing with occupying invaders and/or the Zhentarim is a "rehash"? The 90s saw Night Below, where adventurers figure out what's up in the barony of Haranshire and pursue the baddies (that turn out to be a mind flayer/aboleth alliance) to their underground city - does that mean any adventure set in the Underdark, or dealing with Mind Flayers or Aboleths, is a rehash? You also had Dragon Mountain, a former dwarven fortress mostly occupied by kobolds bossed around by a dragon - does that mean that any dungeon featuring plenty of traps, kobolds, and/or a red dragon at its heart is a rehash?

Not using some of the most iconic concepts of D&D would be like rebooting Spider-Man, but insisting on only using new villains instead of Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, the Lizard, Kraven, Electro, or Venom. At the same time, *only* using these would be dull too, you need something new in there. But totally eschewing going back to old concepts is just dumb and counter-productive.

Now, Tales of the Yawning Portal is explicitly a "remastering" of old modules. Curse of Strahd, likewise. But Hoard of the Dragon Queen/Rise of Tiamat, Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, and Storm King's Thunder are new things.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Jan 6, 2017)

from twitter [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford A thing I dig in Tales from the Yawning Portal: tips for setting the adventures in various worlds—particularly FR, GH, DL & EB.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2017)

Mouseferatu said:


> Listen here, Henwen...




You know I love you, Ari. 

More seriously, some people don't agree with Gygax's original intent for the module, but to me it works best as an iconic example, the Ur-"killer dungeon" from which the concept flows, and the number of people who get to the end are counted on one hand - even if it's bad for business from a common sense perspective. Its whole mystique is built on being nearly unplayable.


----------



## robus (Jan 6, 2017)

Matrix Sorcica said:


> If they are new to you, why do you care?




Because it seems like D&D as a concept is stuck in a rut?


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm pretty excited by this. My main thing when running is usually to convert-on-the-fly. I did the first couple of DragonLance modules that way during the play-test, i've ran a few old Gygaxian ones for a home-brew world (Sinister Secret of Saltmarch among them), and right now I'm running Against the Slave Lords set in Al-Qadim. So I'm happy that Wizards is going to do the work for me. The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan would fit snugly in as a location in the jungle ruins of Zakhara.





And lazy? Really? Converting on the fly is one thing (it's mostly improv and slotting in monsters that are close enough), but updating all of the art, maps, npcs, and monsters isn't a task for lazy people.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2017)

wedgeski said:


> You're 37 but you're talking as if you're 77!
> 
> I'm well into my 40's and I spend a large portion of my leisure time either watching these things or having them on in background (live D&D is particularly good for the latter). Starcraft, Heroes of the Storm, D&D, even X-Wing battle reports! Not to mention multiple board-game streams. A great way to unwind and chill out, too.




Twitch does two things for me - I don't always have to have the latest gaming rig or invest a lot of time and money to sample the experience of the currently hottest games. I don't need to invest five hours building a character, I can sample the experience in an hour, and get the highlights. If i really love what i see enough, i can invest all that time and money into the full thing, and if i don't i'm out no money and a short bit of my time. 

Last, back in the day, one of the pleasures of my youth was getting a couple of friends over and playing single player games like Civ I or Doom (yes we did pvp also) and shared in the experience. Watching a good player who is also a funny or entertaining commentator is enjoyable in itself.


----------



## bmfrosty (Jan 6, 2017)

guachi said:


> I'm quoting your post in its entirety because most of your "why not this adventure" alternatives are adventures I thought of as well. I think Saltmarsh or Reptile God are better low level modules. That Isle of Dread would be a cracking fun adventure in 5e.
> 
> It's like one of those "Hits of the '80s!" compilations that has good songs in it but not the best songs.



I'm looking forward to hits of the 80s.  Volumes 2 and 3 as well some day I hope. 

Sent from my Pixel using EN World mobile app


----------



## robus (Jan 6, 2017)

Staffan said:


> ...explication...




Thanks for the clarification. I'll relax for a bit


----------



## JeffB (Jan 6, 2017)

I really wonder why they cannot write something new.

We have "inspired by/rehashes of" previous edition adventures jammed into the Realms

And now a collection of previous adventures converted to 5e and apparently jammed into the Realms.

I am a big fan of a couple of those originals, but yeesh... they are really tring to milk the "greatest hits". More vanilla for the vanilla edition.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jan 6, 2017)

JeffB said:


> I really wonder why they cannot write something new.
> 
> We have "inspired by/rehashes of" previous edition adventures jammed into the Realms
> 
> ...




This has already been addressed upthread.

The two Tiamat modules were completely new. Princes of the Apocalypse was inspired by ToEE, but was also completely new and reused no old content. Out of the Abyss was completely new. Curse of Strahd was the first "rehash"; It was a remake of the original module, with a ton of new content added into the landscape around the castle. Storm King's Thunder is completely new.

If you want to say that the two Tiamat modules were a rehash of Dragonlance, well other than the fact that people want to summon a demon dragon goddess there's no similarities. If you want to compare Storm King's Thunder with Against the Giants -well they both have giants I guess?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2017)

Patrick McGill said:


> i've ran a few old Gygaxian ones for a home-brew world (Sinister Secret of Saltmarch among them)



Just a small thing - U1 (and the rest of the U series) are not Gygax. They were written by TSR UK.


----------



## Plaguescarred (Jan 6, 2017)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> from twitter @






Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> _*Jeremy*_ECrawford A thing I dig in Tales from the Yawning Portal: tips for setting the adventures in various worlds—particularly FR, GH, DL & EB.



Now that's sweet of their part!!

Everytime i hear something other than FR like GREYHAWK or EBERRON i get all wet


----------



## Plaguescarred (Jan 6, 2017)

wwanno said:


> 5 - GIMME UNDERMOUNTAIN! THE REAL ONE!!!!!



I wouldn't say no to an adventure like RETURN TO UNDERMOUNTAIN!!

It was one of the greatest dungeon we played in my youth.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jan 6, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Just a small thing - U1 (and the rest of the U series) are not Gygax. They were written by TSR UK.




Oh geez, I never realized that. Just looked at the module and you're absolutely right.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 6, 2017)

JeffB said:


> I really wonder why they cannot write something new.



Like I said, they've been doing this for 40 years. You'd be hard-pressed to come up with something that *hasn't* been done before - particularly considering that during those 40 years, they've done Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer, for some *pretty* weird stuff.

Humanoid invasion? Red Hand of Doom, or Under the Dark Fist.
Planar invasion? Black Spine.
Weak humanoids in super-fortress? Dragon Mountain, or Axe of the Dwarfish Lords.
Hunt for multi-part artifact in order to defeat some threat? Rod of Seven Parts.
Trap/puzzle dungeon? Tome of Horrors, Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad.
Weird and crazy mega-dungeon? Undermountain.
Resisting and throwing off occupation? Sword of the Dales adventure series.
Visiting weird places? The Great Modron March, or Ruined Kingdoms.
Underdark? D1-3, Night Below.

This is even more true if you want to write a book that's the basis of a whole campaign (and that seems to be Wizards' plan, at least with the previous offerings).


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jan 6, 2017)

Jester David said:


> Meh.
> So much meh.
> 
> It takes almost no effort to update products from 1e to 5e. I've done _White Plume Mountain_ and _Castle Ravenloft_ pretty much on the fly during the playtest.
> ...




Im a professional, and all of my players are professionals in competitive careers; I do not have time to convert anything. I want a finished, polished, final product that can allow me to jump right into the fun with my gaming groups.  This is right up my alley, its a product that I can play right out of the box with minimal prep.  That's why I pay $49.99.


----------



## guachi (Jan 6, 2017)

The Human Target said:


> D&D has become the 40 year old guy who still wears his highschool football letterman jacket every day and spends his nights sitting in a recliner drinking Bud Light and flipping through his senior yearbook with tears in his eyes thinking "those were the days."




D&D - Al Bundy Edition.

Though I am that 40-year old guy (42...) who is happy he has enough money to buy original copies from ebay or rpgnow for $5 and print them myself. So it's an odd nostalgia in that many of these are modules I'd only read about or others had owned.


----------



## guachi (Jan 6, 2017)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> from twitter [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford A thing I dig in Tales from the Yawning Portal: tips for setting the adventures in various worlds—particularly FR, GH, DL & EB.




 And no Mystara. It's only the setting for the highest selling RPG product ever, the Red Box Basic. And its line of Gazetteers were very good sellers, too. And it's D&D's second setting, after Greyhawk. (Blackmoor existed though not published).


----------



## MichaelArkAngel (Jan 6, 2017)

So they are recycling old modules I already have, played, and retuning them for 5E? no thanks. I find this a lazy money grab from WOTC, when they could finally add some solidity to higher level gaming, perhaps an adventure for levels above 12? 

You won't be getting my money, when I can already translate my old modules to 5E.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 6, 2017)

If I have any complaint about this product, its that I wish they went whole hog on it.  If you're showing off classical adventures from D&D's history, hit every edition.  Don't just give us some AD&D classics of the 70s and early 80s, a couple 3rd Edition adventures, and a 5e playtest adventure. Throw in a Planescape adventure from 2nd Edition, a classic from Expert D&D like Castle Amber, and Reavers of Harkenwold from 4th Edition.  Or, go all the way with different settings.  One from Greyhawk, one from Mystara, one from Krynn, one from the Forgotten Realms, one from Dark Sun, one from Eberron, and one from Nentir Vale.

But I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good!


----------



## Iosue (Jan 6, 2017)

guachi said:


> D&D - Ted Bundy Edition.




*Al* Bundy.  You're thinking of Al Bundy.  Ted Bundy would be a completely different weird 40-year old D&D!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Well, as I said, it's my advanced age (37)  the very concept of twitch boggles my mind - why the blazes would I want to watch other people play games when I can play them myself? But I know I'm hopelessly out of date.




I'm 53.

Listening to Critical Role while I run is fantastic.  Great stories and plenty of ideas.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 6, 2017)

Patrick McGill said:


> Curse of Strahd was the first "rehash"; It was a remake of the original module, with a ton of new content added into the landscape around the castle.



Just to emphasize this point, the original _I6: Ravenloft_ was 32 pages. _Curse of Strahd_ is 256 pages. So even if every word of the original was recycled (which isn't the case), _Curse of Strahd_ would still be 87.5% new content.


----------



## Vampyr3 (Jan 6, 2017)

alienux said:


> I'm excited to finally hear what Labyrinth is, and especially excited about what it is. Looking forward to this with great interest!




I don't get why people keep bringing up "Labyrinth" it never existed, it was never a product.. yet people think this is it... WOTC said it themselves, it was never a thing.. never was/never will be..


----------



## Morrus (Jan 6, 2017)

Vampyr3 said:


> I don't get why people keep bringing up "Labyrinth" it never existed, it was never a product.. yet people think this is it... WOTC said it themselves, it was never a thing.. never was/never will be..




WotC said no such thing. Labyrinth was the code name for T_ales from the Yawning Portal_, just like Cloak was_ Curse of Strahd_ and Dagger was _Storm King's Thunder_.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2017)

Iosue said:


> Castle Amber



Do you have much experience with this?

I played it nearly 35 years ago - I don't remember much about what that was like.

I GMed it, adapting on the fly to 3E, when 3E had just come out, so 16-ish years ago, as a one-shot (maybe two-shot?). We only got through the West (? I think) wing, and then into the garden. I remeber using a tendriculos for a killer tree or vine or something.

Have you ever read the actual play thread on rpg.net? It's a little on the snide side, but also quite funny.


----------



## Jer (Jan 6, 2017)

Vampyr3 said:


> I don't get why people keep bringing up "Labyrinth" it never existed, it was never a product.. yet people think this is it... WOTC said it themselves, it was never a thing.. never was/never will be..




Because "Labyrinth" was the codename for the release coming out in the Spring - i.e. the Tales from the Yawning Portal.  People were jumping up and down wondering what the next release would be and now they know.  Now people can chew on this for a few days and speculation can turn to what the AP coming for fall might be.  I'm actually somewhat surprised that someone hasn't started a thread yet with speculation on what the fall release will be this year...


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Vampyr3 (Jan 6, 2017)

Morrus said:


> WotC said no such thing. Labyrinth was the code name for T_ales from the Yawning Portal_, just like Cloak was_ Curse of Strahd_ and Dagger was _Storm King's Thunder_.




Oh sorry, I forgot to drink the Kool Aid this morning before I came on.... my mistake


----------



## Jer (Jan 6, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Do you have much experience with this?
> 
> I played it nearly 35 years ago - I don't remember much about what that was like.




I'm not Iosue, but I have a lot of experience with Castle Amber.  It was one of the handful of adventures I participated in as a player back in the day when I first started playing D&D (along with The Keep on the Borderlands and the Lost City) and is one that I've run multiple times for various groups of players.

Given what you've written, you didn't get to the best parts of the adventure.  The adventure is inspired by the works of Edgar Alan Poe, Clark Ashton-Smith and HP Lovecraft (with a heavy dose of CAS) and it's a horror/fantasy adventure for D&D written before Ravenloft - meaning that they didn't yet know how to convey horror in an adventure.  There are some scenes in the adventure that are truly horrific when you know the atmosphere you're supposed to be evoking as a DM (like the ghostly banquet that is early in the adventure, or the scene inspired by Poe's Fall of the House of Usher - or really any of the scenes with the mad d'Ambreville family members, or the tentacled Brain Eater in the crypt that can come off as comical if you don't know the Lovecraftian inspiration for the beast but played as Lovecraftian horror you can really get a level of creepiness out of it).  And then there's the back half of the adventure where the PCs explore a number of dark fantasy locations in a parallel world looking for the keys to open the portal and return home.  (I suspect that we won't be getting Castle Amber in these revamps mostly because of that last bit.  Averogine is not an old TSR property and I'd bet they would have to negotiate the license with the Ashton-Smith estate to do anything new with it).

The adventure suffers from a lack of explanation of what it's trying to be - it assumes that the DM has read Clark Ashton-Smith and HP Lovecraft and Edgar Alan Poe and that the DM will understand what's going on.  That was a poor assumption when it was published, and while more people have probably read Lovecraft now than then the same can't be said for Smith.  It also has a "mystery" in it but never makes it clear to anyone - player or DM - that there's a mystery to be solved.  And it has a lot of straight-up dungeon crawl elements to it that don't seem to make sense except when you remember the era it was written in.  Played as a straight-up dungeon crawl the adventure is not very good.  Played as a mystery/horror game along the lines of Ravenloft the adventure can really shine.  Definitely something I'm willing to run over and over again for the right groups.

(Moldvay's "The Lost City" suffers from similar problems in my eyes.  It's also a fantasy/horror setting that is better thought of in the mold of a Robert E Howard or Clark Ashton-Smith model for fantasy and played that way it's a great adventure.  As a straight-up dungeon crawl the Lost City works better than Castle Amber does, and can probably still be considered a classic, but I definitely feel that it is not as good without the creep factor.)


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## dagger (Jan 6, 2017)

Has anyone confirmed if AtG includes all three?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 6, 2017)

I wonder what the Venn diagram is between people who think publishing _Yawning Portal_ is lazy, and those people who desperately want a 5E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book?

Cause seeing as how a FRCS book would be pretty much a cut and paste from the information they've already written in SKT, SCAG, the 4E setting book, and part of the 3E book for those far-flung sections of Faerun that barely anyone knows about let alone actually run campaigns in so it doesn't matter WHAT information you included there... you could consider doing both books just as lazy.  So I wonder how many people are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they say they need one but are pissed about the other?  

This also goes to show how inane everyone is when it comes to searching for information.  Someone goes looking for upcoming D&D info... they find this obscure bit of a title with absolutely no context tucked away in the part of the internet that probably was not meant for general release... people start speculating up the wazoo about what this title could possibly mean and fan-cast their beloved publishing scenarios... and then when it is revealed to be something else they get all pissed at WotC over it that they didn't get what they were fantasizing about.  Whereas if people just waited for information when WotC chose to announce it, a lot of those same people probably wouldn't be nearly as annoyed.

It's the "WotC cancelled a product they never actually announced!" bullcrap all over again.  And goes to show that some people will whine about ANYTHING.


----------



## alienux (Jan 6, 2017)

Vampyr3 said:


> I don't get why people keep bringing up "Labyrinth" it never existed, it was never a product.. yet people think this is it... WOTC said it themselves, it was never a thing.. never was/never will be..




Online retailers have had it listed for awhile. The Yawning Portal is clearly what those retailers have had listed under the name "Labyrinth":

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0786966092/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1GQME3PONUYRM&coliid=IE14WUG7GI0NC

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/09/dd-mysterious-labyrinth-book-appears-online.html


----------



## Vymair (Jan 6, 2017)

Against the Giants is the quintessential D&D adventure of my youth, so I'm happy to see another generation of gamers get the experience of this great adventure.  Forge of Fury was my favorite of the 3e dungeons so happy to see that back as well.


----------



## Luchador (Jan 6, 2017)

Vymair said:


> Against the Giants is the quintessential D&D adventure of my youth, so I'm happy to see another generation of gamers get the experience of this great adventure.  Forge of Fury was my favorite of the 3e dungeons so happy to see that back as well.




If I recall-- didn't against the giants lead to Queen of the Demon Web pits?  The Lost Tomb was really cool. I wasn't expecting that one.  Glad it made the cut!


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 6, 2017)

Iosue said:


> *Al* Bundy.  You're thinking of Al Bundy.  Ted Bundy would be a completely different weird 40-year old D&D!



I know my players... Ted Bundy edition is more appropriate.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 6, 2017)

Luchador said:


> If I recall-- didn't against the giants lead to Queen of the Demon Web pits?  The Lost Tomb was really cool. I wasn't expecting that one.  Glad it made the cut!




Yep.  The G-D-Q series was all tied together.


----------



## Vymair (Jan 6, 2017)

Luchador said:


> If I recall-- didn't against the giants lead to Queen of the Demon Web pits?  The Lost Tomb was really cool. I wasn't expecting that one.  Glad it made the cut!




Yes, it led to the Descent in the Depths of the Earth, to Vault of the Drow and then to Queen of the Demonweb Pits


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

Jer said:


> Hidden Shrine is not so bad, but I would never actually run a high level party that had earned those levels through Tomb of Horrors.  Tomb of Horrors is supposed to be nearly unwinnable without cheating or some damn good luck.  It was created as a con one-shot and that's the only way I've ever run it.  I've toyed with running it as a "dream" but the opportunity has never come up.
> 
> That said - if they're going to publish it in a collection like this it should be the original, deadly, nearly unbeatable Tomb of Horrors.  With sufficient warning to DMs who have never run anything but 5e AP material exactly how different the expectations for the adventure are compared to what they're used to running.




Hidden Shrine is vastly more deadly than Tomb of Horrors, and vastly more unfair.   

Tomb of Horrors is the most infamous dungeon in D&D history, but its reputation is outsized compared to how deadly it actually is.  There are a lot of extremely deadly 1e AD&D dungeons, and some of them are a lot worse than Tomb of Horrors.   Many of them were also created to be run as one shots at conventions, and were designed to be unwinnable or nearly unwinnable.    Hidden Shrine is from the 'C1' series, as in 'Competition', and if you run it 'bottom up' in its tournament format it makes 'Tomb of Horrors' look like a casual picnic written by some very generous and forgiving DM.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 6, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> I know my players... Ted Bundy edition is more appropriate.




Yikes. My players have been known to engage in murderhoboism, but there won't be any RP of the stuff Ted Bundy did. Though I have heard horror stories of in game descriptions of assault on this very forum. I believe it was in the Worst DMs Ever thread.


----------



## dagger (Jan 6, 2017)

The levels and number of characters required for the Giants modules should be interesting.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## JeffB (Jan 6, 2017)

Staffan said:


> Like I said, they've been doing this for 40 years. You'd be hard-pressed to come up with something that *hasn't* been done before - particularly considering that during those 40 years, they've done Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer, for some *pretty* weird stuff.
> 
> Humanoid invasion? Red Hand of Doom, or Under the Dark Fist.
> Planar invasion? Black Spine.
> ...




Perhaps they should just change their focus to different products then?

I don't buy that argument. Their creativity is hampered by the need to produce "safe" products that will sell to thier business need. So re-hash old themes and convert old adventures.


There are plenty of great adventures being produced today for D&D games without the D&D logo (and I buy them!)


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 6, 2017)

This is not lazy if only for the fact they are redoing all the art and maps, rewriting and reformatting the adventures. (They are going to much more pretty and easier to read.) 

This is not an easy thing and the production values alone with the redone art will be nice to check out alone.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 6, 2017)

Vampyr3 said:


> Oh sorry, I forgot to drink the Kool Aid this morning before I came on.... my mistake




What are you talking about?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> I've run them both countless times, and I would disagree with your assessment.




Let's assume both play as written.

The key differences between the two are: 

1) 'Hidden Shrine' has hideous time pressure.  In 'Hidden Shrine' you are under a horrific clock.  The poisonous gas will kill the whole party in a few hours.  You can't take a single rest.  You have to race to get out of the lower levels or you will die.  'Tomb of Horrors' has no time pressure.  You can explore, use spells, and rest and reset as needed.  
2) 'Hidden Shrine' has vastly tougher monsters relative to party level.  The 'Will O' The Wisp' alone is more dangerous to a party of the suggested level than every single monster in Tomb of Horrors is to the party of its suggested level (sans Acererak, who is a special case) combined.  It's AC makes it almost unhittable.  It's electrical damage is brutal.  'Wisps' are one of the single most dangerous monsters in 1e AD&D.  To have one in 'Hidden Shrine' for low level poorly equipped characters is more brutal than anything in Tomb of Horrors, because there is just no answer to it.

