TheRPGSite

Hi guys, sometime lurker and new poster. I enjoy the site and thought I'd contribute something.

I've read statements made here (and elsewhere) that modules "really aren't needed" and that using them implies some lack of imagination/dearth of creativity on behalf of the DM.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Like many others here I've been playing D&D a long time, and with mixed results. I don't have a love/hate relationship with the game, but my ardor runs hot and lukewarm, often leading to extended vacations from gaming. But in looking back, some of the most memorable experiences I've enjoyed were exploring the ruined moathouse outside of the Village of Hommlet, escaping from the dungeons of (and exacting revenge upon) the Slave Lords, and battling the white puddings in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl. I've played in many homebrewed settings and adventures too, but to be honest many of these were inferior to published material (certainly not in all cases, however).

Is it that some people are too insecure to admit that someone else's imaginative material might occasionally be better than your own? Not to mention the time savings of using published material. I guess I don't get it.

I think there is just a split of opinion on the value of modules. I am very much pro-module and feel sing them can broaden your imagination when it comes to adventures.

I use modules for inspiration sometimes, particularly the maps and occasionally a puzzle.  I tend not to use any of the descriptive text or dialogue, though, because I like to write my own. (I admit it -- I'm a snob about that!) I *might* use 30% of the monsters, encounters, and NPCs.

I've been in games where the DM ran a string of modules, often tied together by a larger plot, and most of the time, it's been okay. We got a bit frustrated in one game when all we did was run modules, and we weren't allowed to do anything sandbox-y at all. Like, if you wanted to make a trip to such-and-such city, you generally couldn't unless there was a module centered on that place.

I'm okay with DMs reading descriptive text straight from the module, but when it comes to dialogue, nah. I've seen some *really* chatty modules where huge chunks of dialogue were scripted out, and when the DM pasted in page after page of that into a PbP game, it was kind of surreal. The conversation seemed to go on forever, with no chance for the PCs to interact at all. I think the module writer probably intended for DMs to break up all that text and let the PCs get a word in edgewise, or maybe just use fragments of it. But in this case, he pasted in all of the text wholesale.

I love a lot of modules, but I do find them to generally be a pain in the butt to use in play.

Quote from: Dana;633025I use modules for inspiration sometimes, particularly the maps and occasionally a puzzle.  I tend not to use any of the descriptive text or dialogue, though, because I like to write my own. (I admit it -- I'm a snob about that!) I *might* use 30% of the monsters, encounters, and NPCs.

This matches up almost exactly with my thoughts on modules.  While I've tried modules in the past, the idea of running a chain of modules - particularly with my players! - is just laughable.  It took 7 sessions to clear the first module and a half of the Serpents Skull series from Paizo (a full session was just approaching the old priest on the cliffside at the beginning of module 2!).  It was my only real, recent attempt at it and all the players unanimously agreed they preferred my own games, even though I hadn't let them know it was a module until after the 4th session!.  They said it just felt wrong, even if they couldn't describe how.  But for stirring up the imagination, grabbing a new beastie, a quick map...they're great!

Just wanted to chime in to say that I just got ASE1-3 and I don't recall being as awestruck by a module as I've been by this. Amazing stuff. Then again I was never a module buyer and only ran published adventures maybe twice in 20 years of gaming.

Quote from: Planet Algol;633028I love a lot of modules, but I do find them to generally be a pain in the butt to use in play.

That matches my thoughts as well, but where I get stumped is four-fold

1. Why exactly have they been difficult to use at a table?
2. What do I really need from a module?
3. What would my ideal module look like?
4. Has someone already discovered this and I missed it?

I used to be firmly in the "No Modules, I make my OWN adventures" camp.

But as I've gotten older I've discovered two things;

Firstly I don't have nearly the free time I used to.

And secondly I'm not nearly the be-all end-all genius I always thought I was as a teenager. Maybe, just MAYBE, other people have good ideas too ;)

Quote from: Replicant2;633015I strongly disagree with this statement.

That's because you have a lack of imagination and a dearth of creativity.

Welcome to RPG.net!

I like good premade adventures, but I'm more likely to chop out bits for inspiration than run it as written. That's more about my gaming is mostly conventions and game days right now so one-shots are what's most interesting to me.

I'd love a book of a dozen one shot adventures. Hell, I may just have to write it myself. I do love those 1 page dungeons as a starting point for building my own modules from a skeletal starter.

Quote from: Replicant2;633015Hi guys, sometime lurker and new poster. I enjoy the site and thought I'd contribute something.

Welcome to the adult swim.

Quote from: Replicant2;633015I've read statements made here (and elsewhere) that modules "really aren't needed" and that using them implies some lack of imagination/dearth of creativity on behalf of the DM.

Most modules suck. A few are very good.

I have no problem running the very good ones.

Quote from: Spinachcat;633050I'd love a book of a dozen one shot adventures.

Same here. I've been using the TSR Decks of Encounters a bit, but I'd like something in the middle ground between that and a full-on module.

Quote from: The Butcher;633034Just wanted to chime in to say that I just got ASE1-3 and I don't recall being as awestruck by a module as I've been by this. Amazing stuff. Then again I was never a module buyer and only ran published adventures maybe twice in 20 years of gaming.

I've got ASE1, considering buying 2-3. Is it as good as 1; I can't find any reviews but the blurb seems even more gonzo & silly (clowns?) whereas 1 was just about my sweetspot/max sillyness tolerance (my games get stupid on their own, I don't need help!).

Back on topic; I find modules useful for filling out a sandbox. I've been using them less & less as I get back on my feet as a DM (been back playing 2.5 years now) but I still buy them.

Often the problem with using them is that something I created myself, I know intimately, I can run it & riff on it & can think on the fly just how a new, unforseen event will cause X or Y. So I run them better.
with modules I don't always get that and things seems a but stiffer, slower & on occasion I muddle or forget crucial bits.

