Revisiting a classic Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game can reveal both the appeal of older RPG design and the frustrations that modern players may struggle to tolerate. Mortem's examination of Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor falls firmly into the latter category, describing a dungeon crawler undermined by questionable character progression, punishing encounters, and tedious exploration. Rather than dismissing the game outright, he carefully distinguishes between the quality of the original experience and the preservation efforts that have made it accessible again. That distinction establishes a thoughtful foundation for an otherwise overwhelmingly negative assessment.
One of the review's most important observations concerns the work performed by SNEG, the company responsible for bringing the game back to Steam. Mortem praises its efforts to preserve older Dungeons & Dragons titles, improve compatibility, and address longstanding technical problems. During approximately 15 hours of gameplay, he encountered only one significant issue involving a character becoming stuck in a doorway. This technical stability demonstrates that the re-release succeeds at making the original experience playable, even if its underlying design remains deeply flawed. By separating restoration quality from gameplay quality, Mortem avoids unfairly criticizing the company responsible for preserving the title.
Character creation provides the first substantial example of the game's restrictive design. Players begin with four party members selected from predefined characters, custom creations, or a combination of both, eventually expanding their group to six. Unfortunately, Mortem discovers that several premade characters possess superior attribute distributions that custom characters cannot reproduce. Even more disappointing is the limited control over character development, with the game automatically selecting most skills and feats according to class. Although occasional spell choices remain available, this approach significantly reduces the customization normally associated with Dungeons & Dragons RPGs. His criticism is particularly convincing because he explains how these restrictions create mechanical disadvantages rather than merely limiting personal expression.
The discussion becomes considerably more revealing when Mortem examines the game's combat balance. Using an adaptation of third-edition Dungeons & Dragons rules, the game repeatedly throws large groups of dangerous enemies against an initially underpowered party. Shadows, wraiths, and similar undead creatures prove especially frustrating because their attacks can drain attributes or temporarily reduce character levels. Their incorporeal nature also makes conventional attacks unreliable, creating encounters where players struggle to damage enemies while suffering increasingly debilitating effects. Mortem identifies the cleric's Turn Undead ability as an unusually valuable solution, but emphasizes that even effective preparation cannot completely overcome the relentless encounter frequency. His explanations give viewers a practical understanding of why these battles feel exhausting rather than satisfyingly difficult.
Resource management compounds these problems through restrictive resurrection options and awkward progression requirements. Early access to reliable revival depends on retrieving a particular staff, yet obtaining it requires defeating dangerous enemies while operating with a relatively small party. Losing a character can therefore mean reloading rather than recovering naturally from a difficult encounter. Later battles introduce groups of orogs capable of repeatedly casting Hold Person, potentially disabling multiple party members until they recover or die. Mortem acknowledges that generous scroll drops and improved abilities eventually provide some relief, particularly once the party reaches six members and gains access to area-of-effect spells. Nevertheless, the accumulation of these obstacles makes his first 15 hours feel unnecessarily punishing, and his detailed examples support that conclusion.
Exploration receives similarly harsh criticism, although this portion of the discussion is somewhat less developed. The adventure unfolds across a large interconnected environment involving underground dungeons, the ruined city's upper areas, prisons, and a castle. Mortem describes the early dungeon environments as visually repetitive, while complicated movement between multiple levels makes quest navigation increasingly troublesome. Although the game includes a map and manually placed markers, important environmental information appears only when characters approach certain locations. Consequently, the available navigation tools do little to eliminate confusion. These observations reinforce the impression of a game that confuses prolonged effort with meaningful progression, though additional visual comparisons and specific quest examples would have made this criticism more substantial.
Mortem's presentation benefits from his familiarity with Dungeons & Dragons mechanics and his willingness to explain how individual design decisions interact. His commentary remains conversational and occasionally exasperated, but his frustration is generally supported by specific examples rather than unsupported complaints. The biggest limitation is that this is explicitly an early assessment rather than a completed review. Having explored roughly 30 to 40 percent of the adventure, he cannot yet determine whether later chapters improve the pacing, encounter variety, or overall experience. His acknowledgment that additional party members and stronger spells have already begun easing the difficulty demonstrates welcome openness to changing his assessment. However, the emphasis on mechanical frustrations leaves comparatively little discussion of the story, characters, atmosphere, or other elements that might offer meaningful reasons to continue playing.
Pros
- Mortem clearly distinguishes the successful technical restoration from the original game's underlying design problems.
- The discussion of character creation identifies specific restrictions that undermine customization and party balance.
- Detailed explanations of third-edition Dungeons & Dragons mechanics make difficult combat encounters easier to understand.
- The analysis demonstrates how enemy abilities, encounter composition, and limited resurrection resources combine to create excessive difficulty.
- Practical observations about clerics, consumable items, and area-of-effect spells provide useful guidance for prospective players.
- The criticism of repetitive environments and inadequate mapping highlights important weaknesses beyond combat.
- Mortem acknowledges his incomplete playthrough and remains open to reassessing the game after experiencing later chapters.
Cons
- The assessment covers only approximately 30 to 40 percent of the adventure, limiting the strength of its overall judgment.
- The overwhelming focus on frustrating mechanics leaves the game's narrative, characters, and atmosphere largely unexplored.
- Several combat complaints overlap, occasionally making the discussion feel repetitive despite the different underlying problems.
- The criticism of dungeon navigation would benefit from more specific examples illustrating how the mapping system obstructs progress.
- The presentation offers relatively little consideration of whether experienced dungeon-crawling enthusiasts might appreciate aspects of the game's demanding structure.
Mortem delivers a knowledgeable and persuasive critique of an old-school RPG whose restrictive progression, punishing encounters, and cumbersome exploration have made its opening chapters deeply unpleasant. His appreciation for preservation efforts and willingness to acknowledge improvements in later gameplay give the discussion credibility beyond its frustrated tone. Although the incomplete playthrough prevents a definitive judgment on the entire adventure, this is a valuable early assessment that clearly explains why the restored game may appeal primarily to dedicated genre enthusiasts.