I have never seen a party make it out of 'Hidden Shrines' first section.  In my opinion, I could give a typical party the text of 'Hidden Shrine' and many would have a hard time getting out even knowing the whole module in advance.  It's that hard.   On the other hand, I wouldn't at all be surprised for even average parties to make it to at least the chamber of pillars in 'Tomb of Horrors' having no knowledge of the module, and it's pretty easy to describe how to 'beat' the module using a party of 1st level characters.  On a scale of difficulty, I'd put 'Tomb of Horrors' at a 8 out of 10, and 'Hidden Shrine' as a 10 (one of two I'd rate as 10's among published modules, the other being Ravenloft).


----------



## Jester David (Jan 6, 2017)

MonsterEnvy said:


> This is not lazy if only for the fact they are redoing all the art and maps, rewriting and reformatting the adventures. (They are going to much more pretty and easier to read.)
> 
> This is not an easy thing and the production values alone with the redone art will be nice to check out alone.



But they're not thinking of a half-dozen brand new dungeons filled with traps and features. They're not designing those dungeons and creating new maps, but using existing maps and details. 

How much rewriting is unknown. And this is the big question regarding the adventure. 
If they're heavily revising and reimagining the dungeons, then it might be a lot of work. Because the author is trying to keep the most iconic elements but make them more approachable. Make easier to interact with without the single explicit solution that no one will guess. Keeping what makes the adventure classic while making in modern in terms of writing, presentation, and adventure design. 
Or... they could just be giving everything an editing pass and updating the game mechanics.

If it's the latter, then, yes, it's super lazy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## John R Davis (Jan 6, 2017)

Not massively interested in this, but would be good if they one or two of these really really brutal, and good for one off adventures.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 6, 2017)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Im a professional, and all of my players are professionals in competitive careers; I do not have time to convert anything. I want a finished, polished, final product that can allow me to jump right into the fun with my gaming groups.  This is right up my alley, its a product that I can play right out of the box with minimal prep.  That's why I pay $49.99.




Fair enough. Except that converting stuff is pretty easy. 1e adventures can be converted on the fly. WotC doesn't need to reprint, they just need a pamphlet with the monster statblocks. I converted _White Plume Mountain_ on the fly using monsters from the playtest and the S-Series hardcover reprint. 
And I converted _Madness at Gardmore Abby_ as well, which I did while watching a film and actually building encounters "by the book" rather than swapping monsters in and out. It was pretty effortless.

High level 3e modules might be hard, as they might have classed monsters and NPCs that don't have easy conversions. But WotC is only doing some low level ones, which would be super easy. You barely need to convert things, as the math is almost the same with low level 3e monsters. You could almost run _Sunless Citadel_ or _Forge of Fury_ straight.

All this is assuming no updates exist online. 5 seconds on google will find numerous threads like this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1133
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2rdl1n/5e_tomb_of_horrors_conversion/


Now, WotC could be taking this a step further and revising the adventures. Changing the forty-year-old design aesthetics. Reimagining the classics but making the "solutions" to the problems less a very specific spell and some of the traps less auto-kill.


----------



## Uller (Jan 6, 2017)

Jester David said:


> If it's the latter, then, yes, it's super lazy.




Which you have no idea if that's true.  Precedent suggests otherwise.   CoS is essentially a reboot of I6 plus new adventures wrapped around it to form a lvl 1-10 campaign.  At a minimum we can expect them to redo art and maps, upgrade mechanics and build a more coherent storyline both internal to each adventure and around the campaign as a whole.  

For most players these adventures are brand new..perhaps they've heard rumors.  Parents, aunts and uncles or older cousins murmuring about that time they're 9th level paladin battled King Snurre or their elf fighter/magic-user/thief got teleported naked into a giant briar patch.  I played or ran 4 of these.  Some multiple times in multiple editions.  Not one of my current players have.  I am thinking of starting a lunch group at work and this product sounds like the perfect product for that.


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

Ya know CoS also got us Death House which I love so very much. And the other added pieces are really great too.

If the book contains anything like Death House, well it'll be the cherry on top.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> What ... are ... you ... talking about? Seriously. Any person who says that they can have a party of 1st level characters "beat" Tomb of Horrors is vastly overstating their case.




If the 1st level party has a few low level potions or scrolls it is quite doable.  How few they need is a matter of debate, but possibly as little as one _potion of flying_ would be sufficient for a 1st level party to complete the module. 



> I have run Hidden Shrine many times. I have never had a TPK. Not once.




I have as hard of time believing you in this than you have believing me in the ease that Tomb of Horrors be defeated.  You either didn't run it as written (ignored poison gas, or played the 'top down' non-competition manner), or you had parties that were vastly higher level than those suggested.  How you could have ran it multiple times without at least one party trying to take a rest in the dungeon and start choking to death on the 'carbon monoxide' or wandering around until they were deep into the death clock without finding an exit I have no idea.



> If your main argument boils down to "but the Will o' The Wisp is tougher, relative to the party, than the monsters in Tomb of Horrors," I think you are both vastly understating your exception (_sans, I dunno, Acererak_) and completely misunderstanding why Tomb of Horrors
> has its well-deserved reputation (how many monsters are in Tomb of Horrors ???).




Seriously, if I could recite the clue poem, I could run Tomb of Horrors purely from memory.  I know the adventure very well.  

1) I'm not understating the exception.  Acererak is not killable as written by parties of the suggested levels (or any of the pregen characters).   The successful party just chooses not to fight him.  So my assumption is that a party clever enough to reach him would simply choose not to fight (since he's helpless unless you choose to attack him) or would run away immediately once combat started, losing just 1 character.

2) The fact that I'm not misunderstanding the module is precisely why a 1st level party can beat the module.   There are basically no required combat encounters in the module.  Arguably if you need to get the ring to open the door in the chapel (because you don't have one of your own), you might run into the snakes in the chest, but they are IIRC just 1HD and even a low level party being cautious should be able to take them down (a single sleep spell does it, for example).  All the traps are passive.  They only kill you if you touch them.  Almost all are gravity based, most can be bypassed just by probing with a 10' long pole or tossing a heavy sack of dirt out in front of you, and being able to fly bypasses almost every trap in the dungeon with ease.  The one exception that might TPK the party is cured by having the thief that is probing ahead of the party be on a rope so you can reel him back.   It's not that hard of a dungeon if you don't do things that are stupid.   When I was in junior high, we got through but didn't get the treasure, and lots of people have beat it.

3) Again, the Will o' the Wisp is basically an unkillable nightmare beast when you run up against it at that level.  It's an active nasty foe that can chase you down.  It's almost impossible to hurt.  It's AC is bonkers for a party of this level, with most of the party only hitting on a natural 20.  Nothing in Tomb of Horrors chases the party down.  And it's not even the only beasty that you've got to fight.   And as far as traps go, the sand trap in 'Hidden Shrine' is worse than all but two traps in 'Tomb of Horrors' (the slime curtains, and the unsavable sleep gas + juggernaut), and is harder to avoid than both of those.  

4) While the level of the party doesn't matter as much as playing cautiously in Tomb of Horrors (because many traps bypass saves and hit points), a party of 9th-10th level characters still has vastly more resources available to it than 5th-6th level characters.  There is far more room for error in Tomb of Horrors.  If you foolishly fall into a spiked poisoned pit in Tomb of Horrors, you'll still probably survive.  And if you don't, that's what 'raise dead' is for.  Clerics of this level have tons of experience using 'neutralize poison'.  You have zero room for mistakes in 'Hidden Shrine', and if you are under-leveled you are dead.  But as I pointed out, being under-leveled in Tomb of Horrors just gives you less margin for error.  If you play perfectly, you never fight anything or take damage anyway.

'Hidden Shrine' is a nightmare.  Having ran it a couple of times, I'm wholly unconvinced you ran it as written.   Again, because of the time pressure and the lethality of monsters, it takes considerable planning to figure out how to beat the module even if you know the text.  It's still a hideously dangerous module if you are overleveled for it.  By comparison, if you are overleveled for Tomb of Horrors, you probably cast 'Find the Path' and found the module a joke.



> Hidden Shrine is a wonderful module, and quite difficult. But its not Tomb of Horrors. Hidden Shrine was written for competition, Tomb was written to take players down a peg, by killing their characters.




You keep repeating all this stuff about 'intention' as if that was proof of anything.  Both modules were tournament modules.  The fact remains, that as written 'Hidden Shrine' is vastly harder than 'Tomb of Horrors'.  Did you or did you not track every turn that they were in the Shrine, and how the heck did they get out before everyone died?   It's hard to path out of the lower levels before the sand runs out on the timer even if you know which way to go!  Average random walks are invariably lethal.  The module is designed to kill 9 parties in 10 just by random bad luck before it even gets out of the first level.  Even with parties of 6 or 8 characters (compared to the 3(!!) you are allowed in tournament play) it's a reliable TPK.


----------



## MichaelArkAngel (Jan 6, 2017)

Sammael said:


> Well, as I said, it's my advanced age (37)  the very concept of twitch boggles my mind - why the blazes would I want to watch other people play games when I can play them myself? But I know I'm hopelessly out of date.




Man if you consider that advanced age, what am I when I turn 48 next Wednesday?

 (insert your own old fart jokes here)


----------



## guachi (Jan 6, 2017)

Iosue said:


> *Al* Bundy.  You're thinking of Al Bundy.  Ted Bundy would be a completely different weird 40-year old D&D!




LOL. Yes. I was thinking of Al Bundy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Charles Rampant (Jan 6, 2017)

Simmer down guys, no need to try and prove whose the bigger grognard DM...


----------



## guachi (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> *shrug* Different people, different preferences.
> 
> I have a good deal of experience with Castle Amber. It is very old-school (in the best ways) and very creative. I have also run it in 5e (twice). It worked really well.
> 
> One of my all-time favorite modules.




X2 could use a bit of polishing for 5e but it would be a cracking good adventure for the new hardback. Take a portal to another world so you can do run an adventure that takes you through a portal to another world.

All that old-school wackiness from Moldvay (X1, X2, or B4) needs to exist _somewhere_ in an official 5e adventure.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## MichaelArkAngel (Jan 6, 2017)

Just a random thought now that I've gotten through the comments, but are these adventures meant to played consecutively, or are they just smaller "bite sized" adventures to be thrown in your campaign at any time?

The reason I ask, is that I could see them making this one large, very eclectic adventure,but being told through random tavern goers at The Yawning Portal. It could start with the random patron talking to another saying "Hey have you heard the story about...(insert group of adventurers and upcoming plot hook and your off!)" After that adventure, it would segue way to another bar patron "one upping" that persons story with theirs, and then the next adventure would begin, so on and so on.

Just a thought, I suppose...


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> And I am wholly unconvinced that you had a competent group of adventurers. Good?




We got through Tomb of Horrors with no knowledge of the text, which you say shouldn't happen.  



> You keep making assertions that I find laughable, based on my own experience.




My assertions are backed by evidence.  I'm describing how we survived the module.  I was a fairly experienced player with an 11th level thief, and a couple of potions and scrolls.  Using rope and a 10' pole for probing, and not rushing into anything, we got through most of the module.  I can describe the path we took in detail.   We made it to the vault, made the mistake of trying to fight Acerak, lost a few characters to soul drain, and ran as fast as we could away.  That's with zero knowledge of the module.  I would consider that a fairly average experience based on talking to other oldbies.  I have heard of parties that died in the Devil's Mouth, but we were already pretty freaked out by that point (though hadn't lost anyone) so we didn't even touch the Devil's Mouth.

The exact same group TPKed on 'Hidden Shrine', wasting time on the side trek to the vampire(again, vampire at this party level!!) thinking that we'd found some clever bypass, with half the party dead by midway into the first level, and no one managing to get out before we all died of the carbon monoxide.  Every group I've ever ran 'Hidden Shrine' for has TPKed.  Being intimately familiar with both modules text at this point, I consider 'Hidden Shrine' vastly more unfair for all the reasons I have hitherto mentioned.



> That said, you original statement (it's hard because it's a competition module) doesn't hold water. Because S1 (Tomb of Horrors) was originally written for competition- the first Origins Con, not the '79 Origins Con like C1. A little pre-history for you.




They are both competition modules, and I'm intimately aware of the history of both.  The fact that they are both competition modules in and of itself does not prove which is harder.  I'm doing that by referencing the text and details of the module.  You aren't. 



> Now, it's totally fine for you to have an idiosyncratic view! You are welcome to say, contrary to the experience of the vast majority of people that have played the game, that the original Tomb of Horrors is a cakewalk that can be accomplished by first level players with a few scrolls, and the C1 is, "The Real Tomb of Horrors." Similar to saying that "Lionel Ritchie is the Beethoven of our times," it's, you know, your opinion man.




Again, I'm repeatedly making reference to the texts of the two, and you continue to appeal logical fallacies.  You have not once made any attempt to explain your opinion, and are instead appealing to the modules reputation or other irrelevant crap.


----------



## Patrick McGill (Jan 6, 2017)

I doubt the adventures will be heavily revised or reimagined if at all. From the Forbes interview it seems to me it'll be the exact adventures, updated for 5e with modern art, maps, and aesthetics with information for putting them in different settings.

Which is exactly what I would want out of this book. I own a few of these already, but having them in a nice hardcover with the conversions done for me would make this an instant buy for me.

Call it lazy if you want, but I think that's a bit cynical and a little insulting. They've been churning out new stuff the whole edition life cycle. It's fine to release a Greatest Hits album every now and then.


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

MichaelArkAngel said:


> Just a random thought now that I've gotten through the comments, but are these adventures meant to played consecutively, or are they just smaller "bite sized" adventures to be thrown in your campaign at any time?




I think they've said they want it to serve both interests.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Prakriti (Jan 6, 2017)

Vampyr3 said:


> Oh sorry, I forgot to drink the Kool Aid this morning before I came on.... my mistake



The Labyrinth product page on Amazon and the _Tales from the Yawning Portal_ product page on Wizards have the same ISBN and the same release date. Labyrinth most definitely was the code-name for _Tales from the Yawning Portal_. 

And if anyone feels "deceived" by the code-name... well, welcome to code-names. That's the whole point. You (consumers) aren't even meant to hear them. One of the reasons code-names exist is so that employees can discuss the product without fear of revealing the product's nature to eavesdroppers. And "Labyrinth" makes about as much sense as "Cloak" or "Dagger" (the code-names for previous adventures), so if anyone based their expectations on the code-name, and now finds themselves disappointed, then they really only have themselves to blame.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 6, 2017)

Uller said:


> Which you have no idea if that's true.  Precedent suggests otherwise.   CoS is essentially a reboot of I6 plus new adventures wrapped around it to form a lvl 1-10 campaign.



There was a degree of laziness to CoS as well. There wasn't a new plot. It wasn't a sequel. Large sections of the Castle were identical to what was written before. It wasn't an update where you were returning to the castle and everything had changed. 

Compare this to _Storm King's Thunder_ that was inspired by _Against the Giants_ but every single dungeon was completely redesigned and reimagined. Whole new dungeons, whole new plots, whole new NPCs. I have my problems with STK, but a lot of work went into that and it's a great example of being inspired by the past and nostalgic but doing its own thing. 



Uller said:


> At a minimum we can expect them to redo art and maps, upgrade mechanics and build a more coherent storyline both internal to each adventure and around the campaign as a whole.



Yes, they're updating the maps and the art. Which they'd do anyway. That really is the "minimum" to be called an update. Otherwise it'd be a "reprint". And when you're only doing the very minimum that's.... lazy.

IF they update and heavily revise, then it won't be "lazy". But right now we don't know for sure.



Uller said:


> For most players these adventures are brand new..perhaps they've heard rumors.  Parents, aunts and uncles or older cousins murmuring about that time they're 9th level paladin battled King Snurre or their elf fighter/magic-user/thief got teleported naked into a giant briar patch.



"Most"? 
I think you're greatly overestimating how many new people have gotten into the game. Or how many players have family/friends who are experienced gamers.



Uller said:


> I played or ran 4 of these.  Some multiple times in multiple editions.  Not one of my current players have.  I am thinking of starting a lunch group at work and this product sounds like the perfect product for that.



That's great. 
But if you've already run them I assume you have a copy. Or can get ahold of one of the dozens of reprints for a song. You could probably buy a used copy of every single adventure in this hardcover for less than the $60 asking price.


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

*sigh* why does there have to be acrimony and anger in a thread about games.

I intend to run this as deadly as possible with a group who is interested in doing just that.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Charles Rampant (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Then you can causally discuss how them young whippersnappers need to mollycoddled with "story," and "surviving," and "meaningful character options," and that back in the old days, we used to walk five miles, in a blizzard, both ways uphill, just so that our first level magic user with three hit points could get killed by a kobold in Keep on the Borderlands in the first combat after casting his one magic missile.




Haha! One of the weirder parts of this forum is the way that the older members describe 'good adventuring', aye. I once saw someone exclaim that the problem with the new APs is that they were harder to run than the old modules; if a 32 page storyless dungeon _isn't_ easier to run than a 256 page full-story adventure, then I'd be worried!


----------



## Prakriti (Jan 6, 2017)

MonsterEnvy said:


> This is not lazy if only for the fact they are redoing all the art and maps



Not from what I saw. The maps they showed in the Forbes video -- for _Against the Giants_, _Dead in Thay_, _Tomb of Horrors_, etc. -- already existed. They aren't redoing them, because they already re-did them during 3E and 4E. All the NPC portraits, likewise, came from the D&D Next playtest. I have them, and I've used them in my campaigns. 

I would guess that 80-90% of the work on this book was already done before they decided to make it.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 6, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> I would guess that 80-90% of the work on this book was already done before they decided to make it.




And yet... when people on the boards complain that there are no short adventures for 5E and then other folks mention the completely reasonable assertation that converting all the old classic modules on DMs Guild is actually fairly easy... the standard refrain is that they just don't have the time or desire to do it.  "I'd rather pay WotC to do it!"

So guess what?  This product is *PRECISELY those people's fault.*  They were the ones constantly complaining that all WotC's 5E adventures were Paths, but yet were too lazy to convert old adventures for themselves when they needed them.  "Give us shorter adventures!  And not 3rd party or Adventurer's League stuff!  Fully checked and playtested WotC adventurers!"

So now WotC's now just given them what they kept demanding because they wouldn't accept anything else.  The lesson of course being... be careful what wish you for.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> No, let's be 100% clear. We are both relating our personal experiences.




Let's be 100% clear.  You are NOT relating your personal experiences.  You are making claims that you are neither backing up by evidence or anecdote.  I'm the only one that has made reference to the text of either module, or any details of personal experience.  Despite claiming to be insulted by my finding your claim no more credible than you found mine, you have still made no attempt to relate personal experience.  



> You are making rather exciting claims that are somewhat hyperbolic (first level characters are totes doing Tomb of Horrors!), but whatever.




That claim is so not hyperbolic that it isn't a major plot point of a mainstream novel ('Ready Player One', soon to be a movie by Steven Speilburg).   In the story, a character (granted, he's familiar with the text of the module) does exactly that with a 1st level character as a major plot point of the story.  I'd say that proves that by this point, my claim is neither exciting or hyperbolic.  It wasn't particularly exciting or hyperbolic when I made it 10 or more years ago, and it's even less now.

(Side note, how many of you were put off by 'Ready Player One' because in the story he not only does it as a 1st level character, but a 1st level character with no help and no magic items, and you knew that some of the traps can only reasonably be by passed with a either a magic item or two or more players cooperating.  Worse, he doesn't even explain the interesting part of how he does it - he just asks the reader to accept that it could be done solo by a 1st level character - which sort of suggests the writer isn't as big of a geek as he claims.)

(Side side note, how damn awesome is it that we'll get to see the interior of Tomb of Horrors in a major motion picture?)



> It happens that my personal experiences are in accord with the majority of experiences that other people have had...




Again, asserted without evidence.  It's not like this topic hasn't come up before at EnWorld.  Search up a few threads.  Lots of people were much more successful than we were (as 7th and 8th graders) their first time through the Tomb.  I've never had a good discussion of beating C1 in a reasonable fashion first time through, and frankly even if you know the text it would be really difficult.  And, it's less linear than S1 and you have no chance at clues.  



> I like it. It's a good module, and a forgotten gem (although others really dislike it). OTOH, S1 is a stone-cold classic.




All of that I agree with, but it has nothing to do with the fact that C1 is much harder than S1.


----------



## Jer (Jan 6, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And yet... when people on the boards complain that there are no short adventures for 5E and then other folks mention the completely reasonable assertation that converting all the old classic modules on DMs Guild is actually fairly easy... the standard refrain is that they just don't have the time or desire to do it.  "I'd rather pay WotC to do it!"




I think this is actually perfectly fine.  And Wizards will be able to see to a degree how large that audience really is.

To a degree because I suspect that the "Nostalgia Factor (TM)" on this book will cause it to sell quite well outside of that audience.  Heck I own 6 of the 7 adventures in that collection in their original forms and have even run one of them as a 5e conversion already and I'm _still_ probably going to end up getting a copy eventually.  I'll wait for some reviews and the opportunity to flip through it myself to see how its done but chances are it'll end up being a sale unless they screw something up.  So even this book might not give Wizards a good feel for how large the audience really is. 