I love getting new ideas & angles from modules because there are things in them I would never dream up, but I find they take me just as long to prep as making my own stuff.

Quote from: Dana;633025I'm okay with DMs reading descriptive text straight from the module, but when it comes to dialogue, nah. I've seen some *really* chatty modules where huge chunks of dialogue were scripted out, and when the DM pasted in page after page of that into a PbP game, it was kind of surreal. The conversation seemed to go on forever, with no chance for the PCs to interact at all. I think the module writer probably intended for DMs to break up all that text and let the PCs get a word in edgewise, or maybe just use fragments of it. But in this case, he pasted in all of the text wholesale.

haha Ya, I recall a couple old Forgotten Realms modules..the sheer length of some of Elimenster's monologues!  Folks will read it too.

I have a lot of hard copy and electric adventures and campaigns, and I will suggestion those that I find better.  However, those that I tailor without such outlines to the interest of the players and myself are always a better experience.  Usually, getting a published one into game ready form is more time consuming too.  Because of these issues, the better experiences I had with modules were those that I converted from the intended system to another, since I was really focused on getting them into game ready shape.  

One thing I have found is that premade adventures are pretty good for having another person at the game table for small groups.  If there is the DM and 1 or 2 players, the module author becomes another person involved.  So, for a small group I try to bring the author's personality to the game session.  It can be like having another person in the game, since their ideas can be brought into the session.

Modules can be great, especially if you are short on time.  I've always been in the create your own camp, but I often use modules as an outline, and end up putting in a ton of my own stuff.

I like good modules a bunch.  I have nothing against them.

If I'm not running one as a one-shot, though, I have to integrate the module with my campaign, which can (depending on the campaign) involve almost as much time and thought as writing something on my own.

Some of the cooler modules I have were the early ones for Traveller like the Kinunir, because they were generic and easily slottable into any game.

I do like keeping modules around regardless for ideas that I can pinch for my own games.

When I was a teenager, I had a lot of passionate and stupid opinions on a variety of things.

Hating modules was one of those things. The games I played back then didn't have modules so I learned to game by DIY. I still think that helped me be a better GM, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

I only started using modules in the past two years (I'm 32 now), and while I tend to break them apart and change lots of things in them, I've found that even ones I don't use have bits and pieces that I can take and use elsewhere.

so yeah, I think modules are lazy, but I also think they are valuable tools. If people enjoy playing straight modules, I don't see any problem with that.

There ARE modules I would like to play/GM just the way they are because of reasons. Temple of Elemental Evil and Tomb of Horror to name a couple. Mostly because I've never played in a dungeon crawl and both of them seem really epic.

Personally, I like modules a lot, because I am not the most creative person in the world, and when I do make adventures, I tend to get stuck in a rut.

Modules give me whole new ways of doing things and ideas I never would have thought of in a million years.

I mostly just cannibalize them for spare parts at this point.
For example, that portrait in Death Frost Doom became a mosaic in an abandoned palace a few years ago; that threw the players for a loop. The rest of the module I stored away for later.

I mostly run my own adventures, but buy and occasionally run modules because they have ideas I wouldn't normally come up with, and sometimes they can offer something that's radically new and surprising. I wouldn't be the GM I am if it weren't for modules, since they taught me the major part of what I know about designing adventures.

There are typical problems which come up in the published stuff, like excessive boxed text (actually, it's better not to have any), "cabinet contents" design, linearity, railroading or just a lack of imagination... but the average quality of modules has improved significantly since the 90s, when every 1st edition product I found was a little revelation next to the junk TSR was pumping out.

I never understood the idea that modules save time. Prepping a module always takes me more time than writing something new.

Whether or not the actual content is any good, the way they are laid out, written and presented is usually so disastrous that it ends up being a net loss at the table.

Your Mileage Has Clearly Varied.

Quote from: Zak S;633140I never understood the idea that modules save time. Prepping a module always takes me more time than writing something new.

Whether or not the actual content is any good, the way they are laid out, written and presented is usually so disastrous that it ends up being a net loss at the table.

Your Mileage Has Clearly Varied.

My experience as well.
Typically I skim the module first, then read it through twice, then take notes, then adjust to the current group(tweak encounters, treasure, area, etc, etc.)   So much easier to write my own.

Played in games when the DM bought the module over lunch.  So lovely to sit there while the DM is flipping pages trying to figure out what is supposed to happen, going on, or whatever.


Now I do like Modules in the Under Illefarn(N5) style

Modules can help to expose you to other styles of play and other ways of organizing and presenting material that helps you refresh your thinking. They also serve to inspire in the same way that the Appendix N stuff does: there's almost always something to steal.

There's also a great difference between prep'ing a dungeon, megadungeon, wilderness crawl, and town/social adventure for play. Most modules have a scope that's so limited that I would be hard pressed to not agree with Zak's statement. But the good ones, the very good ones, have an expansive scope that DOES help the DM use them and springboard in to other adventurers.

double post

One of the interesting things for me in running the D&D Next play-test, is that I have not run a module since I was in secondary school.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;633154Most modules have a scope that's so limited that I would be hard pressed to not agree with Zak's statement. But the good ones, the very good ones, have an expansive scope that DOES help the DM use them and springboard in to other adventurers.

I think this assessment is spot on. Out of the 4 play-test modules, my group all really enjoyed 'Caves of Chaos' and 'Isle of Dread' - they really did seem to have enough scope to keep both me and my players happy. 'The Mud Sorcerer's Tomb' on the other hand has been a bit of a tedious slog, and 'Reclaiming Blingdenstone' just seemed very thin (to use a nebulous word to vocalise a complaint I am unsure ho to truly express).

