B4: The Lost City is a classic module for D&D. At one point it (in)famously stops giving full description of the rooms but instead lists monsters in each area and tells the DM to figure out why they’re here themselves. Once the reprint will show up in new anthology, I’m sure people who complain online whenever WotC uses “ruling not rules” or “DM decides” or “these parts were left for the DM to fill in” in their design (and then continues buying WotC books to keep removed and doesn’t touch 3rd party or other games for some reason) is going to be normal about it. /s
I ran quite few old modules and I think it’s doing them disservice to just assume their design philosophy was inherently wrong or flawed. Yes, we developed many different ideas and perspectives over the years but they were often aiming for different things and old modules are, I notice, often very good with presenting PCs with a situation and letting them go wild with solutions. I think I prefer them to modern WotC or Paizo formula of a strict linear plot
I do not believe you have run a modern module if you don’t think they let players go wild with solutions. They might include a solution instead of leaving it as an exercise for the DM, but they very much let players approach them however they want.
Anyway, putting random monsters in a room and telling the DM to figure something out is inherently flawed. It’s literally incomplete, and has filler encounters. Those are definitely flaws in a prepared adventure. As I’ve repeatedly said, they wouldn’t be flaws in a different type of publication, but we’re not discussing that type of publication.
Also, you forgot to defend your actual point. Even if they weren’t flaws, how would that make people who don’t like that “style” cowards?
I have run Lost mine of Phandelver, several of Dragon of the Icespire Peak adventures, two and half modules from Candlekeep Mysteries, one from Twelve Peculiar Towers, one dms guild adventure, I think this is far from not having run a modern module as you accuse me of.