And honestly I've long had the stance that it was stupid of TSR and later Wizards to not keep some of these things in print even back in the day.  There's no reason why they shouldn't have re-released Against the Giants with a second edition conversion, for example and kept it in print.  Wizards has finally hit on the idea that maybe some adventures really are "evergreen" and they should be making some money off of them edition to edition by keeping them in print instead of just letting the secondary market have that money.  (Though to a large degree keeping the PDFs "in print" on DMsGuild accomplishes most of this.  I wonder what those sales figures look like...)


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Prakriti (Jan 6, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So guess what?  This product is *PRECISELY those people's fault.*



Just to be clear, I'm not one of the complainers. I'm looking forward to this book, and unlike with previous releases, I know exactly what I'm getting.

But it's possible to eagerly await this release AND acknowledge that it's low-effort.


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 6, 2017)

I don't want to escalate the argument, but do want to participate because Hidden Shrine was my introduction to AD&D in 1980. I really had no idea what the game was or what to expect. We come into this clearing in the jungle, there's this crumbling pyramid and a hole in the ground, and the other players start hauling out ropes and torches. I realized "the game" was that we were going to go down into that hole and explore. I was hooked!

Anyway, I won't claim to remember all of it, and I haven't played the module since, but we didn't TPK. My first, general thought is: You gotta have a cleric. Maybe more than one. This is probably a fair statement for every difficult module in AD&D. 



Celebrim said:


> Let's assume both play as written.
> 
> The key differences between the two are:
> 
> 1) 'Hidden Shrine' has hideous time pressure.  In 'Hidden Shrine' you are under a horrific clock.  The poisonous gas will kill the whole party in a few hours.  You can't take a single rest.  You have to race to get out of the lower levels or you will die.  'Tomb of Horrors' has no time pressure.  You can explore, use spells, and rest and reset as needed.




_Slow poison_ reduces the damage a lot (1/turn?) and gives you plenty of time -- the spell lasts for one hour/level. I recall we had some scrolls with slow poison, but since it was my first session ever, I don't know how or when the PCs obtained them. It's entirely possible the DM let the PCs acquire them in a nearby village. Without the spell, you're taking several hit points of damage per turn, but you can overcome with healing potions and scrolls both coming in and discovered within the dungeon. Really, I see this as a problem you have to solve, rather than something you're going to let kill you.

It's a different matter in tournament play, I suppose, but there the point is just to accomplish as much as possible in the allotted event time. The time limit will end your run before the poison does.



> 2) 'Hidden Shrine' has vastly tougher monsters relative to party level.  The 'Will O' The Wisp' alone is more dangerous to a party of the suggested level than every single monster in Tomb of Horrors is to the party of its suggested level (sans Acererak, who is a special case) combined.  It's AC makes it almost unhittable.  It's electrical damage is brutal.  'Wisps' are one of the single most dangerous monsters in 1e AD&D.  To have one in 'Hidden Shrine' for low level poorly equipped characters is more brutal than anything in Tomb of Horrors, because there is just no answer to it.




The will-o-wisp doesn't want to fight you -- it wants to "lure" you into a trap (though I can't imagine any will-o-wisp ever actually succeeded at doing so). As I recall, it showed up when we were in the sand trap. The trap was bad enough, and I remember thinking this should have been a TPK. But it turns out the wisp doesn't attack unless and until you're about to escape the trap, and then flees if it takes any damage. So one _magic missile_ will send it on its way.

Anyway, I just wanted to weigh in because this module will always be my "first love." When _Raiders _came out the next year, I was like, "Been there, done that." I expect the experience of all these old modules varied widely from one DM and group to the next.


----------



## GarrettKP (Jan 6, 2017)

The reason this is "low effort" is more for us than for them. They know that their Adventure Paths are long and people are still playing through older ones like Out of the Abyss, much less recent ones like Storm Kings. This is a light break for players and DM's to give them time to digest the material they already have released. 

As to why they decided to remake old adventures rather than make new ones? Sales. 5th Edition is made to get people playing D&D. Old fans that left or stopped playing, new fans that never played, any and everybody. By remaking sure fire hits they guarantee sales will be positive. Sure some will complain, but a lot of DM's, old and new, will buy it regardless to have the conversions.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

Greg Benage said:


> I don't want to escalate the argument, but do want to participate because Hidden Shrine was my introduction to AD&D in 1980. I really had no idea what the game was or what to expect. We come into this clearing in the jungle, there's this crumbling pyramid and a hole in the ground, and the other players start hauling out ropes and torches. I realized "the game" was that we were going to go down into that hole and explore. I was hooked!




Cool.  However, this sounds like the easier 'top down' version suggested when not using the module for tournament play, where you go into the module from the temple at the top.  You get to start on the surface with knowledge of the exit.  The tournament version starts you at the bottom of the dungeon after a cave in leaves you trapped there.  It's much easier to survive the module 'top down', but I have never run it that way.



> _Slow poison_ reduces the damage a lot (1/turn?) and gives you plenty of time -- the spell lasts for one hour/level. I recall we had some scrolls with slow poison, but since it was my first session ever, I don't know how or when the PCs obtained them. It's entirely possible the DM let the PCs acquire them in a nearby village. Without the spell, you're taking several hit points of damage per turn, but you can overcome with healing potions and scrolls both coming in and discovered within the dungeon. Really, I see this as a problem you have to solve, rather than something you're going to let kill you.




Without slow poison, you take 1d6 damage per (noncombat) turn.  That alone will kill characters of the suggested level in only a few hours, and if you start at the bottom, you can't rest to recover spells or hit points.  There just aren't nearly enough potions and such in the dungeon to counter the damage.  Even with slow poison, which is not a given, taking 1 damage per (noncombat) turn is still enough to ensure low level characters are on a pretty hard clock, and at the very least don't have much of a cushion of hit points in any of the encounters.

If you already start with the exit, so that when you need to, you can go back out and get some fresh air, I think this explains why you didn't TPK in and of itself.  Also, many of the traps/encounters, are oriented so that they are harder from the bottom than coming down from the top.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 6, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And yet... when people on the boards complain that there are no short adventures for 5E and then other folks mention the completely reasonable assertation that converting all the old classic modules on DMs Guild is actually fairly easy... the standard refrain is that they just don't have the time or desire to do it.  "I'd rather pay WotC to do it!"
> 
> So guess what?  This product is *PRECISELY those people's fault.*  They were the ones constantly complaining that all WotC's 5E adventures were Paths, but yet were too lazy to convert old adventures for themselves when they needed them.  "Give us shorter adventures!  And not 3rd party or Adventurer's League stuff!  Fully checked and playtested WotC adventurers!"
> 
> So now WotC's now just given them what they kept demanding because they wouldn't accept anything else.  The lesson of course being... be careful what wish you for.





I'm wondering if the release of TftYP will be in part to test the waters to see if anthology-style APs are viable for future releases. The best way to ensure a more APs of this type would be to release one with all the "greatest hits" and the resulting hype as a result. I'm thinking that if this is a success (and from what I'm seeing, most people are pretty excited over it, especially those new to the hobby who are hugely intrigued by the prospect of experiencing these legendary adventures for themselves), we'll see an anthology-style AP every couple of years or so down the line. But I imagine that future ones will probably have more original content along side some classic modules as a sweetener. That's probably why they didn't cram classics like _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ in this one, so as to hold them back for future products of this type...


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 6, 2017)

GarrettKP said:


> The reason this is "low effort" is more for us than for them. They know that their Adventure Paths are long and people are still playing through older ones like Out of the Abyss, much less recent ones like Storm Kings. This is a light break for players and DM's to give them time to digest the material they already have released.
> 
> As to why they decided to remake old adventures rather than make new ones? Sales. 5th Edition is made to get people playing D&D. Old fans that left or stopped playing, new fans that never played, any and everybody. By remaking sure fire hits they guarantee sales will be positive. Sure some will complain, but a lot of DM's, old and new, will buy it regardless to have the conversions.




And, as others have said, it will give them more time to work on the upcoming rules expansion book. I'm perfectly fine with them saving time by releasing a product like this if it means that the rules expansion book gets extra playtesting and balancing time.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## vivsavage (Jan 6, 2017)

Very uninspiring. Obviously WOTC's new product model of releasing only a handful of D&D books per year must be working for them, but it has left me with a severe case of the "meh"s, especially when the variety of the releases has been lacking. If Dragon magazine were still around, it wouldn't bother me as much. Oh well, most people seem to be happy.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> No worries, but you know that if you run the module for tournament play, you shouldn't use your regular characters, should use the (real world) time limit of 2 hours, and just score the adventure when time expires?
> 
> And time will expire before the characters, barring a truly bad party.




Aha!


----------



## Aelfricanthathalas (Jan 6, 2017)

Echohawk said:


> As  @_*barasawa*_ mentioned upthread, the movie version of _Ready Player One_ is scheduled for release soon (originally December 2017 but shifted to March 2018 to avoid clashing with _Star Wars_). I have not been following the development of the movie very closely, but _Tomb of Horrors_ is such an integral part of the plot of the book, I'd be surprised if it wasn't also featured in the movie. I think the fact that Warner Bros. are producing both _Ready Player One_ and the new D&D film increases the odds of that even further.
> 
> WotC would be foolish not to have a 5e product on the shelves which incorporates _Tomb of Horrors_ by the time the movie gets released, so it seems plausible that this was a factor in determining which dungeons to include in _Tales from the Yawning Portal_.




Considering Roy Lee in an interview revealed that the Yawning Portal would be prominent in the movie: 
http://collider.com/dungeons-and-dragons-movie-story/

[FONT=&amp]"Lee also revealed that the movie will take place entirely in the realm rather than having people transported from our world into the realm. He also said that the Yawning Portal will feature prominently and “it’s going to be one of people’s favorite set pieces.”

[/FONT]This is the most plausible reasoning behind the choice of title and modules to include to tie in product and movie, which has been stated before from other personnel from D&D.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 6, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So guess what?  This product is *PRECISELY those people's fault.*  They were the ones constantly complaining that all WotC's 5E adventures were Paths, but yet were too lazy to convert old adventures for themselves when they needed them.  "Give us shorter adventures!  And not 3rd party or Adventurer's League stuff!  Fully checked and playtested WotC adventurers!"




While it's not my fault in the sense I've never asked for shorter adventures, it is my fault in the sense that I would never spend the time updating a module I had to print out from DMsGuild.  I'm willing to accept half blame here.


----------



## alienux (Jan 6, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> But it's possible to eagerly await this release AND acknowledge that it's low-effort.




I completely agree. I'm not so concerned with how much effort they're putting into it as much as the fact that they're releasing these modules in a current book 5E style. It's win/win for me.


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2017)

[video]http://players.brightcove.net/2097119709001/4kXWOFbfYx_default/index.html?videoId=5271747797001[/video]

Mike Mearls talks about the book and shows off some more art, including maps. I'm not sure of what all I see in there, any clue by fours?

The above is from the sage advice page about the new book

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/06/tales-from-the-yawning-portal-question-answers/


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm pretty hype. This is a cool way to talk about dungeons from other worlds, and a dungeon compendium has _wonderful_ utility. 

I like it better than sticking the Tomb of Horrors in Chult, by far. 

A pause in the storyline is good, too - I'm still neck-deep (heh) in _Curse of Strahd_, guys!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 6, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> Cool.  However, this sounds like the easier 'top down' version suggested when not using the module for tournament play, where you go into the module from the temple at the top.  You get to start on the surface with knowledge of the exit.  The tournament version starts you at the bottom of the dungeon after a cave in leaves you trapped there.  It's much easier to survive the module 'top down', but I have never run it that way.




We didn't go in from the top. We climbed down into the newly collapsed hole, which I believe is the same as the tournament entrance. Googling the map, it's labeled "Tournament Entrance or Dungeon Expansion." The difference is we weren't trapped in there from a cave-in, though I don't recall leaving in any case. Granted, it's been so long I really don't have a clear recollection. I'm not sure why you'd run the module with the cave-in for a home game, but yeah, a TPK would be much more likely if you did.



> Without slow poison, you take 1d6 damage per (noncombat) turn.  That alone will kill characters of the suggested level in only a few hours, and if you start at the bottom, you can't rest to recover spells or hit points.  There just aren't nearly enough portions and such in the dungeon to counter the damage.  Even with slow poison, which is not a given, taking 1 damage per (noncombat) turn is still enough to ensure low level characters are on a pretty hard clock, and at the very least don't have much of a cushion of hit points in any of the encounters.




You're not that "low level" by AD&D standards. I believe we were a party of four 6th-level characters. You should definitely have some resources at that level in AD&D. I'll say it again: I really think the poison gas is a problem to solve when you play the dungeon in a campaign. It shouldn't TPK you. If you don't have a cleric, yeah, that's likely going to be a problem, and not just because of the poison gas.

In any case, I have no doubt you could have used the module to TPK us. I'm just reporting that we did not, in fact, TPK.


----------



## robus (Jan 6, 2017)

Out of curiosity I just had a look at an ancient PDF of "Hidden Temple" and one thing I have to say I love is some of the adventurer's eye view renderings provided and something I think is missing from the 5e books. While there are a few flavor images in the 5e adventures they're not showing key images from the point of view of the adventuring party. It would be great to have some renderings of some of the key visuals in the adventures we're running (available as a pack of images that we can hand out in the session....) If this book includes updated renderings of those I could become quite intrigued... 

Perhaps this is why I'm drawn to the Art of M:tG books. While there are no maps the flavor I get from the plentiful images is quite inspiring.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Jan 6, 2017)

Vampyr3 said:


> Oh sorry, I forgot to drink the Kool Aid this morning before I came on.... my mistake



No worries, but please don't let it happen again if you can avoid it.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

Greg Benage said:


> We didn't go in from the top. We climbed down into the newly collapsed hole, which I believe is the same as the tournament entrance. Googling the map, it's labeled "Tournament Entrance or Dungeon Expansion." The difference is we weren't trapped in there from a cave-in, though I don't recall leaving in any case.




That would be a cool way to run it, retaining the difficulty but allowing the party an exit if they wanted one. 



> I'm not sure why you'd run the module with the cave-in for a home game, but yeah, a TPK would be much more likely if you did.




Almost all the time we played, we played homebrew campaigns with stuff we wrote or at least heavily modified.  However, from time to time we'd have a guest DM (usually an older player, such as a college aged cousin or a high schooler that heard about our table), or we'd want to try the challenge of a published 'competitive' module to see if we could beat it.  In those cases, we ran run shots using either pregenerated or one off characters.  My first introduction to both modules was ran by older DMs for us as a favor for the 'munchkins'.  

As such, we weren't using our 'primary' real 'earned' characters.  And while I know because I know the text of the module now that the DM of 'Tomb of Horrors' pulled at least one punch, by and large both DMs were 'out to get us'.  



> You're not that "low level" by AD&D standards. I believe we were a party of four 6th-level characters. You should definitely have some resources at that level in AD&D. I'll say it again: I really think the poison gas is a problem to solve when you play the dungeon in a campaign. It shouldn't TPK you. If you don't have a cleric, yeah, that's likely going to be a problem, and not just because of the poison gas.




There is actually very little clue that you are having a poison gas problem except for a vague hint about the unhealthy air.  It certainly won't be obvious to everyone that they are taking damage because they are being poisoned, so it might take a while to stumble on the solution to the problem.  And even then, it's a nasty problem.   A 6th level AD&D cleric doesn't have that many spells, and must prepare them in advance.  



> In any case, I have no doubt you could have used the module to TPK us. I'm just reporting that we did not, in fact, TPK.




LOL.  I believe you, because you are actually describing the circumstances and explaining some things that would otherwise be inexplicable (exit is available, stack of slow poison scrolls), and you know details of some of the encounters and are willing to tell your tales.  And I'm certainly not arguing that C1 can't or hasn't been beaten, only that its much harder to beat than S1.

Can C1 be beaten first try, even ran in 'hard mode'?  Yes, I think it can, but the way it's set up, there are a lot 'left/right' style coin flip decisions that parties have to make, and there are very little clean paths.  If you had 64 tables with no knowledge of the text, I'd expect a couple to randomly walk the right paths, get to the second level and then the winner (in a tournament) would be determined by scoring those few remaining tables.  Once you get up to the second level, the dungeon isn't necessarily easier, but its a whole lot fairer and more straight forward.  Whereas, if you had 64 tables with no knowledge of the text playing S1, I'd expect more than half to get to the Hall of Pillars, and most of those to the Mithril Vault.  Acererak isn't really beatable with any of the pregen parties, but several groups that got that far would be smart enough to not try.  The thing about S1 is that by and large Acererak 'plays fair', a fact so obvious that it was a major plot point of 'Return to the Tomb of Horrors' (which, ironically, doesn't play fair and is tougher than the original).


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 6, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> If the 1st level party has a few low level potions or scrolls it is quite doable.  How few they need is a matter of debate, but possibly as little as one _potion of flying_ would be sufficient for a 1st level party to complete the module.




How does a 1st level party with no fore knowledge deal with...

[sblock]The first false entrance that collapses for 5d10 damage no save? (page 3)[/sblock]

Just looking to see your view on this and understand.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 6, 2017)

Not sure when the product page for this was updated or if I just missed it when reading it the first time, but it is going to be 248 pages and include each of the seven adventures in full, not just the main dungeons pulled out and thrown into a new book.

Also, from Twitter, new Mike Schley maps!


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

SkidAce said:


> How does a 1st level party with no fore knowledge deal with...
> 
> [sblock]The first false entrance that collapses for 5d10 damage no save? (page 3)[/sblock]
> 
> Just looking to see your view on this and understand.




Most obviously, by not entering that entrance.  

They either randomly choose the middle one (or find it first) or they open all three and decide that the more interesting looking one with an obvious way forward is probably the real one, or they come up with some way to trigger the trap without being underneath it.  

In particular, as a low level party, the first thing I would (or would have) paid attention is to the cobwebs on the ceiling, which I would assume hide monstrous spiders (typical low level D&D trope).  We'd want to burn the webs without getting spider bit, so we wouldn't even go into the room without a plan for burning the webs.  But, as a side effect of burning away the webs, we'd see that the ceiling was unstable.  We'd then try to see if we could trigger the cave in without being underneath it, such as by prodding with a long pole while standing in the entrance arch.  A low level party that proceed like that would get very far into the module without much difficulty.  There is one place though were you need at least some magic so that you can do things without touching the floor.  But even as much as a 'Tenser's Floating Disk' (a 1st level spell) might do the trick, so yeah, 1st level party can do this.

(The aforementioned punch pulling was with the much worse sliding block trap on the other side, where we got our trapped PC out with 'stone shape', which I've since learned according to the text is not one of the approved methods.  Not knowing what the 'approved methods' are is one of the harder parts of the module as written.  So far as I can remember, that's the only time the DM pulled any punches with us (although, I wasn't aware of it at the time).)


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 6, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> That would be a cool way to run it, retaining the difficulty but allowing the party an exit if they wanted one.




Okay, I went and found the PDF. I'm going to read the whole thing now (swoon).



> The DM may decide between the 2 entrances into the ruins - the more conventional route through the pyramid-temple or the drastic tournament method entrance. The first entrance will require that the party dig their way in; while the latter, since the ground is unstable, will result in a cave-in 75% of the time.
> 
> It may happen that a party may wish to leave and re-enter the ruins, perhaps several times. A cautious party may want to replenish their spells or obtain special equipment. A party may also decide to retreat on encountering the poison gas. If this happens, the DM should restock some of the cleaned-out areas with new creatures.




So it seems like my experience was a pretty normal way for it to be run as a home game. I don't know if we got lucky avoiding the cave-in, or the experienced players took precautions (they were taking a lot of precautions!), or the DM just cut us some slack (I doubt it...Mike wasn't that guy). I do know we didn't climb the pyramid.

Also:



> The gas is a thick amber color and affects flame, causing it to sputter and glow redly only a pale ember of itself. Any light source caused by fire will have an effective range of only 10'."




No fair if the DM gives you undetectable poison gas!


----------



## ddaley (Jan 6, 2017)

This is awesome news.  I hope they plan to release more of these!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Uller (Jan 6, 2017)

Jester David said:


> "Most"?
> I think you're greatly overestimating how many new people have gotten into the game. Or how many players have family/friends who are experienced gamers.




Yes.  Most.  Most current active players have not played most of the adventures in TftYP.  It's an opinion.  I'm not going to go looking up hard sales numbers.  Mr Mearls sums it up nicely when he observed that he didn't own more than a handful of 2e products and WotC's market research indicated that's the norm.  It certainly matches my experience.  There were so many products available for 1e, 2e and 3e, only the most hardcore groups could have come close to playing them all.  It is unlikely that any currently active individual DM owns more than a couple of these. You seem to be suggesting that the market of current active players who would consider buying WotC products is comprised mostly of old school grognards with vast libraries of old adventures.  That seems unlikely to me. 

I'm guessing that WotC/Hasbro believes the same thing.   

CoS is anything by lazy.  It took one of the best adventures ever written (and really the first actually well polished adventure module) and made it better.  I see no reason not to expect more of the same from WotC with this product.  

Sure, copies of all of these could be obtained and updated to 5e by anyone.  But I have no interest in doing that.  I updated G1 to D&D Next.  It was fun...but I'm much more curious to see WotC's take on it.  They did a far more thorough job with CoS than I ever would have and I can discuss CoS with folks in the community.  I'm about to run my group through the Castle Ravenloft portion of it and the advice I have found within the community is invaluable.  