Put me firmly in the "loves modules" camp.  Granted I haven't played a great many but the ones I have either as DM or player have almost all been great.  There's some problematic ones; A2 needs a lot of work before you can run it, as does A3.  I find that unless you're using it as a stand-alone or campaign ender (last adventure before retiring or losing a given PC), S1 needs a lot of polish at least on the backstory.  Unless you're running it as a tourney module, C1 can be a bit difficult (the tournament part forces the characters to be trapped underground and working against the poison gas; if you play it non-tournament, the characters can climb to the top of the pyramid and work downwards...)

Anyway, I do like modules.

Quote from: The Butcher;633034Just wanted to chime in to say that I just got ASE1-3 and I don't recall being as awestruck by a module as I've been by this. Amazing stuff. Then again I was never a module buyer and only ran published adventures maybe twice in 20 years of gaming.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it!

Quote from: zarathustra;633057I've got ASE1, considering buying 2-3. Is it as good as 1; I can't find any reviews but the blurb seems even more gonzo & silly (clowns?) whereas 1 was just about my sweetspot/max sillyness tolerance (my games get stupid on their own, I don't need help!).

I understand your reservations. This is all from my home campaign though and thus playtested - in actual practice, the "painted men" part worked really really well - all the encounters with them were tense and deadly-serious, and usually involved the panicked party fleeing for their lives. The key is to play it seriously and not as a joke.

Flip open the monster manual - sea lions and so forth abound. There's furniture that tries to eat you. Giant flying eyes that have smaller eyes that shoot death rays. The DMG has giant robot lobsters. It's very silly on its face, the reason it works is that we play it straight.

I did emphasize the presence of clowns in the blurb & the cover art so that nobody who bought the thing would go "WTF clowns? This isn't what I expected or wanted!"

Clowns are the most terrifying thing imaginable...

That and creepy little girls who sing nursery rhymes...




I like modules. I love reading them, and I'm looking forward to one day running a few myself.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;633088I mostly just cannibalize them for spare parts at this point.
For example, that portrait in Death Frost Doom became a mosaic in an abandoned palace a few years ago; that threw the players for a loop. The rest of the module I stored away for later.

I tend to canabalize most modules for spare parts and adventure hooks.

Some modules are useable, but I always make intuitive on the fly alterations to make them fit the setting.

I find the maps in modules handy as well. Very useful as a backdrop, as in, I can take a module like 'Decend into the depths of the earth' and use it as an underground location when I need one.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;633154There's also a great difference between prep'ing a dungeon, megadungeon, wilderness crawl, and town/social adventure for play. Most modules have a scope that's so limited that I would be hard pressed to not agree with Zak's statement. But the good ones, the very good ones, have an expansive scope that DOES help the DM use them and springboard in to other adventurers.

Yep. The best adventures combine extensive and imaginative setting material, memorable NPCs, and engaging story hooks. The latter two can be crafted fairly quickly if you have a knack for it. But really good setting material takes a lot of time and sweat. You're not going to whip together a Griffin Mountain over a weekend.

I'll often start a campaign with a module or a home-made-planned-out scenario - e.g. right now we're finishing off Keep on the Borderlands. That module functions as a background for the adventure world. The locations therein (the Keep, the Caves of Chaos) are present, and the PCs will start off going to those places. But by about 2-3 sessions into the campaign, character decisions and GM inspiration or whim lead off in unpredicted directions and that's where the real fun starts. Alliances and enemies are made, new locales are dropped in when appropriate, spur of the moment ad hoc NPCs become important cogs in improvised adventure hooks. I riff more off what the players discuss during "planning time" than what is in the printed module. So by the time we're done with the "module" it resembles very little what was actually laid out in the adventure book. The Keep and the Caves are still there and can be visited, but their meaning in the adventure have taken on a lives of their own.

For this reason, the more sandboxy the module, the better IMO. I don't mind dungeons, but have preferred them spaced out over some geography that the players can cross any way they'd like, or that the dungeon functions as a collection of communities that interact with each other much as factions of a town.  

I ran a Paizo Adventure Path once and found keeping track of "what the characters are supposed to be doing" too much work. By the time we go to the second part of the path, we had essentially broken the AP - so I started railroading a bit, got fed up, gave up, and moved on to a different game.

So no, I don't think modules suck at all.

No interest in modules probably because i like to tie everything to the game world.
I found early tsr modules so random and gonzo that using the dmg random dungeon genetator was just as good and much cheaper.
I did like thieves`s world and lankhmar more adventure hooks that complete stuff and i have used the book of lairs to throw up ideas for sessions.

So an article that throws up 50 adventure hooks for undead,or goblins, or elves is propably more useful than a 30page dungeon.
Masks of nylathotep might be the only exception.

D&D Modules have have always been nearly completely useless to me, too long, too boring and almost always with single room encounters that should have been an entire adventure in my eyes. One beholder is enough thanks, I don't need dozens of the things.

The original Ravenloft was perhaps the one I liked best, although it too had it's faults.

I had better luck with Shadowrun and Deadland modules, but again just had to cut down on the number of encounters and battles and yank out the railroad element. Typically I'd end up completely reframing the module and swapping NPCs.

In the end, the only real gain is the maps and a bit of inspiration.

Quote from: jibbajibba;633214No interest in modules probably because i like to tie everything to the game world.

Likewise, I rarely buy modules but I keep a half dozen in-setting one shots handy in case a player or players can't make it, like flashbacks or character memories. They're quite popular since rewards gained are kept by the characters.

I use modules as a resource for a few things:

1) Ideas
2) Creatures or Races
3) Starships
4) Magic Items
5) Maps & Deckplans
6) Puzzles or Mysteries
7) Situations
8) Whole Adventures

Some modules are good and some are bad. Some of the best offer a little bit of all of the above. They are not all good or all bad as a group.

Quote from: Zak S;633140I never understood the idea that modules save time. Prepping a module always takes me more time than writing something new.

