From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd


So, as a counter-point to the previous 'hidden gems' thread... how
about you name a D&D gaming book that you thought was particularly
awful. So basically any module, campaign setting, or rulebook
--whether official or otherwise-- made you regret not only the money
you spent buying it, but the time you spent reading it.

This is a much wider category and I'm having a hard time picking just
one. There's been a LOT of terrible material released for D&D over the
years. But if I had to pick one it would might be "DLA3 Dragon's
Rest", a particularly bad late-era Dragonlance adventure module. The Dragonlance modules in general weren't very good. I always thought
they were both too railroady in design without giving DMs enough
information to flesh out the world; they were fun if you knew the
novels and just wanted to relive the adventures of Carmaron, Raistlin
and the rest but less so if you wanted to have adventures of your own.

But the DLA saga ("Dragon's Rest" was the third module in a
loosely-intertwined trilogy of adventure modules) was even worse,
because it had the opportunity to be so much more. Released to take
advantage of the new "Taladas" game setting (an entirely new region of
the Dragonlance world not as tightly bound to the novels), it instead
was as linear as the rest of the modules but without the charm or epic
feel. It was just a badly paced adventure with ridiculous, sophomoric
ideas and ugly art.

Is it the worst module, or the worst thing ever produced for D&D?
Probably not, but it stands out in my mind because it was a chance for Dragonlance to finally show off its potential... and it flopped
terribly instead.

What D&D material comes to mind when you think of a bad adventure or
reference book?


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

What D&D material comes to mind when you think of a bad adventure or reference book?

So many, so many of them...

The avatars trilogy of modules would be an obvious choice. When young me started playing AD&D in the early days of 2nd edition, I bought the
Forgotten Realms Campaing Set (the 1st edition gray box, that was before
the 2nd edition came out) and the Forgotten Realms Adventures
hardback. The hardback advertised the modules trilogy as the narrative
behind the changes between the two products, so of course my next
purchase was the modules. Even at the time I couldn't really imagine
what to do with them.

But no, the one that sticks as awful is probably the 2nd edition
Draconomicon. I quite liked the Wyrms of the North series in Dragon
Magazine so I should enjoy this book, except... well, the
pseudo-scientific introduction is so bad, I couldn't bring myself to
read any further. Maybe the rest of the book is good, I guess I'll never
know.
--
Arnaud
https://the-dm.oook.fr/
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 21:41:43 +0200, Arnaud Gomes <arnaud+rgfd@carrosse.frmug.org> said this thing:

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

What D&D material comes to mind when you think of a bad adventure or
reference book?

So many, so many of them...

So, so, so many....

The avatars trilogy of modules would be an obvious choice. When young me >started playing AD&D in the early days of 2nd edition, I bought the
Forgotten Realms Campaing Set (the 1st edition gray box, that was before
the 2nd edition came out) and the Forgotten Realms Adventures
hardback. The hardback advertised the modules trilogy as the narrative
behind the changes between the two products, so of course my next
purchase was the modules. Even at the time I couldn't really imagine
what to do with them.

I had totally forgotten about the Avatar trilogy. Yeah, those were
pretty awful too... again largely because they were so closely tied to
the novels. But unlike the Dragonlance series, there was no charm to
the narrative.

I also really disliked the idea that the entire world was being
transformed just to match the the new rules of AD&D 2E. It just made
the entire setting feel too mechanical (WoTC did the same thing with
the 3E and 4E transitions). Worse, the modules didn't really show off
anything that made 2E different.

But no, the one that sticks as awful is probably the 2nd edition >Draconomicon. I quite liked the Wyrms of the North series in Dragon
Magazine so I should enjoy this book, except... well, the
pseudo-scientific introduction is so bad, I couldn't bring myself to
read any further. Maybe the rest of the book is good, I guess I'll never >know.

I don't know if if I'd call Draconomicon awful... but it was
disappointing. I think I was hoping for something more generic that
could be more easily adapted to my own campaigns but it got pretty
down into the nitty-gritty tying the dragons in the bookk to the
forgotten realms campaign world. Which, to be fair, is unsurprising;
it /was/ a Forgotten Realms reference book. But it made the whole
species 'just another monster' in a realm already filled with horrific
beasts, and not something worthy of being the titular beast in the D&D
game system. Dragons in my campaigns were Smaug-level disasters, and
the Draconomicon made them nothing more than 14HD monsters. Fine for
some DMs, but not what I was hoping for.

I didn't think it as awful; just low-average and not that useful to my
needs. Just like a lot of TSR material released around that time.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2