A big part of the fun of published official adventures is the shared experience of the community.  Now people in the community that never would have experienced any of these adventures will get to experience them and those of us who have experienced them before will get to experience them again but with a new take by new players and new writers and artists.  WotC is betting that that is the case.  I guess we'll see if it's true.

I get that it's not for everyone.  If you happen to have played through all these before and many of the people in your group have played even a few of them they are probably useless to you.  They aren't going to hit 100% of the market every time.  Hopefully next time will be more to your liking.  For me, this product is very interesting.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

Greg Benage said:


> So it seems like my experience was a pretty normal way for it to be run as a home game.




Very likely.  If I was running it as part of a campaign, I'd definitely run it differently.  But, I wouldn't run C1 in the tournament style for real characters any more than I'd run S1 for real characters.  Both are just too brutal.



> I do know we didn't climb the pyramid.




We opened with the tournament intro.  I didn't know about the pyramid at all until I bought the module.



> No fair if the DM gives you undetectable poison gas!




We knew about it, we just didn't try to do anything about it until we started to take damage.  We had a party of 5-6, 5th to 6th level characters.  I don't remember who all showed up for that one.  I also don't remember exactly what equipment we had, but I think we had all or most of the magic equipment from the pregen party redistributed among the six of us.  I do remember that the fact that we were on a clock made it feel more like we had to deal with problems when they happened, rather than proactively trying to prevent problems by taking things slow, making plans, and being cautious - and created a feeling of panic (rather than the paranoid terror we had for S1).  I think we had one cleric, and way too many people taking damage to deal with it.  (I was almost certainly a thief, because I was always the party thief, but I honestly don't remember what I played now that I think about.)  We got some PCs mauled pretty hard by the pointless vampire encounter before killing it, and I think someone drowned early on in a flood.  I don't remember how everyone died, but I was buried in sand.

As for the time limit, we naturally pushed past it, TPKing somewhere around the 4 hour mark(?).  Most of us were dead by that point, including me, so my memory of the whole thing isn't as clear as S1.


----------



## Uller (Jan 6, 2017)

SkidAce said:


> How does a 1st level party with no fore knowledge deal with...
> 
> [sblock]The first false entrance that collapses for 5d10 damage no save? (page 3)[/sblock]
> 
> Just looking to see your view on this and understand.




That was my thought.  ToH was specifically designed to thwart a group of experienced players that approached the adventure like any other dungeon (i.e. lazily...like it is a bunch of bowling pins set up for them to knock down).  You have a 2 in 3 chance of finding a false entrance with a very deadly trap.  Very few players are going to say "Oh look...we finally found an entrance after digging in the dirt for hours and hours.  Let's keep looking for another entrance!"  They're going to bid their retainer good-bye, gather up their gear and head into yon dungeon in search of Fortune and Glory(tm) much to the amusement of the DM and to the horror of the retainers ("Good thing we made them pay us half up front!  I wonder if they left anything we can sell in the camp?").

My players are very very confident right now.  I am hoping to knock them down a bit with Strahd in a beefed up version of CoS.  But their typical approach to any dungeon is to look in every nook and cranny hoping to find a secret door or some other weakness that allows them to tackle the dungeon through a backdoor.  They take down much of the dungeon piecemeal until the general alarm goes up but by then they have weakened the defenders enough to fight at least to a stalemate, then they rest if they can and finish it off.  I would love to run them through ToH and watch them try that approach.  I would gather that after half the party was dead they'd rethink it.

I have no idea how ToH compares with SoT.  I owned the latter but never played it and don't remember the specifics.  I did run ToH and the results lived up to the reputation.  Maybe my players were just dumb high school kids...oh wait...they were dumb high school kids.  ;-)


----------



## ddaley (Jan 6, 2017)

I want S4 - Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth!  I have the original, but, having a reprint that is updated for 5e would be worth buying.



Sacrosanct said:


> FINE!  I would really like to see the Desert of Desolation series, and failing that, Hidden Shrine.
> 
> Happy now!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 6, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## ddaley (Jan 6, 2017)

I have the original of S3 as well.  An updated compilation of S1 - S4 would have been great.  Hopefully, they'll update S3 & S4 soon.  I'll throw money at those in a heartbeat.  They should do a kickstarter, so I can throw money at them before they are even created!



lowkey13 said:


> Including S1 and S2 without S3 and S4 is like giving us dinner, but then sending us to bed without dessert.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

Uller said:


> That was my thought.  ToH was specifically designed to thwart a group of experienced players that approached the adventure like any other dungeon (i.e. lazily...like it is a bunch of bowling pins set up for them to knock down).  You have a 2 in 3 chance of finding a false entrance with a very deadly trap.  Very few players are going to say "Oh look...we finally found an entrance after digging in the dirt for hours and hours.  Let's keep looking for another entrance!"




I generally agree, but the collapsing entrance for 5d10 damage (average 28) is not that deadly to 9th-10th level characters.  Most will survive, and basically everyone will survive if you use the common 'death at -10' rule rather than death at 0.  And that's assuming you do nothing and just trustingly walk in, which of all the entrances is probably the least likely.   Oh, and unlike most of ToH's traps, it leaves a body, which at this level is something.



> I did run ToH and the results lived up to the reputation.  Maybe my players were just dumb high school kids...oh wait...they were dumb high school kids.  ;-)




Ok, invoking the 'ToH' rule: no mentioning something like that without an accompanying story of how at least one PC died.


----------



## Uller (Jan 6, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> I generally agree, but the collapsing entrance for 5d10 damage (average 28) is not that deadly to 9th-10th level characters.  Most will survive, and basically everyone will survive if you use the common 'death at -10' rule rather than death at 0.  And that's assuming you do nothing and just trustingly walk in, which of all the entrances is probably the least likely.   Oh, and unlike most of ToH's traps, it leaves a body, which at this level is something.



I was referring more to the notion that 1st level characters could "beat" it.  It probably depends on your definition of winning.  If it is "leave the dungeon alive after watching most of the party die" then I suppose it is true.  



> Ok, invoking the 'ToH' rule: no mentioning something like that without an accompanying story of how at least one PC died.




Oh...it was so long ago, I can't recall.  I do remember the look on my friend's face when he put a diamond in the gargoyle statue's hand, and it crushed it and dumped it on the floor.  They shrugged and moved on without getting the gem of true seeing.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 6, 2017)

Uller said:


> Yes.  Most.  Most current active players have not played most of the adventures in TftYP.  It's an opinion.  I'm not going to go looking up hard sales numbers.  Mr Mearls sums it up nicely when he observed that he didn't own more than a handful of 2e products and WotC's market research indicated that's the norm.  It certainly matches my experience.  There were so many products available for 1e, 2e and 3e, only the most hardcore groups could have come close to playing them all.  It is unlikely that any currently active individual DM owns more than a couple of these. You seem to be suggesting that the market of current active players who would consider buying WotC products is comprised mostly of old school grognards with vast libraries of old adventures.  That seems unlikely to me.
> 
> I'm guessing that WotC/Hasbro believes the same thing.
> 
> ...




I've been playing D&D since 1988, and the only one of the adventures in this book that I've played is _White Plume Mountain_.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2017)

Uller said:


> I was referring more to the notion that 1st level characters could "beat" it.  It probably depends on your definition of winning.  If it is "leave the dungeon alive after watching most of the party die" then I suppose it is true.




I define 'winning' or 'beating the module' with respect to ToH as getting out alive with Acererak's treasure.  Defeating the Demilich is literally not possible with any of the PreGen parties, as none of them have the methods (and player's have no way of knowing the methods either).  But 1e AD&D play awards XP primarily based on loot obtained, so I believe this is a reasonable measurement.  

I have heard however of groups that managed to destroy Acererak in tournament play using a Gygax approved method (its sketchy, but since we have his seal on it, it works).  However, it's not clear to me that they could have discovered that method without reading the text.  If they did, and weaponized the trap based on exploration and creativity, then my hat is off to them.  They are truly dungeon crawlers without peer.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Jan 7, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> Woah .... that's dark, man! I was not expecting this thread to go all Bundy.
> 
> Anyway, I think some people miss the point re: nostalgia. Too much nostalgia can kill a product.* On the other hand, D&D has been around for a very long time (using 1976 as the date, that means 40 years). Which in turn means that the people who played it as kids/teens, especially during the so-called Golden Age when it was more of a pop-culture phenomenon, would be at the point where they can teach it to their children and/or extended families.
> 
> ...



Not so fun fact- Homosexuality was also considered to be a mental illness.


----------



## wwanno (Jan 7, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> If the 1st level party has a few low level potions or scrolls it is quite doable.  How few they need is a matter of debate, but possibly as little as one _potion of flying_ would be sufficient for a 1st level party to complete the module.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I totally agree with you about ToH, if you roll any dice in there, you are playing wrongly, because there is no need at all.

The module was not written to kill PCs, it was written to kill those PCs whose players rely only on stats and dice rolling, without actually think.

And it is successful in its intent!

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> *shrug* Different people, different preferences.
> 
> I have a good deal of experience with Castle Amber. It is very old-school (in the best ways) and very creative. I have also run it in 5e (twice). It worked really well.
> 
> One of my all-time favorite modules.



Maybe some mis-communication: I've got nothing against X2, and hope to run it again some time. (If I do, it will probably be using AD&D as the system).

I still think the RPGnet thread is funny and interesting.



Jer said:


> I'm not Iosue, but I have a lot of experience with Castle Amber.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Given what you've written, you didn't get to the best parts of the adventure.



As I said, my memories from _playing_ it are zero. Refeering it, I remember the barbarain boxing against the magen, and maybe the lion-headed guy, but it's all a bit shaky but for the killer tree.



Jer said:


> The adventure is inspired by the works of Edgar Alan Poe, Clark Ashton-Smith and HP Lovecraft (with a heavy dose of CAS) and it's a horror/fantasy adventure for D&D written before Ravenloft - meaning that they didn't yet know how to convey horror in an adventure.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've never had any trouble with any of this. Not to say that I'm necessarily good at GMing that, but I can recognise it.

When I was running it I was also playing up the absurd elements - I think you have to. (Absurd doesn't have to be light-hearted - eg Waiting for Godot.)


----------



## SpiritOfFire (Jan 7, 2017)

I have not played these classics. I'm an excited noob right now. Will pick up to DM, but I wish I could experience some of these as a player instead


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 7, 2017)

SpiritOfFire said:


> Will pick up to DM, but I wish I could experience some of these as a player instead




. . . and right there, you describe what it's like to be a DM at least 80℅ of the time.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 7, 2017)

MichaelArkAngel said:


> Just a random thought now that I've gotten through the comments, but are these adventures meant to played consecutively, or are they just smaller "bite sized" adventures to be thrown in your campaign at any time?



As I understand it, they're stand-alone adventures, but their levels match up so you can run them as a level 1 to whatever campaign if you're so inclined.

As for the "But everyone already has these and have played them" issue: I've been playing D&D since the early 90s (and other RPGs since about 1985). The only one of these adventures I've played is The Sunless Citadel (I also have The Forge of Fury lying around somewhere, but never played it). D&D is also currently experiencing a boom with *lots* of new players who never played anything before 5e (one of my two regular gaming groups is like this - I'm the only player who has played D&D before, though most of the others have some RPG experience).


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 7, 2017)

Je3nni2fer said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.  *snip spam link* -Darkness





Corpsetaker said:


> So they use the good old Yawning Portal in the title to suck in the Realms fans only to find that only one of them is a Realms adventure.




Go away Corpsetaker. This is literally the same line you used at the start of the thread not even a single word of difference. Also get rid of the _*snip spammed site's name* -Darkness_ thing.

Also to be exact. One adventure is Realms, 3 are Greyhawk, 3 are generic d&d. All of them can be put into whatever world you would like.


----------



## guachi (Jan 7, 2017)

lowkey13 said:


> I think that the reason C1 hooked a lot of us (and I view it as a somewhat forgotten gem) was the mesoamerican flavor, which _at the time_ was a real eye-opener. Not to mention this was before even Indiana Jones and the like.
> 
> I think from the modern eye it suffers from being a little too trap-heavy and lacking a plot;* kinda like Tomb of Horrors. In addition, like many old school modules, it was railroady in the extreme.
> 
> *Typical plot- you need to kill stuff, avoid getting killed, and get loot.




Indiana Jones (1 & 2) really was a big influence, at least on me, in my love for D&D. Maybe there was something at the time that these kinds of explorations of exotic places would be fun for Americans to partake in, either in a theater or as a game. I don't really know as I was quite young.

However, your listing of the two of the adventures being railroady and plotless hits on why I'm not as excited as I otherwise might be about this book. I don't have much desire to play either Shrine or Tomb no matter the edition. Though I will say that "Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan" is one of the the greatest names for a module ever. My friend's parents owned it back in the day and I wanted to play it on the title and cover alone.


----------



## jagerfury (Jan 7, 2017)

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet in this thread, but Classic Modules Today is a project that got started in February by Stan Shinn. He has got a bunch of enthusiastic 1e fans (me included) to create 5e conversion guides for original modules. They are all available at the DM's Guild and as you can see by the list 38 guides are currently available with another 37 in the works. Most of the greatest hits can be found in the finished 38. Better yet, WotC is releasing these classics in POD format on a semi-regularly basis. Of course they are all available as PDF too so most any popular 1e module is currently available with a handy 5e conversion guide to save you all the hassle of converting.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 7, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I wonder what the Venn diagram is between people who think publishing _Yawning Portal_ is lazy, and those people who desperately want a 5E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book?
> 
> Cause seeing as how a FRCS book would be pretty much a cut and paste from the information they've already written in SKT, SCAG, the 4E setting book, and part of the 3E book for those far-flung sections of Faerun that barely anyone knows about let alone actually run campaigns in so it doesn't matter WHAT information you included there... you could consider doing both books just as lazy.  So I wonder how many people are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they say they need one but are pissed about the other?




If you can have a Spell Plague then a 100 year time jump and then a Sundering, a Tiamat summoning, a Rage of Demons, a Ravenloft incursion, a Giant farting contest and you can still cut and paste info from a 3e book for 5e then yeah that is pretty lazy.

Score extra lazy points for rehashing all the old art work as well.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 7, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> Score extra lazy points for rehashing all the old art work as well.




But they are not doing that. They are making new artwork.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 7, 2017)

MonsterEnvy said:


> But they are not doing that. They are making new artwork.




So we are getting the fabled FRCG and you have seen the new art?

Or are you talking about the Yawning Portal?


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 7, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> So we are getting the fabled FRCG and you have seen the new art?
> 
> Or are you talking about the Yawning Portal?




I misread your post. I was talking about Yawning Portal.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (Jan 7, 2017)

I'll admit I'm cautiously excited. If these are updated right, I can see a lot of people being happy. Wrong, and I don't want to be anywhere near that firestorm.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 7, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> If you can have a Spell Plague then a 100 year time jump and then a Sundering, a Tiamat summoning, a Rage of Demons, a Ravenloft incursion, a Giant farting contest and you can still cut and paste info from a 3e book for 5e then yeah that is pretty lazy.
> 
> Score extra lazy points for rehashing all the old art work as well.




This is a point that some who are asking why some want to have a new FRCS seem to miss - the setting has seen some substantial changes since even the 4e campaign setting, let alone the excellent 3e version, which is now 100 years and two cataclysms in the past. Meanwhile, I can, for example, easily use my 3e _Living Greyhawk Gazetteer_ and Anna B Meyer's amazing Greyhawk map with no changes whatsoever for either should I want to do something in that setting, and still be fully up to date with the setting. For good or ill, the Realms, unlike other settings, has moved onward from the last campaign setting book, with changes that it would be nice to see detailed (even if in general terms).


----------



## halfling rogue (Jan 7, 2017)

This is pretty much exactly what I wanted. Short adventures and old school updates. I've never played/DM'd any of these so it's all new to me. I've heard about almost all of these adventures and have been wanting to run them in 5e. I know that many are already in the DMs Guild but I don't do pdfs so having them all in one book will be great. 

This product may have some old schoolers rolling their eyes or might have people think wotc is lazy, but I'm here to tell you I spoke and they listened! Hope those guys eventually get what they want but I'll be getting mine in April!

Also I was excited to hear Mearls say in the Forbes video that they thought about calling this something generic like Greatest Dungeons Compendium 1 (or something) which indicated to me that there will hopefully be a "Compendium 2", etc down the line.


----------



## werecorpse (Jan 7, 2017)

My first hope is that this is a big success and drives further productions of compiled updated old adventures. As has been pointed out if they are doing the whole G series this is really 9 adventures so less than $6 per adventure. Brilliant.

I always played "standard d&d" in the past 35+ years it never bothered me whether it was greyhawk, forgotten realms or generic as that reflavoring is ridiculously easy, so my second hope is that driven by success of this and d&d classics they produce a similar single best of book of each of the best adventures for a string of loosely connectable Dark Sun, Planescape & Spelljammer adventures (I've never really played in those campaigns but there must be at least 256 pages of decent well flavoured adventures in each campaign)

My third hope is that we get other compilations. Like a greyhawk one: U1-3 + A1-4 + C2 + WG4 finishing with S4. An Al Qadim one including the desert of desolation series,a DragonLance, maybe night below etc.

My reasoning is that they could produce the adventures pretty easily with just a small crew working on them, they scratch the nostalgia, seperate adventures and adventure path itch all at the same time and if they just produce one of these compilations a year they can tie in "guides" that fit the theme. (Psionic when they release Dark Sun, Planar when they do Planescape etc).

A dream I know...

P.s. An even more forlorn hope is that they work something out with Paizo and produce an updated Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tide.

P.p.s yes I know I can do all the conversions myself and I probably will if need be but I'm sure there are people out there like me who were vaguely interested in say Dark Sun or Planescape but never got into it but would jump at a relatively straight "best of" conversion.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 7, 2017)

jagerfury said:


> I don't know if it has been mentioned yet in this thread, but Classic Modules Today is a project that got started in February by Stan Shinn. He has got a bunch of enthusiastic 1e fans (me included) to create 5e conversion guides for original modules. They are all available at the DM's Guild and as you can see by the list 38 guides are currently available with another 37 in the works. Most of the greatest hits can be found in the finished 38. Better yet, WotC is releasing these classics in POD format on a semi-regularly basis. Of course they are all available as PDF too so most any popular 1e module is currently available with a handy 5e conversion guide to save you all the hassle of converting.




Thanks. I have picked a couple of these up and appreciate the work you folks are doing. I own most of the original modules in either print or pdf (after a massive purge of my collection), and for my part, I would much rather use my old stuff than see WOTC reimagining the art, changing up the setting details and rewriting them in whole or part. I started playing when G1 had just hit the shelves and the thought of re-writes by WOTC* for a new audience are like the thought of Lucas' Special Editions - barf.


*Having seen Perkins' and SKR's rewrites/riffs off the Giant series in Dungeon Mag and ATG:TLoG for example.


----------



## Jer (Jan 7, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> the setting has seen some substantial changes since even the 4e campaign setting, let alone the excellent 3e version, which is now 100 years and two cataclysms in the past. Meanwhile, I can, for example, easily use my 3e _Living Greyhawk Gazetteer_ and Anna B Meyer's amazing Greyhawk map with no changes




This is why what Wizards needs to do the next time the revamp the Forgotten Realms campaign setting is:

* Make a single, system neutral "Atlas and Gazeteer to the Realms" (or whatever they want to call it) set in year XXXX.
* Stop advancing the timeline in the setting material and leave it up to individual tables to do what they will.

It's not the 90s anymore.  "Metaplot" was a way to make books attractive to people who weren't actually playing the games that the metaplot was running through.  RPGs don't sell that way anymore and that model has some severe detriments to it.  Like the fact that people view perfectly good campaign material as "out of date" because it isn't "current with the timeline".  

Plus it makes the campaign setting difficult to use.  I only use the Realms with people who haven't read Realms fiction or don't have experience in the Realms.  I refuse to run it for anyone who is a huge Realms fan.  Because my version will diverge from the expectations set by the fiction and I don't want to disappoint them and I certainly am not going to work to make my game "canon" in any way.  

On the other hand, my 3rd edition Eberron material remains perfectly good material for starting up a new campaign because they didn't advance the timeline - not in 3rd edition or in 4th edition.  And the novels pretty clearly set up a version of Eberron that is "one path" that the setting "might take" from the initial material.  That's an excellent way to handle the fiction - and the way the Realms should handle it in the future.  I don't begrudge the way they handled it in the 90s - it's how you sold books in the 90s after all.  But that model just doesn't work anymore at the level it needs to to support a company - and arguably given what happened to TSR in the end it didn't really work then either.  They need a better approach to keep things viable in the future and I hope they figure it out before they set about publishing any updated Campaign Settings, but especially before they publish what is arguably the company's Most Important Campaign Setting.


----------



## Wurm1234 (Jan 7, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> What's the Yawning Portal?




The Yawning Portal is the name of the Waterdhavian tavern that sits atop the most famous (but not the only) entrance to Undermountain.  Undermountain is probably the most famous dungeon in the Forgotten Realms and served as the basis for many/most of the early adventures in FR.  I sourced this from "Halls of Undermountain", a 4e sourcebook.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 7, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> I've been playing D&D since 1988, and the only one of the adventures in this book that I've played is _White Plume Mountain_.