Whether or not the actual content is any good, the way they are laid out, written and presented is usually so disastrous that it ends up being a net loss at the table.

Your Mileage Has Clearly Varied.

Apparently it has. I'm not sure how prepping a module takes more time than writing something entirely from scratch. I can understand it with a module like Ravenloft, which involves familiarizing yourself with a new plane, spell effects, and so on. But something like The Keep on the Borderlands provides a generic keep and caves complex to drop into an existing campaign. The maps alone seem a time-saver.

+1 to what is said here, I am pro-module, and not just for D&D.  Shadowrun, Chaosium games and a wide variety of other games have really great adventure supplements, even those stinky swiney storygame RPGs.  Marvel Heroic's Annihiliation event was heavily played to great acclaim at this year's Dreamation in NJ which I attended.

On the Trad game side, Paizo has built it's strength IMO not from it's core rules set, but from it's adventure paths. There's a ton of great Pathfinder content that's ready to play.  Great mods are a god send for time strapped GMs.

Quote from: Replicant2;633304Apparently it has. I'm not sure how prepping a module takes more time than writing something entirely from scratch. I can understand it with a module like Ravenloft, which involves familiarizing yourself with a new plane, spell effects, and so on. But something like The Keep on the Borderlands provides a generic keep and caves complex to drop into an existing campaign. The maps alone seem a time-saver.

Well, for me prepping for a game from scratch involves jotting down a half dozen notes on a sheet of paper.  Prepping a module involves reading the whole damn thing, much more work.

Use everything: modules, side treks, books, movies, cartoons.  Everything.

Just don't use anything unvetted.

I suspect that almost no one uses plain vanilla modules.  A good GM is always going to add something, so how about everything?

Just to throw a bleeding seal into the shark tank:

Modules are great but adventures suck.

Quote from: Replicant2;633304Apparently it has. I'm not sure how prepping a module takes more time than writing something entirely from scratch. I can understand it with a module like Ravenloft, which involves familiarizing yourself with a new plane, spell effects, and so on. But something like The Keep on the Borderlands provides a generic keep and caves complex to drop into an existing campaign. The maps alone seem a time-saver.

The Keep  is a fine example of a module where I don't get how it could save anyone time.

Here's almost every single thing in the Caves:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/caves-of-chaos-is-one-page-dungeon.html

Here's the Keep:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/keep-cheat-sheet-tekumel-violence.html

Here's the wilderness map:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/its-been-30-years-they-still-havent.html

All the content not on those three maps could fit in 3 module pages but the whole thing is muuuuuuuuch longer than that and written in paragraph form.

As for stocking, the monsters are straight outta vanilla central: kobold goblin ogre gnoll etc.

I mean: it is a fun module to play, but someone taking more than 5 seconds to think up "3 Goblins" and write it in a box is baffling.

Modules are great in helping to learn how to play the game.  Not so good, otherwise. Would rather have a campaign setting. I have all of the Judges Guild adventure modules, but never use them, except to mine them for ideas. I have B1 of course, and would own B4 Lost City if I could find a copy... and also have Forge of Fury. That's it for modules though. Much better to make up original dungeons and mini-settings, especially considering most of the players have either;

1) Gm'ed the module themselves, so know all of the "Surprises"...

...or

2) Played in the module setting one or more times already, so there is nothing new for them there.

Homebrew has the big advantage of putting all of the players on a more-or-less equal footing when it comes to learning about the Dungeon or Setting locale.

Quote from: Zak S;633367The Keep  is a fine example of a module where I don't get how it could save anyone time.

Here's almost every single thing in the Caves:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/caves-of-chaos-is-one-page-dungeon.html

Here's the Keep:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/keep-cheat-sheet-tekumel-violence.html

Here's the wilderness map:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/its-been-30-years-they-still-havent.html

All the content not on those three maps could fit in 3 module pages but the whole thing is muuuuuuuuch longer than that and written in paragraph form.

As for stocking, the monsters are straight outta vanilla central: kobold goblin ogre gnoll etc.

I mean: it is a fun module to play, but someone taking more than 5 seconds to think up "3 Goblins" and write it in a box is baffling.

Okay, you raise some good points about the relative shallowness of KOTB. Though I don't think you quite do justice to the Mad Hermit (the flavor text and Erol Otus illustration make that encounter unique, and more than just numbers on a map). Maybe not a good example on my part.

Still, I remember the first time I played through In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, and having my mind blown by the fact it started you off naked in a dungeon and required you to fight your way out with thighbone clubs and shields of giant crabhide. Imaginative touches like that are stuff not every garden-variety DM can think up him- or herself.

Quote from: Replicant2;633385Still, I remember the first time I played through In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, and having my mind blown by the fact it started you off naked in a dungeon and required you to fight your way out with thighbone clubs and shields of giant crabhide. Imaginative touches like that are stuff not every garden-variety DM can think up him- or herself.

That is probably true, but I find the ubiquity (at least on line) of the ideas that:

1. Modules are a great way to learn to GM (for everybody!)

and

2. Modules are a great way for theoryheads to figure what a game is "supposed to be about"

...depressing.

Making up your own stuff with no help from anyone is and always should be one of the things that goes on in the RPG hobby. It's not for everyone but I think it is for, say 50% of GMs, and I wouldn't want anyone with a head full of ideas who finds modules a stumbling block to keep getting the advice that that's the best way to go and that they're missing out if they don't "get" them.

When we had our show, I was floored by the amount of mail we got from people to whom it had never even occurred to them that an average joe DM would just make something up. And I thought that was pretty sad.

Nothing is The One True Way. Some folks need to do one thing and some need to do another.

Quote from: Zak S;633388When we had our show, I was floored by the amount of mail we got from people to whom it had never even occurred to them that an average joe DM would just make something up. And I thought that was pretty sad.

For real?  Crazy.  Well, definitely good work help those folks.  