I, too, have been playing D&D since 1988, and I've never played any of the adventures in TftYP.  The closest I've come is skim-reading Tomb of Horrors.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 7, 2017)

Jer said:


> This is why what Wizards needs to do the next time the revamp the Forgotten Realms campaign setting is:
> 
> * Make a single, system neutral "Atlas and Gazeteer to the Realms" (or whatever they want to call it) set in year XXXX.
> * Stop advancing the timeline in the setting material and leave it up to individual tables to do what they will.




That exists. It's called the Forgotten Realms Wiki:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page


----------



## Iosue (Jan 7, 2017)

Jester David said:


> That exists. It's called the Forgotten Realms Wiki:
> http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page




I suspect that's one reason they are reluctant to do a campaign setting.  What can they put out that can come close to the comprehensiveness and detail of the Wiki?  And a campaign setting gets further out of date with each new release.  The Wiki is only going to grow.  And it's free!


----------



## Morrus (Jan 7, 2017)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Go away Corpsetaker. This is literally the same line you used at the start of the thread not even a single word of difference. Also get rid of the mailmarke thing.




That was just a spambot; it's been dealt with. They often post snippets of previous posts. But please don't tell other users to go away - simply report problem posts and let the mods handle things. Thanks!


----------



## Jester David (Jan 7, 2017)

Just musing about my thoughts on the various adventures included. 

*Against the Giants*
This is an odd choice, as it was semi-updated for 5e already with _Storm King's Thunder_. I'm not sure what WotC was thinking with this. It doesn't even really have an "end" as the drow element likely won't be included. 
The level range might have been a factor, but several of the I series would have been the same level range, as would _The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth_. 

Thumbs down

*Dead in Thay*
Another odd choice, as this one is was already published for 5e, albeit for the playtest. This doesn't so much need an "update" as a couple monsters. Did they need something appropriate at this level range? 

I was disappointed by Dead in Thay as it was supposed to be the conclusion of the _Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle_ plot, which was kinda/sorta continued in _Scourge of the Sword Coast_. But then that story just sorta went away and didn't really have a satisfying end, making _Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle_ less interesting and more problematic. 
If they were going to reprint _Dead in Thay_, they probably should have just done a big _Dreams of the Red Wizards_ storyline that combined all thee of the above, fixes the story issues, fills in the level gaps, and has an actual frakking ending.

In defence of this inclusion, it was never physically printed before. Being originally available on the defunct D&D Classics site, and now on the DMsGuild and DriveThruRPG. And a Copper/Electrum seller, it's only really moved 300 or so copies on those two sites. So there are a lot of gamers who have never seen this adventure. 

Thumbs down

*Forge of Fury*
I imagine this and _Sunless Citadel_ are the first, safe attempt at viewing 3e adventures and content as classical adventures or seeing how nostalgia there is for these books. This way they can see if they should look to other 3e adventures for inspiration or as the sources of storylines, or just focus on 1e.

The DMsGuild description says "It distinguishes itself less for truly innovative dungeon and encounter design than it does for providing a good, solid, old-school adventuring experience." Which is something of an ironic as most of the classic dungeon craws were old-school for the innovative and creative dungeons. This seems very much in line with my experiences with past Rich Baker adventures: so-so encounters and bland dungeons. 
But the uneven encounters and challenging fights do make it sound nice and old school. Although this will be far less challenging in 5e if done straight: ropers are far lower in CR.

Thumbs up

*Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan*
One of the few here I've actually played part of. Never made it out of the first level and I think I missed most of the little bonuses and extras. The inability to sit and rest in the lower levels made this tricky. 
This is a solid choice for this product, being well known yet not as iconic, and having a different tone and aesthetic that would make it harder to include as a singular storyline. And there's less of a "villain" to build a story around. 

Thumbs up

*Sunless Citadel*
A safe choice. Not the best first level adventure ever, but one of the few that's dungeon based (unlike _Keep on the Borderlands_). And as I said earlier, this is likely the first, safe attempt at viewing 3e adventures as "classics" or "nostalgic".
As the first adventure of 3e, a lot of people played this, so it has a strong appeal to play again or for experienced gamers to use as an introduction for new players. It might be be the most played adventure here, rather than most-heard-about or most-read. 

With a Tiamat killing story in the can there's two adventures that end with "kill a big ass dragon". An Ashardalon storyline doesn't seem as strong a choice. While reimagining the first 3e "adventure path" into a much more consistent storyline and less episodic mess would be interesting (and even desirable) that would have to be many years in the future, so it's safe to just do these now. If they decide to return to Ashardalon later, they can start with _The Speaker in Dreams_. (Or just do the much more interesting _Dragon Mountain_.)

Thumbs up

*Tomb of Horrors*
This mean we're unlikely to see a _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_ storyline. Which is fine. I imagine this product exists because they needed to do something with classics like that or _Hidden Shrine_ or _White Plume Mountain_, but couldn't turn them into full storylines of their own. So this is a way to just take those off the board all at once. This way they're not trying to do a _Tomb of Horrors_ storyline where you run around from level 1 to 10 doing unrelated things before trying to attempt a demilich lair battle at level 13.

This adventure is a bit of a mess with it's illogical solutions to "puzzles". Where the solution to the "puzzle" isn't signalled anywhere. There are no clues and you either need to succeed through brute force (either definition). I'd actually pay good money to see this dungeon with better solutions that rewards creativity rather than just weird luck and having the exact right spell prepared. And a little more margin for error in the traps, where you have a round or two to consider a solution before death.  
Let's face it, _Tomb of Horrors_ is full of traps. Not traps for the characters, but traps for the players. _*All*_ of the players, as there are plenty of DM traps here as well. This is a dick module that makes the person running it a dick. 

Tumb dependant on execution

*White Plume Mountain*
Like the _Tomb of Horrors_, this one depends on the execution. If it's presented as a straight update, or tweaked and revised to conform to modern adventure design. 

I've run this and found it to actually be rather terrible. It was a writing sample and it shows. It's the apex of illogical dungeon design. There's no consistency, no reason for the dungeon to exist, and only the flimsiest pretense at a "plot", as if someone designed a dungeon via madlibs or a random dungeon generator. It's an example of how _not_ to design a dungeon. 
It's less a singular dungeon that you can just drop into play and more a series of chambers and rooms that you can pull out and use in your own dungeons.

Unlike _Tomb of Horrors_, I'm not sure this can be redeemed through better phrasing of the puzzle solutions. It's just too much of a mess.

Thumbs down


The big catch with this product is while there are few gamers who have played _all_ these adventures, there are likely few who haven't played at least one. That makes it less desirable as a 1-14 storyline adventure.
And the fact of the matter is, people who haven't played _Tomb of Horrors_ or _Against the Giants_have NOT done so because it wasn't available. It was available for every prior edition - often in multiple formats - and updating adventures isn't hard. People _chose_ to play other adventures. While these adventures have been updated before, and it does kinda make sense to update them again, I'm not a fan of this coming at the expense of a storyline adventure. But, with the seeming limit of three books per year and this being a poor fit for the fall accessory product, I don't suppose there was an alternative. 
In theory this will introduce new players to these "classic" adventures. Allow a new generation to read these products. It will be interesting to see how this product does. I'll pick it up for review purposes for my blog, but I'm not sure it will ever leave my shelf after that...


I'm curious to see what the Adventurer's League is doing now for this season. Since there's not a lot of side stories or adventures that can be told about this. I imagine - like _Curse of Strahd_ - the Neverwinter MMO isn't doing much with this adventure. 

WotC has kinda settled into a "big story/small story" rotation in that respect. The Winter story gets less digital support and so far has generally been a retreat of a classic: _Temple of Elemental Evil_, _Castle Ravenloft_, and now this. While the summer storyline is different and more "new" but also larger in scope, tying into stuff like Acquisitions Incorporated (and now Force Grey), convention play, Neverwinter, and the like.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 7, 2017)

Out of curiousity, I did a quick check of the page count of each of the original adventures, including maps, but not covers:

Tomb of Horrors: 34 pages
White Plume Mountain: 14 pages
Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan: 44 pages
Against the Giants: 38 pages
Forge of Fury: 34 pages
Sunless Citadel: 34 pages
Dead in Thay: 106 pages

Total: 304 pages

The last four WotC adventure releases have all been 256 pages, which gives us ±36 pages per adventure for _Tales_. That seems about right, and probably means _White Plume_ will get the most substantial update, and _Dead in Thay_ the heaviest cutting.


----------



## darjr (Jan 7, 2017)

Wow, white plume mountain is only 14 pages?

It looms so much larger in my memory.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Jan 7, 2017)

Does anybody know what the original level ranges of these adventures where ?


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 7, 2017)

darjr said:


> Wow, white plume mountain is only 14 pages?



I was so surprised by this when I opened the PDF that I pulled the printed version off the shelf to double-check. The actual adventure is only *9* pages. The rest is two pages of player hand-outs, two pages of maps (back of the cover) and a title page.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 7, 2017)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> Does anybody know what the original level ranges of these adventures where ?



Bearing in mind that levels don't necessarily compare that well between editions, and that early AD&D adventures often assumed a larger group of players than later editions:

Sunless Citadel: "The Sunless Citadel is a Dungeons & Dragons adventure suitable for four 1st-level player characters."
Forge of Fury: "The Forge of Fury is a Dungeons & Dragons adventure suitable for four 3rd-level player characters."
White Plume Mountain: "This module was designed for characters of fifth through tenth level."
Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan: "An adventure for character levels 5-7"
Dead in Thay: "An adventure for characters of 6th–8th level"
Against the Giants: "Three adventures for character levels 8-12"
Tomb of Horrors: "An adventure for character levels 10-14"


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 7, 2017)

Echohawk said:


> Out of curiousity, I did a quick check of the page count of each of the original adventures, including maps, but not covers:
> 
> Tomb of Horrors: 34 pages
> White Plume Mountain: 14 pages
> ...





Per the product page, this will be 248 pages total; Dead in Thay is just the "Doomvault," so cut extensively I gather.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 7, 2017)

Given that there will be 7 dungeons and some pages will be needed for monster updates, I expect them to average around 30 pages each...

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 7, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Given that there will be 7 dungeons and some pages will be needed for monster updates, I expect them to average around 30 pages each...
> 
> Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app





don't forget they established there will be aids for setting the adventures in at least four worlds (Greyhawk, FR, DL and Eberron) and for linking them together...


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 7, 2017)

Jester David said:


> WotC has kinda settled into a "big story/small story" rotation in that respect. The Winter story gets less digital support and so far has generally been a retreat of a classic: _Temple of Elemental Evil_, _Castle Ravenloft_, and now this. While the summer storyline is different and more "new" but also larger in scope, tying into stuff like Acquisitions Incorporated (and now Force Grey), convention play, Neverwinter, and the like.




It matches M:TGs Big-product/Small Product release schedule well. 

That said, the Spring product is also a little more... experimental? EE/PotA had the digital player's guide, CoS was the first not set in FR, and TotYP is the first anthology adventure. Perhaps that allows them to try new things while having a more "traditional" summer release to hang their supplements on.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 7, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> don't forget they established there will be aids for setting the adventures in at least four worlds (Greyhawk, FR, DL and Eberron) and for linking them together...




True, but even then, 7 adventures at 30 pages each is 210 pages. That leaves 38 pages for the bestiary (given the monsters that need to be updated, I see this as about 25 pages at most), conversion notes, as well as other miscellaneous stuff, which should be adequate.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 7, 2017)

Echohawk said:


> Bearing in mind that levels don't necessarily compare that well between editions, and that early AD&D adventures often assumed a larger group of players than later editions:
> 
> Sunless Citadel: "The Sunless Citadel is a Dungeons & Dragons adventure suitable for four 1st-level player characters."
> Forge of Fury: "The Forge of Fury is a Dungeons & Dragons adventure suitable for four 3rd-level player characters."
> ...




Based on this, I think the level order is going to be

Sunless: 1st - 3rd 
Forge: 3rd - 5th 
Shrine 5th-7th 
Thay 7th-8th (since we're only getting the Doomvault)
Mountain: 8th-10th  (on the higher end because some of the classic foes from it are an oni, a vampire, and an efreet, which are all on the higher end of the CR. Also, the three weapons are powerful per the DMG)
Giants 10th-13th (to match the upgraded giant stats)
Tomb: 13th-15th (hinted at in the Forbe's article)

I do wonder if there will be some "rebalancing" done, just simply do to the fact monsters changed challenge "level" from edition to edition. Perhaps less monsters in certain encounters, or traps whose damage falls more into 5e's parameters.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 7, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Given that there will be 7 dungeons and some pages will be needed for monster updates, I expect them to average around 30 pages each...



Remember that there were also pages dedicated to monsters in the originals:

Tomb of Horrors: none
White Plume: ½ page (Kelpie)
Hidden Shrine: 3¾ pages (compiled stats + Nereid, Gibbering Mouther)
Against the Giants: 1½ pages (Drow)
Sunless Citadel: 2½ pages (compiled stats + Twig Blight)
Forge of Fury: 3 pages (compiled stats + subterranean lizard)
Dead in Thay: 32½ pages! (lots and lots of creatures)

Total: 43¾ pages, or 14%

Dead in Thay is obviously an outlier here, both in terms of overall length and number of monster pages, but those are the raw numbers.


----------



## Marandahir (Jan 7, 2017)

Of course, most of these adventures could fit in any setting. In fact, as we've seen last Edition, many of them were already transplanted from their original game settings to the continents featured in Conquest of Nerath, the most expansive world map we have for the Points of Light/Nentir Vale setting that dominated that edition.


----------



## robus (Jan 7, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> Based on this, I think the level order is going to be
> 
> Sunless: 1st - 3rd
> Forge: 3rd - 5th
> ...




If the adventures can be stitched together in that way then it might make the book a suitable guide for my Zendikar campaign idea. Explore the world the find these legendary tombs/places. Names etc changed to suit of course. But that might be a nice way to take something old and give it a fresh twist.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 7, 2017)

Echohawk said:


> Out of curiousity, I did a quick check of the page count of each of the original adventures, including maps, but not covers:
> 
> Tomb of Horrors: 34 pages
> White Plume Mountain: 14 pages
> ...




I believe _Dead in Thay_ also includes playtest rules and the like, which liked eats up some of the pages.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 7, 2017)

Jer said:


> This is why what Wizards needs to do the next time the revamp the Forgotten Realms campaign setting is:
> 
> * Make a single, system neutral "Atlas and Gazeteer to the Realms" (or whatever they want to call it) set in year XXXX.
> * Stop advancing the timeline in the setting material and leave it up to individual tables to do what they will.




Honestly, all they really need to do is another SCAG-type book, and focus it on Cormyr/Sembia/Dalelands/Moonsea and surrounding areas like SCAG was focused on the Sword Coast/Savage Frontier/Western Heartlands region. That would cover the other main region of the setting where a lot of people set their campaigns. And, since SCAG has already covered a lot of the setting's general information like gods and races, this book could use the remaining page count to cover the rest of the setting in relatively broad terms (enough to know the important information for each region, but not town-by-town detail, similar to what the Gray Box did, although probably somewhat more detailed). If they were to do that, we would actually have a 2-book FRCS, and the situation would be rectified...


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 7, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> True, but even then, 7 adventures at 30 pages each is 210 pages. That leaves 38 pages for the bestiary (given the monsters that need to be updated, I see this as about 25 pages at most), conversion notes, as well as other miscellaneous stuff, which should be adequate.





Don't have Curse of Strahd: do the fold-out maps count towards the page count?  Given a 256 standard pages, minus 8 (close to 7...), some fold-out dungeon maps may be in store...


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2017)

Echohawk said:


> I was so surprised by this when I opened the PDF that I pulled the printed version off the shelf to double-check. The actual adventure is only *9* pages. The rest is two pages of player hand-outs, two pages of maps (back of the cover) and a title page.



This made me go and pull my copy off the shelf.

It seems to be a 1981 printing. And yep, it's 16 pages:

1 page front splash/publication details;

Half-page adventure intro;

1 page GM's notes, adventure set-up, wandering monsters table, plus a half-page illustration;

1 page overland map;

7 pages of dungeon entries (which includes 5 half-page illustrations, plus a few smaller ones; some of these show how the tricky rooms look, but some are just for fun);

2 full-page creature illustrations (the crab, the halfling);

Half-page of more GM's notes at the end (adventure resolution), which also includes another creture illustration (effreets) and credits;

Half-page of kelpie stats;

2 pages of player handouts.​
That's actually pretty slim - on the other hand, you could say the crazy-action-to-page-count ratio is optimised!

EDIT: should probably add that there is 2 pages of dungeon map, printed on the front and back inside of the module cover.


----------



## buzzardoftheages (Jan 8, 2017)

GarrettKP said:


> The reason this is "low effort" is more for us than for them. They know that their Adventure Paths are long and people are still playing through older ones like Out of the Abyss, much less recent ones like Storm Kings. This is a light break for players and DM's to give them time to digest the material they already have released.
> 
> As to why they decided to remake old adventures rather than make new ones? Sales. 5th Edition is made to get people playing D&D. Old fans that left or stopped playing, new fans that never played, any and everybody. By remaking sure fire hits they guarantee sales will be positive. Sure some will complain, but a lot of DM's, old and new, will buy it regardless to have the conversions.




This is exactly my situation. In my group two of us are running home brew campaigns, I am running Curse of Strahd, and another player is going to be a DM for the first time using Out of the Abyss tomorrow night. We try to meet once a week and we rotate so prep work can be spread out to fit within our busy lives. I own a copy of Storm King's Thunder but it will be months before we consider running that one. Kobold Press's Book of Lairs has helped fill a couple of lulls in the home brew campaigns already and Tales from the Yawning Portal looks like another great fit for our group, either for one-shots when not all of us can get together or to plug a hole in one of our campaigns when things get stale.

I played AD&D and 2E with a solid group in middle/high school in the late 80's and early 90's, then stopped for a long time after we all went to different colleges. Over the years I thought about scratching that itch again but not having a core group of like-minded friends nearby (as well as that 3.5/Pathfinder/4E/Essentials "wall of books" Mearls mentioned) discouraged me from picking up the hobby again. The D&D Next playtest is what pulled me back in, and the slow publishing schedule has allowed me to keep up without straining the bank account. While I do own a few of these old modules in pdf form, I prefer holding a book in my hands and 5E's style really appeals to me. Tales from the Yawning Portal clearly isn't for everybody but I am firmly in their target audience.


----------



## Bupp (Jan 8, 2017)

I'm torn with this announcement. At first I was excited. Some great adventures there! Then I realized I've been running a lot of classic adventures while converting on the fly. I'm running White Plume Mountain right now. I have the Classic Modules Today conversion guide for it, but have yet to reference it during play. So do I really need this product?

If it brings something new to the table, I think I'll get it. If it's just updated, cleaned up conversions? I'll pass.

I do hope it does well, though. I like the idea of them releasing a collection of standalone adventures.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 8, 2017)

Well all the contents of the books are going to be cleaned up and made easier to read. We are getting new art and maps. (Some of the new maps were already made but that does not changed that some of this stuff has not been updated with new maps.) The Doomvault is probably the biggest dungeon in the book and it's likely going to be rewritten a bit as exploring it is the focus of the adventure.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 8, 2017)

Jester David said:


> I believe _Dead in Thay_ also includes playtest rules and the like, which liked eats up some of the pages.



It does include those, but as separate files, not as part of the 107 page adventure. There are more than 30 pages of NPC and monster statistics in the adventure appendices, but not the rules.

_Dead in Thay_'s 107 pages break down as follows:
1: Cover page
2-5: Credits, introduction, and other general information
6-10: Session 1 (the majority of which is NPC descriptions)
11-15: Elemental Nodes
15-17: Bloodgate Nexus
18-25: Doomvault (general info)
26-27: Session 2
27-33: Abyssal Prisons
33-37: Blood Pens
38-42: Masters' Domain
42-46: Far Realm Cysts
46-49: Forests of Slaughter
49-53: Ooze Grottos
53-58: Predator Pools
58-63: Golem Laboratories
63-68: Temples of Extraction
68-72: Final Session
72: Appendix 1. Magic Items
73-75: Appendix 2. NPCs
75-106: Appendix 3. Monsters
107: Doomvault map
Roughly speaking, pages 18-68 detail the Doomvault.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 8, 2017)

Jester David said:


> In defence of this inclusion, it was never physically printed before. Being originally available on the defunct D&D Classics site, and now on the DMsGuild and DriveThruRPG. And a Copper/Electrum seller, it's only really moved 300 or so copies on those two sites. So there are a lot of gamers who have never seen this adventure.



While I agree that _Dead in Thay_ is the least well known adventure of the set, in addition to the copies sold via D&D Classics, the PDF was also made available for free to stores running it as part of WotC's organised play, which probably boosts the numbers quite a bit.


----------



## TRDG (Jan 8, 2017)

Really wish they would get something original out the door instead of retreads, maybe next release I guess??


----------



## TRDG (Jan 8, 2017)

Really wish they would get some modules that are totally original out the door like these old classic retreads, but I'll still take a look and hope for fresh new shorter products in the future to be released


----------



## ddaley (Jan 8, 2017)

I am excited about these "retreads."  I started playing D&D around 1980 with the basic edition and ran a few old modules back in the 80s.  But, now I am playing with my kids and would like to take them through some of these.  I like having the option of shorter modules, in addition to the longer campaigns.  To me, Lost Mine was about the perfect length for my group.  I know I could convert some of these myself, and have thought about it.  But, I like having something that has been officially converted for some reason.