Back in the day, it always made me wonder why I was using the Greyhawk boxed set, when all I ever used was the names of places from it.  Even the map was too cumbersome to use at a session.  So, it was just used by me to gauge travel times prior to game.  Let alone using modules.  We would buy them, and they would sit in a stack unused, since we were occupied with our own things.

Heh. I'm almost the same way about the various Greyhawk sets, except I actually do use the maps. My S.O. got a craft shop to put the Darlene maps on foamcore for me, and they're just above my desk.

In the PbP I'm running, we're traveling to Ekbir at the moment, and I've made up pretty much everything about the caliphate except a few landmarks and the name of the ruler.

I have a bajillion Greyhawk modules, pretty much all the ones ever published, and I've yet to run a single one all the way through.

That said, I may run Beyond the Crystal Cave or Night's Dark Terror sometime soon.

Quote from: Kuroth;633393For real?  Crazy.  Well, definitely good work help those folks.  

Back in the day, it always made me wonder why I was using the Greyhawk boxed set, when all I ever used was the names of places from it.  Even the map was too cumbersome to use at a session.  So, it was just used by me to gauge travel times prior to game.  Let alone using modules.  We would buy them, and they would sit in a stack unused, since we were occupied with our own things.

When we used greyhawk we just used the map as a table cloth in effect. Lay it out point to a hex you start here and you were born here. Now lets get on with stuff.

Quote from: Zak S;633367The Keep  is a fine example of a module where I don't get how it could save anyone time.

Here's almost every single thing in the Caves:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/caves-of-chaos-is-one-page-dungeon.html

Here's the Keep:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/keep-cheat-sheet-tekumel-violence.html

Here's the wilderness map:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/09/its-been-30-years-they-still-havent.html

All the content not on those three maps could fit in 3 module pages but the whole thing is muuuuuuuuch longer than that and written in paragraph form.

As for stocking, the monsters are straight outta vanilla central: kobold goblin ogre gnoll etc.

I mean: it is a fun module to play, but someone taking more than 5 seconds to think up "3 Goblins" and write it in a box is baffling.

You are defining the concept of "extreme" in this matter.

Quote from: Zak S;633388When we had our show, I was floored by the amount of mail we got from people to whom it had never even occurred to them that an average joe DM would just make something up. And I thought that was pretty sad.

Wow!  That sits somewhere between bewildering and sad.  It never even occurred to me that the average joe DM wouldn't just make up shit whenever they felt like it.

Quote from: Piestrio;633038I used to be firmly in the "No Modules, I make my OWN adventures" camp.

But as I've gotten older I've discovered two things;

Firstly I don't have nearly the free time I used to.

And secondly I'm not nearly the be-all end-all genius I always thought I was as a teenager. Maybe, just MAYBE, other people have good ideas too ;)

I've found that the value of modules has gone up the less time I have to tinker in between games.

That said, they still have to be good enough to capture my imagination.

Quote from: Old One Eye;633405Wow!  That sits somewhere between bewildering and sad.  It never even occurred to me that the average joe DM wouldn't just make up shit whenever they felt like it.

Have you read or played WotC D&D? Seen the stat blocks? Do you understand how ELs and CRs are hard-coded into the play format? Of course many GMs are intimidated at the prospect of pulling that all together themselves. Not to mention the work involved. It can take an hour just to stat out a single NPC.

Playing and creating are two different things. Are you bewildered that most people who play music instruments don't write their own music as well?

Quote from: Haffrung;633422Have you read or played WotC D&D? Seen the stat blocks? Do you understand how ELs and CRs are hard-coded into the play format? Of course many GMs are intimidated at the prospect of pulling that all together themselves. Not to mention the work involved. It can take an hour just to stat out a single NPC.

Playing and creating are two different things. Are you bewildered that most people who play music instruments don't write their own music as well?

ELs and CRs are not hard coded into WotC D&D.  There are every bit as easy to excise from WotC D&D as random encounter tables are to excise from TSR D&D.  

A DM can easily run an entire homebrew campaign without ever statting out a single NPC.  That's kind of what the Monster Manuals are for.

I know nothing about playing music.  However, it would certainly be my guess that pretty much all musicians play around with beats and create their own little ditties from time to time.  Nothing they would want to play at a paying venue, but just having fun with their pals.

Quote from: PatW;633184Thanks, I'm glad you like it!


I understand your reservations.

Flip open the monster manual - sea lions and so forth abound. There's furniture that tries to eat you. Giant flying eyes that have smaller eyes that shoot death rays. The DMG has giant robot lobsters. It's very silly on its face, the reason it works is that we play it straight.

I did emphasize the presence of clowns in the blurb & the cover art so that nobody who bought the thing would go "WTF clowns? This isn't what I expected or wanted!"

Ah, probably a good move on putting the clowns up front. The "painted men" angle could work in a post apocalyptic setting come to think of it.

As for the silly MM stuff, I never used most of it. Anyway, I'll probably get ASE2, since 1 was strong enough on it's own to make me think you can pull it off.

Quote from: Haffrung;633422Have you read or played WotC D&D? Seen the stat blocks? Do you understand how ELs and CRs are hard-coded into the play format? Of course many GMs are intimidated at the prospect of pulling that all together themselves. Not to mention the work involved. It can take an hour just to stat out a single NPC.

Playing and creating are two different things. Are you bewildered that most people who play music instruments don't write their own music as well?

That's why it never hurts to read some bad modules to make just about any GM say, "I can make something better than this." But if the GM really sucks, well not much you can do.

Modules are okay.  I know that some people find them to be time-savers, but that's not the case, for me.  I usually spend at least as much time reading, grokking, and modifying a module as I would coming up with my own material.  When I first started with D&D, modules were often a source of inspiration, but at this point I don't find them to be full of novel ideas, although there's still the occasional bit makes me go "yeah, I probably wouldn't have put that in there, and it's pretty cool."