TRDG said:


> Really wish they would get some modules that are totally original out the door like these old classic retreads, but I'll still take a look and hope for fresh new shorter products in the future to be released


----------



## ddaley (Jan 8, 2017)

I have not read Dead in Thay, but did read some reviews about it.  Wasn't that module written with the assumption that multiple parties would be playing through at the same time working toward a common goal?  I wonder how that would impact the module for home use.  Could a single party still run through the module with no problem?

I bought a number of the play test modules, partially for the adventure, but equally for the extra content that they included about the setting.  When I saw that dead in thay was intended for multiple parties, I decided to not pick it up at the time.  Also, I prefer print versions.  I was able to get 2 of the other play test modules in print: Murder in Baldur's Gate and Crystal Shard.



Jester David said:


> Just musing about my thoughts on the various adventures included.
> 
> *Dead in Thay*
> In defence of this inclusion, it was never physically printed before. Being originally available on the defunct D&D Classics site, and now on the DMsGuild and DriveThruRPG. And a Copper/Electrum seller, it's only really moved 300 or so copies on those two sites. So there are a lot of gamers who have never seen this adventure.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 8, 2017)

ddaley said:


> I have not read Dead in Thay, but did read some reviews about it.  Wasn't that module written with the assumption that multiple parties would be playing through at the same time working toward a common goal?  I wonder how that would impact the module for home use.  Could a single party still run through the module with no problem?
> 
> 
> 
> I bought a number of the play test modules, partially for the adventure, but equally for the extra content that they included about the setting.  When I saw that dead in thay was intended for multiple parties, I decided to not pick it up at the time.  Also, I prefer print versions.  I was able to get 2 of the other play test modules in print: Murder in Baldur's Gate and Crystal Shard.





Dunno about the full original context, but it is only a portion of Dead in Thay actually being used, and possibly rewritten if necessary I'm sure.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 8, 2017)

This is the Doomvault. It is huge.

View attachment 79767


In the original store run version each group of players would each be told to explore a section of this place. As Tales from the Yawning Portal is going to present this as a normal dungeon. The focus will likely be shifted to instead of finding mcguffins with the other groups on a time table, to exploring this massive dungeon.


----------



## darjr (Jan 8, 2017)

Ha! It's a compact dungeon which so happens to fit on a single piece of paper.


----------



## guachi (Jan 8, 2017)

I was DMing Against the Cult of the Reptile God and the players rather easily figured out that the BBEG was at the back of the 8 1/2" x 11" because it's also a compact dungeon which so happens to fit on a single piece of paper.


----------



## Echohawk (Jan 8, 2017)

darjr said:


> Ha! It's a compact dungeon which so happens to fit on a single piece of paper.



Well, technically, every dungeon fits on a single piece of paper if you zoom out enough. But the Doomvault does seem to be suspiciously rectangular.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 8, 2017)

Echohawk said:


> While I agree that _Dead in Thay_ is the least well known adventure of the set, in addition to the copies sold via D&D Classics, the PDF was also made available for free to stores running it as part of WotC's organised play, which probably boosts the numbers quite a bit.



Yeah. Plus the sales on D&D Classics when it released, which could also number in the thousands. 
The 600+ Wizards Play Network stores would bump sales numbers up. Assuming each store has 2.5 tables of people, that'd be a possible 7,500 people who played the adventure. Given WotC likes to sell books that move 50,000 copies, that's still a strong audience of 40k people who might never have run through the Doomvault.



ddaley said:


> I have not read Dead in Thay, but did read some reviews about it.  Wasn't that module written with the assumption that multiple parties would be playing through at the same time working toward a common goal?  I wonder how that would impact the module for home use.  Could a single party still run through the module with no problem?
> 
> I bought a number of the play test modules, partially for the adventure, but equally for the extra content that they included about the setting.  When I saw that dead in thay was intended for multiple parties, I decided to not pick it up at the time.  Also, I prefer print versions.  I was able to get 2 of the other play test modules in print: Murder in Baldur's Gate and Crystal Shard.




I believe so. It was a neat idea for Organised Play. Or at least the 2/3rds of stores that could reliably have multiple tables going every single week.
Hopefully that text gets removed from the final document and they revise the dungeon to work for a single group. I imagine it has to be playable with just one table, otherwise those small stores (or stores with one table due to competition) wouldn't have been able to play. 
It'd be a neat sidebar though, encouraging multiple playthroughs or running side groups.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 8, 2017)

Bupp said:


> I'm torn with this announcement. At first I was excited. Some great adventures there! Then I realized I've been running a lot of classic adventures while converting on the fly. I'm running White Plume Mountain right now. I have the Classic Modules Today conversion guide for it, but have yet to reference it during play. So do I really need this product?
> 
> If it brings something new to the table, I think I'll get it. If it's just updated, cleaned up conversions? I'll pass.
> 
> I do hope it does well, though. I like the idea of them releasing a collection of standalone adventures.




That's my thoughts. 
Enough people want small adventures that I do want them to release a book of stand-alone (yet connected) adventures. But I'd like them to be new and not reprints. So I want this to do well enough that more small adventures can come, but not so well the do a direct sequel with more easily converted adventures.


----------



## darjr (Jan 8, 2017)

There was another in store event with multiple tables against a dracolich and her lair. The sidebar was about how to run it with a single table.


----------



## pkt77242 (Jan 8, 2017)

Jester David said:


> That's my thoughts.
> Enough people want small adventures that I do want them to release a book of stand-alone (yet connected) adventures. But I'd like them to be new and not reprints. So I want this to do well enough that more small adventures can come, but not so well the do a direct sequel with more easily converted adventures.




What I want is a book of short adventures that are themed that includes classics and some new ones.  Such as having a I3-I5 and X4 and X5 with 2 new desert adventures.  I think the ideal mix would be 3-5 classics with 2-4 new adventures.


----------



## Lupinus (Jan 8, 2017)

I was really hoping at least one of the adventures would be for levels 16-20.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 9, 2017)

pkt77242 said:


> What I want is a book of short adventures that are themed that includes classics and some new ones.  Such as having a I3-I5 and X4 and X5 with 2 new desert adventures.  I think the ideal mix would be 3-5 classics with 2-4 new adventures.




I would buy products like that. A mix of old and new riffing off the same themes. Or like with the Slave Lords compilation where they added a new low level adventure to kick things off. If they took I3-5 and gave us some new locations/adventures preceding and afterward (not necc entrenched in the main adventures but lead ins/complementary to, maybe a sandboxy     gazetteer for the region). Also would work great with X4/5. 

Or somethinng like new intro adventures leading to X1 then some other new adventures in the region/islands (could resurrect "the treasure of the hideous one" too) and then maybe ending with Isle of the Ape.


----------



## Prakriti (Jan 9, 2017)

Lupinus said:


> I was really hoping at least one of the adventures would be for levels 16-20.



True, a missed opportunity there. Levels 16-20 still aren't supported by published adventures. The only trouble is, there aren't really any classic level 16-20 dungeons.


----------



## araquael (Jan 9, 2017)

Interesting thread.

Does Dead in Thay's inclusion do anything weird to the order of the Sundering fiction (if it does anything at all)?

Furthermore, might this model of repackaging older adventures be a clever way to "rehabilitate" a lot of 4E content back into the current "canon"? Maybe do the Herkenwold stuff for 5E and put it in the Realms?


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Jan 9, 2017)

I wonder if you could stuff all these dungeons in a sandboxy game, starting out in a town with rumers about the 2 lowest level dungeons.
If they complete one of them start adding rumors of the higer level dungeons.
and fase ou the rumors of the dungeons they now are to high level for, but make up what happens if thse bad guys got away with what they whwew planning.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 9, 2017)

Jester David said:


> *Against the Giants*
> This is an odd choice, as it was semi-updated for 5e already with _Storm King's Thunder_. I'm not sure what WotC was thinking with this. It doesn't even really have an "end" as the drow element likely won't be included.
> The level range might have been a factor, but several of the I series would have been the same level range, as would _The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth_.
> 
> Thumbs down



Storm King, however, is intended as its own self-contained AP; here the G-series can be used together, as three stand-alones, as one-offs, or whatever; with much less effort required to strip out the story elements you don't want.  And...Giants! 



> *Forge of Fury*
> I imagine this and _Sunless Citadel_ are the first, safe attempt at viewing 3e adventures and content as classical adventures or seeing how nostalgia there is for these books. This way they can see if they should look to other 3e adventures for inspiration or as the sources of storylines, or just focus on 1e.
> 
> The DMsGuild description says "It distinguishes itself less for truly innovative dungeon and encounter design than it does for providing a good, solid, old-school adventuring experience." Which is something of an ironic as most of the classic dungeon craws were old-school for the innovative and creative dungeons. This seems very much in line with my experiences with past Rich Baker adventures: so-so encounters and bland dungeons.
> ...



Where I really hope they keep it challenging, even nasty in parts, as that's what makes it good.  FoF is probably the best of all the 3e-era modules I've seen.



> *Tomb of Horrors*
> This mean we're unlikely to see a _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_ storyline. Which is fine. I imagine this product exists because they needed to do something with classics like that or _Hidden Shrine_ or _White Plume Mountain_, but couldn't turn them into full storylines of their own. So this is a way to just take those off the board all at once. This way they're not trying to do a _Tomb of Horrors_ storyline where you run around from level 1 to 10 doing unrelated things before trying to attempt a demilich lair battle at level 13.
> 
> This adventure is a bit of a mess with it's illogical solutions to "puzzles". Where the solution to the "puzzle" isn't signalled anywhere. There are no clues and you either need to succeed through brute force (either definition). I'd actually pay good money to see this dungeon with better solutions that rewards creativity rather than just weird luck and having the exact right spell prepared. And a little more margin for error in the traps, where you have a round or two to consider a solution before death.
> ...



The solutions do reward not just creativity, but careful (to the point of boring, I must say) play and teamwork.  I've been in a group that's played and beaten* it using only some of the pre-gen characters in the module.

* - we destroyed Acererak's phylactery/ies but didn't actually defeat the lich itself, instead we outmaneuvered it, took the treasure item we were there for, and left.

It's an interesting inclusion in this compilation because it's such a contrast in style - all the other modules (except Dead in Thay, never seen that one) are grand hack-fests while ToH is anything but.



> *White Plume Mountain*
> Like the _Tomb of Horrors_, this one depends on the execution. If it's presented as a straight update, or tweaked and revised to conform to modern adventure design.
> 
> I've run this and found it to actually be rather terrible. It was a writing sample and it shows. It's the apex of illogical dungeon design. There's no consistency, no reason for the dungeon to exist, and only the flimsiest pretense at a "plot", as if someone designed a dungeon via madlibs or a random dungeon generator. It's an example of how _not_ to design a dungeon.
> ...



What do you mean by "conform to modern adventure design"?  Designs both bad and good can be found throughout the whole history of D&D...and WPM is far from the worst.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the very illogic of the thing that makes it memorable for the right reasons.

Lan-"I'd run WPM again someday if my players didn't already know it so well"-efan


----------



## ddaley (Jan 9, 2017)

The Doomvault looks pretty sweet.  I had not seen that before.



MonsterEnvy said:


> This is the Doomvault. It is huge.
> 
> View attachment 79767
> 
> ...


----------



## Jester David (Jan 9, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Storm King, however, is intended as its own self-contained AP; here the G-series can be used together, as three stand-alones, as one-offs, or whatever; with much less effort required to strip out the story elements you don't want.  And...Giants!



The thing is, five giant lairs (hill, frost, fire, cloud, and stone) _can_ be used self-contained. They don't require any connection to the larger story. And really, the connections between the larger story of the AP (the Storm King) and the giant lairs is pretty darn tenuous. Even the connection between the lairs and the overall metaplot (the breaking of the ordning) is pretty weak. 

Running those together or as one-offs would be *effortless*. 



Lanefan said:


> What do you mean by "conform to modern adventure design"?  Designs both bad and good can be found throughout the whole history of D&D...and WPM is far from the worst.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the very illogic of the thing that makes it memorable for the right reasons.
> 
> Lan-"I'd run WPM again someday if my players didn't already know it so well"-efan



There's a lot of non-ecology going on in the adventure. How do the various animals and humanoids eat? How does the wizard get about in his lair? Why did they build the crazy dungeon? How does he pay the guardsmen, where do they live, and how do they get to work? 
The dungeon is really a giant carnival funhouse. Just one strange surprise after another. Until it _literally_ becomes a carnival funhouse with the spinning room. 

The plot of the dungeon is the wizard, Keraptis, steals three powerful artifacts and hides them. But then taunts the  owners. Why? There's no motive. He achieves nothing. It's like this evil wizard is basically trolling the kingdom, tricking adventurers to their doom for the LoLs. And you don't even really get to fight him at the end. He's a non-entity. But based on how the dungeon is design, he should really sport green hair, white skin, and be voiced by Mark Hamill.

The thing about the module was it was written as a writing sample. The author penned it to show TSR he _could_ write. It was an example of his imagination and skill rather than an actual dungeon designed for play. It was a giant buffet of as much crazy and wild brainstorming as he could cram into one module. It was _literally_ a combination every every single crazy dungeon chamber idea he had one after another. And it _shows_. It's ten rooms of crazy in a five room dungeon. 

Now, what makes it *good *is that, unlike _Tomb of Horrors_, this adventure is less... spiteful. There's a sense of whimsy that makes the whole experience - for a lack of a better descriptor - jolly. It has an "all-in-good-fun" tone that makes the experience less painful despite the madcap logic.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 9, 2017)

From what the WotC guys are saying, part of the point may be to throw the original G series into SKT, as they suggest doing with the Cloud Giant castle in Hoard of the Dragon Queen...

And sight unseen, the "mad house" style is pretty appealing...to me at least.


----------



## guachi (Jan 9, 2017)

If mad house dungeon was what they were going for, X2 is the way to go. 

Someone linked to an RPG.net play through with 3.0 rules from 2004 and it's hysterical. I plan on running X2 in about two months when my party is the right level. After four serious adventures I think a loony one is a good break. 

But White Plume Mountain, for whatever reason, doesn't quite meet my threshold for acceptably crazy. Maybe if they give it an appropriately silly framing story.


----------



## machineelf (Jan 9, 2017)

robus said:


> ... one thing I have to say I love is some of the adventurer's eye view renderings provided and something I think is missing from the 5e books. While there are a few flavor images in the 5e adventures they're not showing key images from the point of view of the adventuring party. It would be great to have some renderings of some of the key visuals in the adventures we're running (available as a pack of images that we can hand out in the session....)




I fully agree. One of the things I loved from those classic adventures was the black and white art showing scenes from the adventurer's perspective. The art wasn't as flashy as modern art is in modern campaigns, but that was better because it wasn't overdone. It had a purpose and showed you what the insides of the dungeon looked like.

I also loved the simple blue and white dungeon maps. Not because they were blue and white (although those colors were pleasant), but because they were simple and clear (and again, not overdone), and focused on giving the DM a quick and clear understanding of the dungeon layout.


----------



## machineelf (Jan 9, 2017)

I'm curious about how they are going to set this up, but what I might do is have my group create characters for a main campaign, and whenever they want a break from the main campaign they can go to the Yawning Portal to hear the barkeep tell stories he's heard of other adventurers trying to find wealth and greatness in various ancient, lost dungeons. As the barkeep begins his story, we transition to the players' other characters to begin their one-off session -- the story the barkeep is telling. 

This way you can still keep the dangerous dungeons dangerous, and it can simply serve as a break from the main campaign. Anytime my players want to play a one-off, they can travel back to the Yawning Portal to hear a new story.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 9, 2017)

guachi said:


> If mad house dungeon was what they were going for, X2 is the way to go.
> 
> Someone linked to an RPG.net play through with 3.0 rules from 2004 and it's hysterical.



That was me.



guachi said:


> I plan on running X2 in about two months when my party is the right level. After four serious adventures I think a loony one is a good break.
> 
> But White Plume Mountain, for whatever reason, doesn't quite meet my threshold for acceptably crazy.



I think that S2 is just crazy. But it has nothing else going on.

Whereas (as [MENTION=19857]Jer[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] pointed out) X2, while (in my view at least) also crazy, has a sometimes sinister creepiness also going on.

That is, the two modules aren't just different in degree but I think in kind also.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 9, 2017)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## robus (Jan 9, 2017)

secondhander said:


> I'm curious about how they are going to set this up, but what I might do is have my group create characters for a main campaign, and whenever they want a break from the main campaign they can go to the Yawning Portal to hear the barkeep tell stories he's heard of other adventurers trying to find wealth and greatness in various ancient, lost dungeons. As the barkeep begins his story, we transition to the players' other characters to begin their one-off session -- the story the barkeep is telling.
> 
> This way you can still keep the dangerous dungeons dangerous, and it can simply serve as a break from the main campaign. Anytime my players want to play a one-off, they can travel back to the Yawning Portal to hear a new story.




You know - not to derail this thread too much - but that would also be a great concept for the upcoming D&D movie... different dungeons featuring different adventuring parties all stitched together by a master storyteller. It would avoid the need for some "epic" narrative while focusing on one of the key aspects of D&D and showcasing the variety of adventures to be had (and a wide variety of adventurers)


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 9, 2017)

Jester David said:


> The plot of the dungeon is the wizard, Keraptis, steals three powerful artifacts and hides them. But then taunts the  owners. Why? There's no motive. He achieves nothing. It's like this evil wizard is basically trolling the kingdom, tricking adventurers to their doom for the LoLs. And you don't even really get to fight him at the end. He's a non-entity. But based on how the dungeon is design, he should really sport green hair, white skin, and be voiced by Mark Hamill.




I have no problem with this.

Not for every dungeon, but a recurring "Joker" villain seems sweet.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 9, 2017)

robus said:


> You know - not to derail this thread too much - but that would also be a great concept for the upcoming D&D movie... different dungeons featuring different adventuring parties all stitched together by a master storyteller. It would avoid the need for some "epic" narrative while focusing on one of the key aspects of D&D and showcasing the variety of adventures to be had (and a wide variety of adventurers)



A master DM could then take that "flashback" and use it as a jumping-off point for the main-line PCs. That might mean a low-level party that "cleaned up" some "missed treasure" from a higher-level group. It could be a matter of a now-wealthy-and-retired (or maimed-and-retired) adventurer handing the PCs a nugget of info or a map gleaned from his exploits. Or, it could be a party that comes ready for bear when they here about a (near) TPK from an earlier group.


----------



## Kalaron (Jan 9, 2017)

Ah, precious Hidden Shrine. I've been playing it for conventions ported to 5E, using the tournament rules for scoring, on real time play of 2 hours. It generates an amount of anxiety and fumbling never seen before on more tame and relaxed settings. I salute you, WotC, I salute you.


----------



## OB1 (Jan 9, 2017)

Count me as being very excited for this product!  While I've played D&D since the mid 80's, it's only been with 5e that I've ever played or used any pre-gens, so these are all new to me.  The only non-core books I owned prior to this edition were the 2e complete wizards handbook and the 3e Manual of the Planes.

As our group has 3 DMs in it, we are planning to pass the TYP around and let each DM run 2 or 3 of these, with everyone else creating new characters for each adventure.  

At the same time, I can feel for those who've played these before and want something fresh.  As a huge Star Wars fan, the last two installments, while fun, have also been extremely frustrating as they are nothing more than nostalgic rehashes of 40 year old material, offering almost nothing new or interesting for someone like me.  I get why they are doing it (to make billions of dollars and try to establish an entirely new generation as a fan base), but I hope that they start to really try new things soon.  My worry is that the success of Awakens and Rouge will instead lead Lucasfilm to take even fewer chances...


----------



## Jester David (Jan 9, 2017)

SkidAce said:


> I have no problem with this.
> 
> Not for every dungeon, but a recurring "Joker" villain seems sweet.




Which would be great if he was recurring, but he never reappears. Or actually appears. There's this 1,300 year old presumably human wizard and he doesn't show up. He just steals a bunch of magic items and hides them in his crazy lair (sans a bedroom and wizardly laboratory) and then watches events on a crystal ball for giggles. He's not a villain, he's a reality TV host. Be probably live streams his reaction video to the punk'ing as well.


----------



## Goemoe (Jan 9, 2017)

Yawning portal is a fitting name. *Yawn* Seems Wotc runs out of ideas. They cover their own songs now. How sad.


----------



## dagger (Jan 9, 2017)

Goemoe said:


> Yawning portal is a fitting name. *Yawn* Seems Wotc runs out of ideas. They cover their own songs now. How sad.




Your yawn joke is pretty original though.


----------



## Lidgar (Jan 9, 2017)

Extremely pleased to see this. While I could quibble about which "classics" I would have preferred to be included (like, how can you not include X1 and I1 if you include C1? They all taste great together!), it's a fine list of modules all in all.

Also, while some may find this a "lazy" release, I am waaaay lazier than WotC. Happy they did the work for me. 

Plus, updated maps and monsters. I wonder how much re-writing/cleaning up of text will happen?

I wonder if there will be any effort to link the seven adventures? Will there be a common plot line/thread, such as the RoSP, as others have suggested? Fun.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 9, 2017)

Talk about a can't win for them.

WoTC: puts out new material
"This is crap!  These APs suck.  They sure don't make them like they used to.  Those older adventures were great."
WoTC: releases updated, AL compatible versions of iconic adventures in one book
"This is crap!  How lazy.  What, they can't come out with new ideas?"