So I wouldn't call modules useless, but I'm not a big fan that sings their praises, either.

If GMing were confined to only those players with the creativity, time, and inclination to create their own settings and adventures, this would be an even smaller hobby than the tiny hobby it is.

The most successful RPG company today has a business model built on selling adventures. WotC made a huge mistake neglecting that market.

The way people use modules is, to my mind, a bit weird.

I think modules are for cutting up and reusing bits of.  I've used Derwyth's grove-type-thing from UK4 dozens of times (almost every time the players have gone to visit a druid or oracle).  It's just easier to re-use this stuff because when the players go, "No, actually, let's not go back to that dungeon, let's go back to the port and steal a merchant ship instead!" then if you know your modules, you've got a port town already mapped and populated (Restenford from L1 is good) and ship deck plans with crew already figured out (Sea Ghost from U1).

Eight years ago when I used to write modules that's what I wrote them for: reuse.  I used to try to include one location that a GM could strip out and reuse; one or more bands of enemies and/or NPCs that a GM could strip out and reuse; a new spell or two and maybe a magic item; and so on.  I divided dungeons into small sections with self-contained rosters so you could use bits.

But nobody seemed to do that.  Of the 28,000-ish people who've downloaded my various efforts I've had feedback from no more than a dozen, but in every single case they seemed to run what I wrote exactly as I'd written it.  And, apparently, without the players ever going off the rails and deciding to rob the shops in Melford even once...

Quote from: Haffrung;633600If GMing were confined to only those players with the creativity, time, and inclination to create their own settings and adventures, this would be an even smaller hobby than the tiny hobby it is.

The most successful RPG company today has a business model built on selling adventures. WotC made a huge mistake neglecting that market.

It also isnt an either or proposition. I love making my own material, but I also love reading and running modules on occassion. For me I just find it helpful to see other approaches, and every so often I get low on inspiration and a module is a great way to lift me out. But most of what I run at the table is my own material. To me, what matters is my players are having a great time, and I am having a great time. I don't care if some of that comes from other places.

Quote from: Haffrung;633600The most successful RPG company today has a business model built on selling adventures. WotC made a huge mistake neglecting that market.

I think there is a missing element. The most successful RPG company today has a business model built on selling good adventures.

In the latter days of TSR, I kind of remember the modules just being rather bland or horrible.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;633605It also isnt an either or proposition. I love making my own material, but I also love reading and running modules on occassion. For me I just find it helpful to see other approaches, and every so often I get low on inspiration and a module is a great way to lift me out...

Ditto.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;633605It also isnt an either or proposition. I love making my own material, but I also love reading and running modules on occassion. For me I just find it helpful to see other approaches, and every so often I get low on inspiration and a module is a great way to lift me out. But most of what I run at the table is my own material. To me, what matters is my players are having a great time, and I am having a great time. I don't care if some of that comes from other places.

That's what I do as well. I often buy a setting or adventure book with the intention of running it as written (or close to), but they almost never suit my idiosyncratic tastes. So I just take ideas, or a general sense of inspiration, from the published adventures.

Quote from: zend0g;633579That's why it never hurts to read some bad modules to make just about any GM say, "I can make something better than this." But if the GM really sucks, well not much you can do.

LOL, I've got a couple of modules that I keep around as examples of what not to do in writing a module.

Quote from: P&P;633604...  And, apparently, without the players ever going off the rails and deciding to rob the shops in Melford even once...

Well, I'm hoping those PCs at least *torched* the shops. I mean, c'mon. Better yet, my players set the jewellers store in the Keep on fire, and then robbed it while it was burning to the ground

I've found modules increasingly useful as time goes by; though often I totally gut them of their assumed plot and remake them in my own image.

RPGPundit

I've always looked at modules as though I assigned them to the author.  "Hey Gary, write me up a location and some encounters that I can run for my group."  Then I take the copy delivered, do some edits, and play.  If my players take things in a different direction, I roll with it, but try and nudge them back into what was written.  Usually without them knowing about it.

I'll also plug module content in where I need it.  That undeveloped cave in B2?  It'll lead to some other module's site, as soon as I decide which one to pick.

So modules for me are collaboration.  Invaluable.

In fact, I don't really believe there is any such thing as a 'bad module' - so long as they remain 'modular'.  I don't care for the ones that require specific characters, begin or end in exact ways, or modify the game world in significant ways.  Those require more editing, and some times it isnt' worth the extra effort.

Put me in the demented camp.

I think that part of the game is creating the adventure, part of the whole thrill is the players are playing something specific to this setting/campaign, and that an adventure, any adventure, is supposed to be the pretty much the campaign/setting magnified, a distillation of how things work and the history of that area.

I love me some modules, fun for a quick sit down and play, great for inspiration, etc, etc.  Don't mean to say they are better or worse written...

But that's not what gaming is to me.

Quote from: mcbobbo;634486In fact, I don't really believe there is any such thing as a 'bad module' - so long as they remain 'modular'.  

Mcbobbo, meet The Forest Oracle.  :D

I too love doing both. I can create elaborate settings and adventures, but I also like to run modules, especially the classics, in part because of the shared experience of the game. When you've played through Temple of Elemental Evil, the Giant series and Vault of the Drow, attempted to finish the Tomb of Horrors, or started playing through Keep on the Borderlands and tell people about that, they know what you mean. When you tell them "holy crap our party was decimated by the giant crayfish in the Moat house dungeon" they will instantly go "ahh yeah. See what you mean. Been there too" or "did you try this?" or whatnot. That's the shared experience of the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;633637LOL, I've got a couple of modules that I keep around as examples of what not to do in writing a module.

Do tell? I need me some schadenfreude.

Quote from: jeff37923;633637LOL, I've got a couple of modules that I keep around as examples of what not to do in writing a module.