----------



## dagger (Jan 9, 2017)

I would like to see them update the following to 5e (and yes I know about DMs Guild):

Temple of Elemental Evil
Slavers Series 
The rest of the adventures AFTER Against the Giants


----------



## Waterbizkit (Jan 9, 2017)

Steering clear of the debate between whether this is a lazy move by WotC or not, because quite frankly I have neither the time nor the energy to argue with people who seem to feel more strongly about it than I ever could, I'll say this:

I'm going to buy this. It'll be the my only other purchase beyond CoS and the core books so far and I'm looking forward to it. I haven't run these as a DM (I typically homebrew) and I've never played them as a player. So new to me and my group... and just what I was looking for.


----------



## pauldanieljohnson (Jan 9, 2017)

I really miss the old paperback adventure module format. I wish WoTC would have some staffers doing nothing but releasing old modules converted to 5e. Keeping the original art, too.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 9, 2017)

pauldanieljohnson said:


> I really miss the old paperback adventure module format. I wish WoTC would have some staffers doing nothing but releasing old modules converted to 5e. Keeping the original art, too.




But, but, but why would you buy something like that when you can convert it yourself??? 

I kid, I kid. I can see why some would rather save their money and convert to 5e themselves, and why some would rather pay someone else to covert for them.


----------



## pauldanieljohnson (Jan 9, 2017)

BookBarbarian said:


> But, but, but why would you buy something like that when you can convert it yourself???
> 
> I kid, I kid. I can see why some would rather save their money and convert to 5e themselves, and why some would rather pay someone else to covert for them.




True. I've done conversions on several, including Against the Cult of the Reptile God and the Desert of Desolation series, but I find that my prep time is already long enough without needing the extra work.


----------



## jagerfury (Jan 10, 2017)

dagger said:


> I would like to see them update the following to 5e (and yes I know about DMs Guild):
> 
> Temple of Elemental Evil
> Slavers Series
> The rest of the adventures AFTER Against the Giants




The Slaver Series has a 5e conversion guide. A link to them and the rest of the 5e conversion guides for 1e modules found on the DM's Guild is here at Classic Modules Today.


----------



## jagerfury (Jan 10, 2017)

pauldanieljohnson said:


> I really miss the old paperback adventure module format. I wish WoTC would have some staffers doing nothing but releasing old modules converted to 5e. Keeping the original art, too.




Classic Modules Today is a website with a list of 5e conversion guides for 1e modules available at DM's Guild. They require the original module, but WotC is releasing these old school modules as POD products slowly but surely. 
So you don't get the whole module redone in 5e, but the conversion guide does do the heavy lifting for you when you have the original module in hand.


----------



## ddaley (Jan 10, 2017)

It's tough to please everyone with every release.  However, I think I have purchased everything that WotC has released for 5e.  I haven't used or even read it all yet... but I have it all.

The APs are great, but they seem to be too long for my group at the moment.  We can't seem to play often enough for them to really follow the story (or for me to remember it well enough if we are only playing once a month).



Sacrosanct said:


> Talk about a can't win for them.
> 
> WoTC: puts out new material
> "This is crap!  These APs suck.  They sure don't make them like they used to.  Those older adventures were great."
> ...


----------



## ddaley (Jan 10, 2017)

I would like to see *Isle of Dread* (X1) and *Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth* (S4).  I am hoping that this is the beginning of more conversions to 5e.

Edit: As I mentioned previously, I would support kickstarters to fund these conversions too.  That may help them gauge interest in various conversions too.  Of course, I would probably back any conversion that they decided to do.



Lidgar said:


> Extremely pleased to see this. While I could quibble about which "classics" I would have preferred to be included (like, how can you not include X1 and I1 if you include C1? They all taste great together!), it's a fine list of modules all in all.
> 
> Also, while some may find this a "lazy" release, I am waaaay lazier than WotC. Happy they did the work for me.
> 
> ...


----------



## ddaley (Jan 10, 2017)

Now, if only Paizo would decide to convert some of their material to 5e!  I don't foresee that happening, but that would definitely bring in some revenue for them.  We never really got into Pathfinder (though we may try it again), and I would like to see Paizo continue to do well... but I would love to see some of their stuff available for 5e!


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jan 10, 2017)

araquael said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> Does Dead in Thay's inclusion do anything weird to the order of the Sundering fiction (if it does anything at all)?
> 
> Furthermore, might this model of repackaging older adventures be a clever way to "rehabilitate" a lot of 4E content back into the current "canon"? Maybe do the Herkenwold stuff for 5E and put it in the Realms?




Nothing at all. Although it follows _Scourge of the Sword Coast_ and lists NPCs and a little of the lore, it is written as "a tribute to _Tomb of Horrors_, the _Ruins of Undermountain_ and other killer dungeons."

Other than the opening scene, which includes those NPCs, and is only there to tie it into the story, the entire adventure is self-contained and really doesn't have to relate to anything in regards to time or location.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 10, 2017)

JeffB said:


> I would buy products like that. A mix of old and new riffing off the same themes. Or like with the Slave Lords compilation where they added a new low level adventure to kick things off. If they took I3-5 and gave us some new locations/adventures preceding and afterward (not necc entrenched in the main adventures but lead ins/complementary to, maybe a sandboxy     gazetteer for the region). Also would work great with X4/5.
> 
> Or somethinng like new intro adventures leading to X1 then some other new adventures in the region/islands (could resurrect "the treasure of the hideous one" too) and then maybe ending with Isle of the Ape.




They tried a product like that already: they took a classic D&D module that was for levels 5-7 and added sandbox elements and expanded it to cover levels 1-10. It's called Curse of Strahd and I highly recommend it! 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jan 10, 2017)

pauldanieljohnson said:


> True. I've done conversions on several, including Against the Cult of the Reptile God and the Desert of Desolation series, but I find that my prep time is already long enough without needing the extra work.




Desert of Desolation is one of my favorite series. Just used parts of it again. Is your conversion on DMsGuild?


----------



## robus (Jan 10, 2017)

ddaley said:


> Now, if only Paizo would decide to convert some of their material to 5e!  I don't foresee that happening, but that would definitely bring in some revenue for them.  We never really got into Pathfinder (though we may try it again), and I would like to see Paizo continue to do well... but I would love to see some of their stuff available for 5e!




Seemed obvious to me too. Convert 1 AP a year. Start with the old stuff. Great way to leverage their IP if you ask me.


----------



## darjr (Jan 10, 2017)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Desert of Desolation is one of my favorite series. Just used parts of it again. Is your conversion on DMsGuild?




Mine too, and me too. Ran it for a group of DMs running games for a local college game.


----------



## pauldanieljohnson (Jan 10, 2017)

No; I didn't do anything formal, just made my own notes. Most of the work went into creating the maps for use with a VTT.


----------



## neq.the.glockenspiel (Jan 10, 2017)

I was really hoping "Labyrinth" was gonna be something original based in the Feywild, like OotA did for the Unerdark...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OB1 (Jan 10, 2017)

neq.the.glockenspiel said:


> I was really hoping "Labyrinth" was gonna be something original based in the Feywild, like OotA did for the Underdark...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Welcome to the Boards!

And I'm betting you will see some Feywild love in the Fall AP.


----------



## smbakeresq (Jan 11, 2017)

ddaley said:


> Now, if only Paizo would decide to convert some of their material to 5e!  I don't foresee that happening, but that would definitely bring in some revenue for them.  We never really got into Pathfinder (though we may try it again), and I would like to see Paizo continue to do well... but I would love to see some of their stuff available for 5e!




Age of Worms and Savage Tide were as good and complete as any series of modules ever.  If anyone hasnt played these I highly recommend them, and it supports play from levels 1-20.  There is more than a years worth of adventure in each one, and many of the classic stuff that was background is in there, like the Wind Dukes of Aaqa and the first Death Knight.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 11, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> They tried a product like that already: they took a classic D&D module that was for levels 5-7 and added sandbox elements and expanded it to cover levels 1-10. It's called Curse of Strahd and I highly recommend it!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk




CoS is probably the best path they have put out. But it's not in the same realm of product I am talking about them producing.


----------



## amethal (Jan 11, 2017)

I'd prefer WotC produced new adventures rather than converting existing ones, so I won't be picking this up (or at least not straight away) since that seems to me to be the best way of registering my preference.

However, I would buy a re-imagined Rod of 7 Parts campaign in a heartbeat, so I will be very disappointed if (as some people have suggested) the parts of the Rod are simply dumped at the end of 7 different dungeons as a way of connecting them all together.


----------



## smbakeresq (Jan 11, 2017)

Well I have gotten so old that I DM for my kids, who have no idea what these adventures are beside seeing them on my shelf.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app


----------



## Fleetwood C. DeVille (Jan 11, 2017)

smbakeresq said:


> Age of Worms and Savage Tide were as good and complete as any series of modules ever.  If anyone hasnt played these I highly recommend them, and it supports play from levels 1-20.  There is more than a years worth of adventure in each one, and many of the classic stuff that was background is in there, like the Wind Dukes of Aaqa and the first Death Knight.




Updating the best stand-alone Dungeon Magazine adventures would be Coolness Personified. Mud Sorcerer's Tomb, anyone?


----------



## bmfrosty (Jan 12, 2017)

ddaley said:


> Now, if only Paizo would decide to convert some of their material to 5e!  I don't foresee that happening, but that would definitely bring in some revenue for them.  We never really got into Pathfinder (though we may try it again), and I would like to see Paizo continue to do well... but I would love to see some of their stuff available for 5e!



I'd rather see Goodman release some DCC modules for 5e.  Better yet I'd like to see them converted and released as CCC content. 

Sent from my Pixel using EN World mobile app


----------



## ddaley (Jan 12, 2017)

I like DCC as DCC.  That is one other RPG that we play, in addition to 5e.  I like how it is just different enough to be it's own thing.  But, I wouldn't complain if they converted some of their modules to 5e and I would definitely buy some of them.



bmfrosty said:


> I'd rather see Goodman release some DCC modules for 5e.  Better yet I'd like to see them converted and released as CCC content.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using EN World mobile app


----------



## darjr (Jan 12, 2017)

Goodman games should run their own con to do CCC adventures. I'd buy em.


----------



## jagerfury (Jan 12, 2017)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Desert of Desolation is one of my favorite series. Just used parts of it again. Is your conversion on DMsGuild?




Mark Stout did this one. Find it at Classic Modules Today for the direct link to it at the DM's Guild.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jan 12, 2017)

jagerfury said:


> Mark Stout did this one. Find it at Classic Modules Today for the direct link to it at the DM's Guild.




Thanks, I'll check it out. I don't necessarily need a conversion, just curious as to how it was done. But if it looks good I might just pick it up anyway, there's so much that can be pulled from those adventures, even if you don't run them as is.


----------



## designbot (Jan 12, 2017)

bmfrosty said:


> I'd rather see Goodman release some DCC modules for 5e.  Better yet I'd like to see them converted and released as CCC content.




What's CCC?


----------



## rczarnec (Jan 12, 2017)

designbot said:


> What's CCC?




Con Created Content. Basically they are modules that are written for specific cons, most of which are later released on DMGuild.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 12, 2017)

I apologize if this was already posted and I missed it.  But last night Dungeon Life on facebook posted a video of Mearls explaining the Yawning Portal.  Lots of art in the video as well

https://www.facebook.com/DungeonLife/videos/369506553428532/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED


----------



## Silthen (Jan 12, 2017)

What they SHOULD do is take out "Dead in Thay" and publish this along with a section on Greyhawk, kinda like what they did with "Curse of Strahd", since most of the adventures inside have their roots in Greyhawk. Greyhawk fans deserve some love too.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Jan 12, 2017)

Silthen said:


> What they SHOULD do is take out "Dead in Thay" and publish this along with a section on Greyhawk, kinda like what they did with "Curse of Strahd", since most of the adventures inside have their roots in Greyhawk. Greyhawk fans deserve some love too.



But which section? The four modules in the collection that are canonically set in Greyhawk are all located thousands of miles away from each other.

On the other hand, I would think that the areas near the modules will get at least some cursory coverage, since we know that the adventure will cover where to place them in all settings (so presumably their original Greyhawk locations will be covered)...

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Vampyr3 (Jan 12, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> I apologize if this was already posted and I missed it.  But last night Dungeon Life on facebook posted a video of Mearls explaining the Yawning Portal.  Lots of art in the video as well
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DungeonLife/videos/369506553428532/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED





Got excited for a second, thought this was something new! That's just the video that was on the forbes article...


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 12, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> But which section? The four modules in the collection that are canonically set in Greyhawk are all located thousands of miles away from each other.
> 
> On the other hand, I would think that the areas near the modules will get at least some cursory coverage, since we know that the adventure will cover where to place them in all settings (so presumably their original Greyhawk locations will be covered)...
> 
> Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app





I could see them opening Greyhawk to the DMs Guild with this...


----------



## darjr (Jan 12, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> I could see them opening Greyhawk to the DMs Guild with this...




I hope so!


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 15, 2017)

The paradox of the current gaming industry. WotC has core books with new rules, but it doesn't produce new material. Paizo's core books aren't original, but it produces new content.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 15, 2017)

Kramodlog said:


> The paradox of the current gaming industry. WotC has core books with new rules, but it doesn't produce new material. Paizo's core books aren't original, but it produces new content.



  That's why I see Paizo being a better company for gaming overall while WoTc is better for making money.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 15, 2017)

And for me,there is the paradox- I vastly prefer 5e's ruleset and they are producing absolutely nothing that makes me  excited to or want to play the game. And I'd like to. Its a solid game when we play it. Loved Lost Mines and some conversions I have run. BUT I've seen TSR and WOTC regurgitate this stuff edition after edition after edition after..... Boring. Artificial Vanilla flavor D&D

On the other hand, while I don't like everything they do by a long shot, at least Paizo produces a pile of quality NEW adventure material in the sizes and formats I like and I can sift through to find my diamonds. But I won't touch the system with a 10 foot pole (barring the PFBB). 

Solution- spend money elsewhere, hope they change their business models/systems to something vibrant/fresh. Lots of creative, better quality D&D products out there being produced that don't have a D&D label. I wouldn't hold my breath for Wizards to do anything but the SOS they have been doing since 1997, in a different wrapping paper.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 15, 2017)

This is why I think PoL would have been better suited as their flagship setting while they choose one of the other settings per year and do a campaign guide followed by a player's guide with articles in Dragon or Unearthed Arcana revealing other areas of the settings in more detail.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 15, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> This is why I think PoL would have been better suited as their flagship setting while they choose one of the other settings per year and do a campaign guide followed by a player's guide with articles in Dragon or Unearthed Arcana revealing other areas of the settings in more detail.




i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.

But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules? In FR I suspect it was the re-set that killed it(which I welcomed, though did not care for all the details). But eberron and dark sun seemed to be pretty well received? :shrug:


----------



## ddaley (Jan 15, 2017)

I think it was the WoW based ruleset that killed 4e.  When I read the ruleset, it sounded great.  But, in play, it was just too much to keep track of.  



JeffB said:


> i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.
> 
> But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules? In FR I suspect it was the re-set that killed it(which I welcomed, though did not care for all the details). But eberron and dark sun seemed to be pretty well received? :shrug:


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 15, 2017)

JeffB said:


> i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.  But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules? In FR I suspect it was the re-set that killed it(which I welcomed, though did not care for all the details). But eberron and dark sun seemed to be pretty well received? :shrug:



  I would say it was the re-set plus the 4th edition rules themselves that did it.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 15, 2017)

ddaley said:


> I think it was the WoW based ruleset that killed 4e.  When I read the ruleset, it sounded great.  But, in play, it was just too much to keep track of.



  Ninja'd


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 15, 2017)

JeffB said:


> i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.
> 
> But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules?



The 4e ruleset made combats very fun, but in the end, they took too much time (for us). In fact they took _all_ the time - when we realized there was no time left during a session for the R in "RPG", it was time to drop the edition.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 15, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> The 4e ruleset made combats very fun, but in the end, they took too much time (for us). In fact they took _all_ the time - when we realized there was no time left during a session for the R in "RPG", it was time to drop the edition.



  I can't tell you how many times in our games where people were forgetting they had a +1 to this, or could move this person this many squares after the battle was over or after the round was over.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 15, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> I can't tell you how many times in our games where people were forgetting they had a +1 to this, or could move this person this many squares after the battle was over or after the round was over.



This is what we dislike. We tend to optimize, and we dislike having to make decisions on the fly. 

The result was that, for us, 4E was a very fun tactical combat game. But after a tense hard challenging fight* four hours later nobody could muster the energy to roleplay their character (as opposed to moving its figure around on the board).

*) We tried small "easy" fights and did not like it at all. Why waste your time with a foregone conclusion? 

Since we want to play a roleplaying game, we all prefer other editions (meaning d20 and 5E).


----------



## Jester David (Jan 15, 2017)

JeffB said:


> And for me,there is the paradox- I vastly prefer 5e's ruleset and they are producing absolutely nothing that makes me  excited to or want to play the game. And I'd like to. Its a solid game when we play it. Loved Lost Mines and some conversions I have run. BUT I've seen TSR and WOTC regurgitate this stuff edition after edition after edition after..... Boring. Artificial Vanilla flavor D&D
> 
> On the other hand, while I don't like everything they do by a long shot, at least Paizo produces a pile of quality NEW adventure material in the sizes and formats I like and I can sift through to find my diamonds. But I won't touch the system with a 10 foot pole (barring the PFBB).
> 
> Solution- spend money elsewhere, hope they change their business models/systems to something vibrant/fresh. Lots of creative, better quality D&D products out there being produced that don't have a D&D label. I wouldn't hold my breath for Wizards to do anything but the SOS they have been doing since 1997, in a different wrapping paper.



WotC spent fifteen years only giving adventures token attention.

The focus on classics works for now: it gives them time to relearn how to write adventures and work out the kinks, while building an audience. And they need to build up a back catalogue of classic and traditional adventures before they can do the more gonzo stuff. They can't jump right into the funky stuff.

When Paizo started doing adventures, most of theirs were pretty darn traditional in terms of fantasy as well. _Rise of the Runelords_ was pretty darn archtypal in terms of villain and story. It took Paizo seven years to slightly do something experimental (_Reign of Winter_) and another couple years for _Iron Gods_. 

Even then, _Out of the Abyss_ was unlike anything that had come before. And while it was inspired by the Giant series, _Storm King's Thunder_ was very much its own beast. So they seem to be alternating between classical update and something new. 



JeffB said:


> i would prefer that as well- like they did with 4e. I thought it was excellent.
> 
> But did that model fail because of that style of product release or because of the 4e rules? In FR I suspect it was the re-set that killed it(which I welcomed, though did not care for all the details). But eberron and dark sun seemed to be pretty well received? :shrug:



The Points of Light setting model fails because it only works in the a couple products before it collapses. The idea of the PoL setting is a generic world of names on a map and some minor lore, a starting setting where you can branch out and explore on your own as a DM. That's a great starting point, and people can talk about what they did with the setting and the various places.

But that ceases to work once you start publishing more adventures and content in that world, as every new product is introducing a contradiction between what the DM created and what WotC created. 
"Gardmore Abbey" is on the map in the DMG, just a short hop from both Fallcrest and Winterhaven. Really close to the Keep on the Shadowfell. How many DMs decided to set adventures or scenes there in the three years between _Keep on the Shadowfell_ and _Madness at Gardmore Abbey_?

Plus, people complain about setting four "Realmshaking Adventures" in a space the size of the Sword Coast. Imagine those adventures in an area as small as the Nentir Vale (which is close to the size of the Dessarin Valley, the setting of _Princes of the Apocalypse_).


The "setting per year" model also did seem to fail. They quickly moved from setting book/player book to player book/monster book for Dark Sun. 
I think dwindling sales of the 4e rules didn't help. People just were not buying 4e books. The settings they chose were also tricky. The Realms was nuked, Eberron hadn't changed so the 3e setting book could still be used, and Dark Sun was as much player content as world lore.

Selling settings will always be niche, since the majority of DMs run homebrew. So right out of the game, campaign settings are at a disadvantage in terms of sales. 
You don't need three campaign settings. No DM is changing settings every year. Sure, there will be the collectors that buy everything, but those are a minority and not the main audience. The average player buying the books might get  a campaign setting. Or two. But then they'll stop, so you have diminishing returns. 
When you are releasing a setting every year, people might decide to hold off on buying the books in the hopes their setting will be next. The Mystara fans would be less likely to buy the Realms of Dragonlance if they think a book for them might be next.
In theory, the fans of classic settings will buy their favourite, and *could* they'll offset the people buying future settings. But they're also the people who for sure have a copy of that material already. You're selling them a book they already have. Settings, by their nature, are primarily rules agnostic. 

Releasing regular campaign settings just doesn't seem sustainable. It's not a long term business model.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 15, 2017)

Jester David said:


> The "setting per year" model also did seem to fail. They quickly moved from setting book/player book to player book/monster book for Dark Sun.  I think dwindling sales of the 4e rules didn't help. People just were not buying 4e books. The settings they chose were also tricky. The Realms was nuked, Eberron hadn't changed so the 3e setting book could still be used, and Dark Sun was as much player content as world lore.



  Where do you get that this failed?


----------



## JeffB (Jan 15, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> Where do you get that this failed?




This is what I was trying to get at with my post. But I don't think I was very clear..

Would the 4e setting model work in 5e? FR book, players guide, and smaller adventures or a collection, or a path to support it.  Next year- Do RL. Next year DS..or.whatever.