I can think of a few of those, too. Like, no agency for the PCs, page after page of stuff going on that they can't participate in, puzzles they can't solve without the NPCs stepping in to guide them, etc.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;634515Mcbobbo, meet The Forest Oracle.  :D

Challenge accepted!

I have the paper copy of this one, I believe.

I'll review it and fire up a thread of how I'd treat it...

Quote from: Dana;634608I can think of a few of those, too. Like, no agency for the PCs, page after page of stuff going on that they can't participate in, puzzles they can't solve without the NPCs stepping in to guide them, etc.

Or Elminster saving them by sheer accident, while training a puppy dog. (No, really, that was one of the lowest moments in module writing.)

I'm willing to be actual, real money that the module's author wrote that as a cameo for their real-life dog.

Quote from: Planet Algol;634631I'm willing to be actual, real money that the module's author wrote that as a cameo for their real-life dog.

What? You got something against dogs? What's your problem? :D

Haha, my problem is that that's exactly the sort of thing I would do.

Quote from: Benoist;634519I too love doing both. I can create elaborate settings and adventures, but I also like to run modules, especially the classics, in part because of the shared experience of the game. When you've played through Temple of Elemental Evil, the Giant series and Vault of the Drow, attempted to finish the Tomb of Horrors, or started playing through Keep on the Borderlands and tell people about that, they know what you mean. When you tell them "holy crap our party was decimated by the giant crayfish in the Moat house dungeon" they will instantly go "ahh yeah. See what you mean. Been there too" or "did you try this?" or whatnot. That's the shared experience of the game.

Yup. Swapping stories with old hands that survived the Tomb of Horrors, or lived through the Vault of the Drow, is another aspect of modules I enjoy. I believe this shared experience is an underappreciated reason for D&D's staying power, particularly among the "OSR" and the older fan base. Sure, the hobby was at its height back then and the pool of players was larger; yes the playing base was not nearly as fragmented as it is now. But certainly the modules of the era are part of the reason why D&D fired the imaginations of so many--they were part of the fabric of the game, making D&D bigger and more expansive than just the rule books.

Quote from: Benoist;634519I too love doing both. I can create elaborate settings and adventures, but I also like to run modules, especially the classics, in part because of the shared experience of the game. When you've played through Temple of Elemental Evil, the Giant series and Vault of the Drow, attempted to finish the Tomb of Horrors, or started playing through Keep on the Borderlands and tell people about that, they know what you mean. When you tell them "holy crap our party was decimated by the giant crayfish in the Moat house dungeon" they will instantly go "ahh yeah. See what you mean. Been there too" or "did you try this?" or whatnot. That's the shared experience of the game.

There will be no denying you make a mean adventure; you've shared enough of them.

And I understand what you are saying, and not telling you that you are doing it wrong.  I played the Convention circuit more in my youth, and especially for tournament play (which is one thing a lot of modules originally started as), it makes sense, and it is a measuring stick, as well.

But it's a sideline, not what the game is built for.  A few sessions where you are missing people?  Grab a module.

Quote from: Replicant2;634665Yup. Swapping stories with old hands that survived the Tomb of Horrors, or lived through the Vault of the Drow, is another aspect of modules I enjoy. I believe this shared experience is an underappreciated reason for D&D's staying power, particularly among the "OSR" and the older fan base. Sure, the hobby was at its height back then and the pool of players was larger; yes the playing base was not nearly as fragmented as it is now. But certainly the modules of the era are part of the reason why D&D fired the imaginations of so many--they were part of the fabric of the game, making D&D bigger and more expansive than just the rule books.

Not to be a Paizo fanboy (the adventure paths I've read aren't to my taste), but that's another thing they've done right. For a lot of 3.x/Pathfinder players, the Shackled City, Age of Worms, and Rise of the Runelords adventure paths are shared, touchstone experiences. I'm not aware of any WotC adventures during the last 10 years that achieved the same level of popularity and table time.

Axandar: A Distant Echo by the (thankfully) now defunct Viking Games.

No proofing, very poor extra pixelated artwork, a forced metaplot on a 32-page module, a court scene where the PCs are just spectators, and a cave dungeon that is far less dangerous than the writers thought.

The height of cheese in this module was Graymalkin, the familiar of a stupid wizard (3rd level and decided to tackle the dungeon of over a score of humanoids alone). The PCs find this mournful cat standing guard over the wizard's corpse where the wizard scrawled "Care For Graymalkin". Why the goblins have not killed and eaten it yet is beyond me.

I hated that particular bit of module angst so much that I decided the cat left the fool wizard upon his death, taking his spellbook with him, got a druid to cast Awaken on him, studied the spellbook, and became a wizard himself. Now with a changed name, Mischa the Grey Malkin wanders the land terrorizing idiot PCs, helping those of a kind demeanor, and wenching feline queens when possible. Mischa the Grey Malkin has the personality of Michelle Malkin and speaks with the voice of Sean Connery.

Quote from: Haffrung;634781I'm not aware of any WotC adventures during the last 10 years that achieved the same level of popularity and table time.

There are four WotC modules from the 3E era that seem to have pulled that off: Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Red Hand of Doom. (Only one of those would qualify as being within the last 10 years, however.)

That's actually quite a wealth compared to 2E. I think Dragon Mountain and Night Below are the only two I'd class as achieving "common experience" status. (EDIT: Upon reflection, maybe add Dead Gods to the list.)

On the topic of incredibly bad modules, I'm fairly certain the two worst modules I have ever read were all D20 modules: Galal's Grave and The Horror Beneath.

As a sampling: Galal's Grave features a "trick" in which one path has been labeled the "Path of Life" and the other has been named the "Path of Death"; it's a trick because the "Path of Death" leads to the grave the PCs want to find. The Horror Beneath features a dungeon "key" rendered entirely as a stream of addled consciousness (with the keyed numbers just dropped into the middle of paragraphs where the author felt like it).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;635034There are four WotC modules from the 3E era that seem to have pulled that off: Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Red Hand of Doom. (Only one of those would qualify as being within the last 10 years, however.)