I don't think  the demise of that setting release model in 4e is because the model was the problem. It was the ruleset not being popular. I think this setting model would work well in 5e, and allows them to appeal to the fans of xyz setting people outside POL (or some other generic setting they made up for 5e), allow for some new adventures and retreads of old adventure themes that are particular to a setting (in a Yawning portal style book )Instead of replacing the original flavors with vanilla forgotten realms and writing a half ass "return to" AP alone. None of the remakes/rehashes/re-visits from 2e through now have ever held a candle to the originals they are based on.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 15, 2017)

JeffB said:


> This is what I was trying to get at with my post. But I don't think I was very clear..
> 
> Would the 4e setting model work in 5e? FR book, players guide, and smaller adventures or a collection, or a path to support it.  Next year- Do RL. Next year DS..or.whatever.
> 
> I don't think  the demise of that setting release model in 4e is because the model was the problem. It was the ruleset not being popular. I think this setting model would work well in 5e, and allows them to appeal to the fans of xyz setting people outside POL (or some other generic setting they made up for 5e), allow for some new adventures and retreads of old adventure themes that are particular to a setting (in a Yawning portal style book )Instead of replacing the original flavors with vanilla forgotten realms and writing a half ass "return to" AP alone. None of the remakes/rehashes/re-visits from 2e through now have ever held a candle to the originals they are based on.





All we have is conjecture; WotC has market research about what people would like to buy.  They seem to view it as a failed model on its own terms, and as they have the info it seems reasonable to suppose it was simply a failure.


----------



## pkt77242 (Jan 15, 2017)

I think the reason that we aren't seeing setting guides is that WoTC wants to appeal to as many people as possible with its 1 expansion release per year. With the SCAG they had a part setting guide (to appeal to DMs) and part play options to appeal to players.  VGtM had some players options to go along with monsters.  A straight setting guide usually appeals more to DMs then players and so the most that you would get is another SCAG style book and with the tepid response to SCAG we might not see any more books like it.

ETA: Also ignoring the realms doesn't work with the cross media approach to 5E.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 15, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> Where do you get that this failed?




Well, they released two settings. Then completely changed how they released the third setting, having a monster book and a hybrid DM/player book. And then changed things again for Neverwinter with a single book that was a also a hybrid player/DM book. 

If something is working (either well or even adequately) you don't completely change how things are done. If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. 
Therefore, it seems reasonable that the setting model wasn't working well for WotC.


----------



## darjr (Jan 15, 2017)

WotC has talked about the setting book tread mill and how it didn't have what they want now. Which is a focused story that most folks play and talk about. In fact it may be one of the reasons sales are so good now, that focused story approach. I'll bet that the many settings approach had deminishing returns like in the 2e days.


----------



## robus (Jan 15, 2017)

Jester David said:


> Even then, Out of the Abyss was unlike anything that had come before. And while it was inspired by the Giant series, Storm King's Thunder was very much its own beast. So they seem to be alternating between classical update and something new.




What's interesting about both of those examples is that the finales expect the players to take on the new characters for the boss battle. A most unsatisfying resolution I think.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 15, 2017)

robus said:


> What's interesting about both of those examples is that the finales expect the players to take on the new characters for the boss battle.



?

2, 3 characters


----------



## robus (Jan 15, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> ?
> 
> 2, 3 characters




I'm referring to the players handling demon NPCs in OotA and giants in SKT


----------



## Charles Rampant (Jan 15, 2017)

Er, but that isn't taking on new characters; one is letting the players control a cutscene in a Godzilla style smashup, and the other is letting the players control some allies, no different from them tooting a Horn of Valhalla or whatever.


Sent from my iPad using EN World mobile app


----------



## ammulder (Jan 16, 2017)

Well, if nothing else this thread got me to go buy some old 1e adventures from DM's Guild.  I gotta know about that B4 and X1 and...


----------



## werecorpse (Jan 16, 2017)

Get B10 as well, you won't regret it.


----------



## werecorpse (Jan 16, 2017)

Lots of interesting comments above, here's my 2cp on a few topics.

Just before 4e came out Dungeon magazine had reached a pinnacle, then it got a cancelled. The adventures were generally good and they were into their third adventure path. Paizo knew how to put together great adventure material. From my point of view I wasn't ready to switch editions. I hadn't even run the first adventure path and there was plenty of great material. 4e was a big change in style and I wasn't yet ready to change. Now 3e had been a big change as well but 1e&2e were essentially the same so I was ready for that change. Plus wotc hadn't written or put together adventures consistently for a long time when they tried to do so with 4e. Their main competitor had 5+ years of creating dungeon magazine(which was no small thing), oodles of freelancers to call on, a good rpg system for free (with later a promise to retool and fix all the bugs) a winning formula for adventures etc. Also (& I never did it) it looked hard to convert adventures from 3e to 4e.


5e doesn't really have to battle against an active 4e scene, it's easy to convert 3e/pathfinder adventures to 5e so it's major competitor is also a major asset.

As for the value of these conversions over a DM's guild conversion I almost always tinker with an adventure, especially once you get past about 4th level. So I will get this but almost certainly never use it directly as written. But I have all but one of the modules and am very interested in how wotc does the conversion. This will inform my conversions of older modules going forward. My experience with DM's guild conversions is that they can sometimes add little benefit to just converting on the fly (I apologise for this generalisation I only have a couple) which I can do on my own. Wotc might be the same in which case meh, or they might take a different approach. Either way I am interested.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jan 27, 2017)

“I don't think the title Tales of the Yawning Portal was chosen specifically because a Stardock lies somewhere in Undermountain, which may be more propice to world hopping. The Yawning Portal has no known prior connection to any of these adventures that I can remember. I think it's more that such high traffic inn would be more prone to hear tales of various legendary adventures sites.

In the linked podcast Chris Perkins says the Yawning Portal is more like a hub of lore or place where you could hear tales from very adventurous clientele and stories from these adventure sites and that if it's gonna heard somewhere in the Forgotten Realms, it's gonna be heard here. Chris also says a DM could use the Yawning Portal as a hub of the multiverse, but that sounds to me like a different use of the inn than what i know of it typically from Waterdeep materials.

I don't know what role plays the Yawning Portal in the next D&D movie but that could also explain this choice.” 
This is a quote from another thread by Plaguescarred. 

I own all products containing information on the Yawning Portal and nothing corresponds with what Chris Perkins is stating about the establishment. Basically they are using the well known name of the place, taking some recently made up story that doesn’t mesh with the history of the Inn, and try to shoe horn that into this recent upcoming product in order to try and make it fit in with the movie. 

This is the kind of stuff I can’t stand because there are some things in the Realms that do have a long standing story that should be adhered to. So basically everything that’s there refers to the Yawning Portal and Undermountain with no information about people coming to the Inn to discuss all these other dungeons from other worlds. Chris Perkins should have chosen some other Inn that has a lot less history behind it so he could then create a history that would fit the movie and actually fit with the already established lore of the setting instead of more contradicting information. 

Here is some really good information on the Yawning Portal Inn that actually lines up with all the other information in other products. 

Expedition to Undermountain (3rd edition adventure)
Section on the Yawning Portal: Regulars – Most of the clients of the Portal are adventurers, ex-adventurers, or would-be adventurers eager to talk over the latest news of Undermountain. Most of the shady city power groups that have connections (Skullport (as well as the Watch) often send undercover agents to hear the discussions as well. Fans of adventuring, in particular young nobles seeking thrills, often drop by to soak up the charter and “smell the excitement” of actually being at the doorway of the fabled dungeon. Sellers of maps, weapons, armour, and adventuring gear also frequently drop by for meals, hoping to find clients at nearby tables. Other regulars include sailors, weary Dock Ward shopkeepers, and tired workers from the Keg or Mother Sahnka’s who know they can get a good hot meal in relative safety at the Yawning Portal.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 27, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> Expedition to Undermountain (3rd edition adventure)
> Section on the Yawning Portal: Regulars – Most of the clients of the Portal are *adventurers, ex-adventurers*, or would-be adventurers eager to talk over the latest news of Undermountain. Most of the shady city power groups that have connections (Skullport (as well as the Watch) often send undercover agents to hear the discussions as well. Fans of adventuring, in particular *young nobles seeking thrills*, often drop by to soak up the charter and “smell the excitement” of actually being at the doorway of the fabled dungeon. Sellers of maps, weapons, armour, and adventuring gear also frequently drop by for meals, hoping to find clients at nearby tables. Other regulars include *sailors,* weary Dock Ward shopkeepers, and tired workers from the Keg or Mother Sahnka’s who know they can get a good hot meal in relative safety at the Yawning Portal.




I like Perkin's story.  It adds up.

It certainly can be assumed that those in bold above might be sharing stories from other places.  It an adventuring inn, where else would you go to tell your tales?


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 27, 2017)

SkidAce said:


> I like Perkin's story.  It adds up.
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly can be assumed that those in bold above might be sharing stories from other places.  It an adventuring inn, where else would you go to tell your tales?





A good story trumps blank spaces; I'm curious to see what the Season 6 AL modules do.  My money is on Undermountain adventures.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 30, 2017)

robus said:


> I'm referring to the players handling demon NPCs in OotA and giants in SKT



Then I have good news for you.  

The suggestion in OotA to give players demon lords to control is based on the assumption their regular characters are wimps than must be benched or they will break in half. The entire module is severely carebearian like that. The good news is that unless your players are very fresh, unless you play the game with all the options turned off, you can ignore that and ignore it very easily indeed.

Just let your level 15 characters have at it. They should easily be able to take down a Demon Lord or three, especially weaker ones. Big boys like Orcus is one thing, but Demon Lords like Juiblex are trivially easy to use abusive tactics like kiting on - they are defenseless against anything else than a head-on assault by the PCs; they have simply not been given any tools in their toolboxes (stat blocks) relevant for a high-level combat encounter.

There is a severe mismatch between what the module authors think the heroes are capable of and what a real level 15 party will actually be able to do, especially if you have used the cool and fun options provided by the rulebook such as feats, multiclassing and/or magic items.

So there is no need to throw the accusation of sidelining the PCs at OotA. Yes, the module authors believe this is necessary, but then again this is the same authors that pit goblins and minotaurs against double-digit levelled player characters as if that wasn't ridiculously easy encounters.


----------



## robus (Jan 30, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Just let your level 15 characters have at it. They should easily be able to take down a Demon Lord or three, especially weaker ones. Big boys like Orcus is one thing, but Demon Lords like Juiblex are trivially easy to use abusive tactics like kiting on - they are defenseless against anything else than a head-on assault by the PCs; they have simply not been given any tools in their toolboxes (stat blocks) relevant for a high-level combat encounter.




Cool. As I might have mentioned I'm planning on reworking OotA as a high-level adventure 15-20 where the PCs get to clean out the Underdark of the demon infestation. I'll make sure the demons have lots of back up to keep it challenging


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 30, 2017)

If you add more foes, be careful though - the difficulty quickly ramps up with more enemy actions.

It is the "solo Demon Lord against a rabble of pesky heroes" scenario that doesn't work properly. If you can accept the BBEG having to rely on non-trivial henchmen things quickly balance out.

(the reason for this is action economy. If and when a player character directs its action for a turn towards a henchman, even to instakill him, that is one action fewer that is directed towards the BBEG. Add just a few not-very-threatening henchmen and a wise party will ignore them and still focus on taking down the BBEG asap: this doesn't work properly since it goes down too fast with default stats. Add more numbers or power to the henchmen; enough for the party to have to deal with them first, and the BBEG's staying power is enough for a decent showing

A designer of a CR 20ish BBEG needs to fully understand that a high level party unloading into a full supernova will deal 500 hp worth of damage in a single round and/or making multiple imprisoning/shutdown attempts; thus any Solo BBEG with only 300 hp and only 3 legendary saves isn't even remotely compatible with the game itself)


----------



## Fildrigar (Jan 30, 2017)

Corpsetaker said:


> This is the kind of stuff I can’t stand because there are some things in the Realms that do have a long standing story that should be adhered




I suspect that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Realms.

They are now and have always been mutable. The original source was an unreliable narrator. They've been designed to be changed. The only constant in the Realms is Elminster's beard length. ( And even that is up for dispute. )


----------



## Darkness (Feb 2, 2017)

*
 [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION], you were asked not to post in this thread any more. Since you failed to comply, you're hereby temporarily banned from the forums.*


----------



## neq.the.glockenspiel (Feb 5, 2017)

OB1 said:


> Welcome to the Boards!
> 
> And I'm betting you will see some Feywild love in the Fall AP.




That would heck danged awesome. AweXsome indeed.

As things stand I am pretty liking the Yawning vibe so far.

My home game just suffered a surprise reboot down to first level and we are now in the jail of Castle Naerytar...

...now reading up on the older versions of this place and comparing the Hot DRagon Queen update, I think the layers build up really well.

The 5e take on the Realms is a really slow burn but it burns nice and hot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 6, 2017)

I will be buying this product with my gold pieces.  No doubt.  Although 5th edition is ridiculously easy to adapt to earlier editions, it will still be cool to see how they set this thing up.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 7, 2017)

Nebulous said:


> I will be buying this product with my gold pieces.  No doubt.  Although 5th edition is ridiculously easy to adapt to earlier editions, it will still be cool to see how they set this thing up.



Yeah, I'm in because I don't have the originals, and the new monsters and such will be handy.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app


----------



## shamurai7 (Mar 1, 2017)

No one has commented on the page count yet.....really we have average of 35 pages per adventure.  Seems pretty darn low. Given monster stats and other filler pages really it's probably 28-30 pages each.  Really think 50 would make more fleshed out mini-dungeons but it's hard to say until I see the product.


----------



## happyhermit (Mar 1, 2017)

shamurai7 said:


> No one has commented on the page count yet.....really we have average of 35 pages per adventure.  Seems pretty darn low. Given monster stats and other filler pages really it's probably 28-30 pages each.  Really think 50 would make more fleshed out mini-dungeons but it's hard to say until I see the product.




From what they have said recently they are staying very true to the original modules. If you check the page count on the original dungeons, these make sense. They haven't indicated these to be "more fleshed out" versions (at least not much), or at least that's not the impression I got.


----------



## Henry (Mar 1, 2017)

happyhermit said:


> From what they have said recently they are staying very true to the original modules. If you check the page count on the original dungeons, these make sense. They haven't indicated these to be "more fleshed out" versions (at least not much), or at least that's not the impression I got.




Yep - keep in mind how 1st edition adventures listed monsters - very much the same way that 5e does. Unless there's something unique about a critter, most 1e modules would list the creature, possibly in bold, list its hit points, and that's it. The entirety of G1 was 8 pages long, as someone said - you could add more meat and still come in under 32 pages for all of G1 through G3.


----------



## shamurai7 (Mar 1, 2017)

I ran the hardcover version of TOH from 4th edition and that single adventure alone was 160 pages. Just makes me wonder what amazing things had to be cut to fit in this book.  Will it be one of the memorable encounters or trap rooms my players loved? A boss room that nearly TPK'ed the party? I just hope these aren't turning a marriage into a speed-date.


----------



## cfmcdonald (Mar 1, 2017)

Nothing will be cut from the 4th edition Tomb of Horrors, because this adventure will be based on the 1st edition Tomb of Horrors - which was, I believe, 32 pages, including the illustration book.


----------



## flametitan (Mar 1, 2017)

cfmcdonald said:


> Nothing will be cut from the 4th edition Tomb of Horrors, because this adventure will be based on the 1st edition Tomb of Horrors - which was, I believe, 32 pages, including the illustration book.




I looked through a pdf of it. Without the illustrations it ends up at about 12 pages, including the pregens.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 1, 2017)

Henry said:


> Yep - keep in mind how 1st edition adventures listed monsters - very much the same way that 5e does. Unless there's something unique about a critter, most 1e modules would list the creature, possibly in bold, list its hit points, and that's it. The entirety of G1 was 8 pages long, as someone said - you could add more meat and still come in under 32 pages for all of G1 through G3.




Well, a little more than HP, but very brief one line entries with core stats, yes.  When I write my 5e adventures, I intentionally follow the same format because I think the core key stats should be right there for easy reference.

For some 1e examples:

There are a total of 22 normal hobgoblin guards here (AC
10 (5); MV 12” (9); HD 1 +1; hp 6 each; #AT 1 ; D 1-8 long swords)
and two sergeants (AC4; MV6”; HD2; hpl3each;#AT1; D1-8
long swords).

For NPCs:
Cari (AC 6; MV 15“; HD 2; hp 17; #AT 2; D by weapon and 2-7; S 16,
14, W 4, D 16; C 16, Ch 5)

And for creatures with special feature:
four soldiers (AC 3;
MV 18"; HD 3; hp 13 each; #AT 1; D 2-8; SA Poison sting (3-12
hit points of damage, 1-4 if savevs. Poison); SD Nil; MR Std; Int
Animal; AL N; Size S; xp 79 each; THACO 16; MM)

Interestingly enough, that last stat is from 1e's UK3 before 2e came out, but references THAC0.  A lot of people think THAC0 didn't happen until 2e, but it's actually also referenced in 1e DMG towards the back in the big chart of monsters.  The more you know...


----------



## happyhermit (Mar 1, 2017)

shamurai7 said:


> I ran the hardcover version of TOH from 4th edition and that single adventure alone was 160 pages. Just makes me wonder what amazing things had to be cut to fit in this book.  Will it be one of the memorable encounters or trap rooms my players loved? A boss room that nearly TPK'ed the party? I just hope these aren't turning a marriage into a speed-date.




The hardcover version of TOH for 4e is not "faithful" to the original, it is a reinterpretation based on the original module in the same way that Curse of Strahd is based on the original Ravenloft modules (of course Curse of Strahd is a lot bigger). 

Wotc did release a relatively faithful 4e update of TOH as well, in PDF. This will probably be similar but in a hardcover with a bunch of other modules.

As other have mentioned they aren't "cutting" anything from the 4e TOH, because that isn't the source material.


----------



## Henry (Mar 2, 2017)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, a little more than HP, but very brief one line entries with core stats, yes.  When I write my 5e adventures, I intentionally follow the same format because I think the core key stats should be right there for easy reference.
> 
> For some 1e examples:
> 
> ...



I'm talking about the earlier modules -D3 for example has "Bugbear Trackers (HP 17 each, AC 3 )" and in another place Drow fighters as "2nd level (HP 9 each, +1 chain mail, +1 buckler, +1 for 15 dexterity, for an overall AC of 1)" and goes on to describe weapons and spells, but when selfsame NPC types are referenced again later, only gives hit points unless something changes. Even a named vampire only gets Hit Points, AC, and only lists spells and items the stock vampire doesn't have.

Main point being, neither 1e nor 5e go into great detail, only describing something usually if it's different from what is listed in the Monster Manual. For the most part, most opponents in the early 1e modules are also found in the 5e monster manual, so not a lot needs more description than "there are 3 trolls here."

What will be different is numbers of creatures and gauging power level, because 5 1e frost giants in a room is a WAAAY different encounter than 5 frost giants in a room in 5e.


----------



## 77IM (Mar 2, 2017)

My hope is that they saved page space via inclusion of _multiple giant full-color poster maps!_


----------



## Elderbrain (Mar 2, 2017)

Given the monsters that appeared in the original versions of these adventures, can we expect anything new to 5e? I mean, besides NPCs and bosses like Acererak, that is...


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 3, 2017)

Elderbrain said:


> Given the monsters that appeared in the original versions of these adventures, can we expect anything new to 5e? I mean, besides NPCs and bosses like Acererak, that is...



Yes.  Not only have the developers stated that there would be some updated monsters, the most recent Dragon+ had a link to the adventure's introduction, which outright says there is going to be an appendix detailing monsters from the adventures that have not been previously updated to 5e.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 5, 2017)

Elderbrain said:


> Given the monsters that appeared in the original versions of these adventures, can we expect anything new to 5e? I mean, besides NPCs and bosses like Acererak, that is...



 [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has stated the 3E NPCs were a big challenge to translate to 5E terms, and will be a big chunk of that appendix.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Mar 8, 2017)

https://marketplace.roll20.net/browse/bundle/5/tales-from-the-yawning-portal



> The suggested levels for each adventure are:
> 
> The Sunless Citadel: Level 1
> The Forge of Fury: Level 3
> ...




So, what do you think "Higher-level." actually means? If it were 12th, they would've just said that so... 13th, 14th, 15th?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 9, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> https://marketplace.roll20.net/browse/bundle/5/tales-from-the-yawning-portal
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do you think "Higher-level." actually means? If it were 12th, they would've just said that so... 13th, 14th, 15th?



14th according to Mearls other interviews.


----------



## Rhosyn (Apr 15, 2017)

This will be my first attempt at GMing a game and sharing it with all the other team members including our current GM (who will be a character now). I get to go first with Sunless Citadel. Looking forward to learning all I can before then. Hopefully the resources here in EN world will help!


----------



## robus (Apr 15, 2017)

Rhosyn said:


> This will be my first attempt at GMing a game and sharing it with all the other team members including our current GM (who will be a character now). I get to go first with Sunless Citadel. Looking forward to learning all I can before then. Hopefully the resources here in EN world will help!




Good luck and remember to have fun!

My top recommended reads for a new DM:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...djudicate-Actions-in-D-amp-D-5e#ixzz44mScJ82F
http://theangrygm.com/how-to-structure-a-session/
http://theangrygm.com/the-art-of-the-recap/
http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/


----------



## Rhosyn (Apr 15, 2017)

Wow, great material thanks. Looks like some great advice here. I think I'll need to test it out on a few trusting friends first before going "live" .


----------