That's actually quite a wealth compared to 2E. I think Dragon Mountain and Night Below are the only two I'd class as achieving "common experience" status.

On the topic of incredibly bad modules, I'm fairly certain the two worst modules I have ever read were all D20 modules: Galal's Grave and The Horror Beneath.

As a sampling: Galal's Grave features a "trick" in which one path has been labeled the "Path of Life" and the other has been named the "Path of Death"; it's a trick because the "Path of Death" leads to the grave the PCs want to find. The Horror Beneath features a dungeon "key" rendered entirely as a stream of addled consciousness (with the keyed numbers just dropped into the middle of paragraphs where the author felt like it).

Red hand of doom is one of my favorites. Had a great game session where the pc's lured a huge force of goblin warg riders onto a stone bridge and collapsed it. Earth Wizard one...Goblin wargriders ZERO!

What was particularly cool, was that the player put in his backstory that he built many stone structures in the area. So he was destroying a bridge he had built.

Quote from: Melan;634621Or Elminster saving them by sheer accident, while training a puppy dog. (No, really, that was one of the lowest moments in module writing.)

In which module did this happen?

Quote from: RPGPundit;635404In which module did this happen?

If memory serves, it was the introductory adventure in the 1993 boxed set.  I think there was even an illustration of it.

I've been DMing, on and off, for more than 30 years.  I can count the number of original adventures I created on one hand.  And I don't even have to use the whole hand.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever run an adventure module without making major tweaks.

Quote from: RPGPundit;635404In which module did this happen?

Beneath the Twisted Tower, the module included in the 2nd edition Forgotten Realms boxed set.

That fucking encounter is totally my Magic Deer moment. :mad: Here is what I wrote about it in 2005:

Spoiler

Beneath the Twisted Tower. This is another "introductory" adventure. Your brave heroes have just arrived at Shadowdale, and have to clean out caves for ole' Elminster. Except you are around 2nd to 3rd level, and the opposition is, yup, you guessed it, drow. Drow with strong mid level magic-users, clerics and fighters, at the end of a dungeon which is basically a long, straight line. Fortunately, if the PCs are badly wounded, it is "Elminster to the rescue" time.

The venerable archmage appears before the party. He has a cute puppy dog, which he tries to train to "heel". Every time he utters the word, a wand in his belt flashes blue and a random PC is healed back to full health. Elminster is totally oblivious to the characters and may not be harmedor deterred by any available means. If the characters are wounded again, the DM is instructed to repeat the encounter.

This is not even a question of lame railroading. It is a question of robbing the player characters of their dignity and the players of their accomplishments. There isn't even anything they can do against it. This turkey is also supposed to set the whole fucking tone of the Realms. It accomplished the mission so admirably that I promptly returned my boxed set to the local game store and exchanged it for another product.

All right, I want a video of Ed Greenwood apologizing for this.

(http://i.imgur.com/p5WVcgZ.jpg)

Holy crap.... that's several orders of magnitude more retarded than I thought it was going to be.

FUCK

:huhsign:

You know, if Melan had said, "Make up what you think I meant about the accidental healing while training a puppy," I'm still not sure I would've come up with something that silly.

Quote from: Melan;635481Magic Deer moment. :mad:

Comprends pas.  Q'est-ce que c'est?

Modules are totally fucking worthless. Not only are they not tailored to the group in question, but you can only use them once.

Never mind that a lot of them are stupid dungeon crawls, which are a total waste of my time.

Quote from: Kiero;635547Modules are totally fucking worthless . . . you can only use them once.

Don't be so certain of that.

Quote from: Dana;635543:huhsign:

You know, if Melan had said, "Make up what you think I meant about the accidental healing while training a puppy," I'm still not sure I would've come up with something that silly.

I was imagining some sort of overwhelming villain encounter in a dale forest glade when a puppy playfully holding a wizard's hat in it's mouth comes capering into the scene with a comically flustered Elminster in pursuit soon afterwards.

Not .... ...that...

Quote from: Planet Algol;635548Don't be so certain of that.

Yep, I got pretty good mileage out of The Isle of Dread back in the day.

I only ever DM the same identical group composed of the same people. Forever.

Quote from: P&P;635546Comprends pas.  Q'est-ce que c'est?

It's a reference to Pundit's unending (and totally justified) crusade against a certain totalitarian nanny-state monarch (http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/471831529/item/) from Blue Rose (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?121027-Tempted-to-Run-Blue-Rose-backwards). (I can't find the original RPGNet posts, unfortunately... purged? Is the Magic Deer involved?)

Quote from: Kiero;635547Modules are totally fucking worthless. Not only are they not tailored to the group in question, but you can only use them once.

'Tailored' is overrated (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/tailor-made.html).

And GDW in particular did a great job putting stuff in Traveller modules that you could use over and over again.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;635716'Tailored' is overrated (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/tailor-made.html).
.

In that essay you conflate tailoring a campaign to fit a group (which can be done with or without the group's explicit input) with asking them what they explicitly say they want. Those are 2 separate concepts.

You can buy a great birthday present and still have it be unexpected and unrelated to anything the person explicitly asked for.

Quote from: Melan;635481Beneath the Twisted Tower, the module included in the 2nd edition Forgotten Realms boxed set.
[/SPOILER]

That was the second module I ever ran (and thus second game I ever played) :D

Even as a 12 year old idiot I thought that was dumb and didn't include it.

Quote from: Kiero;635547Modules are totally fucking worthless. Not only are they not tailored to the group in question, but you can only use them once.

Not true at all.  I've used B2 over a dozen times.  I've also used B3 sevearal times with the same party of characters.  Just because you've "completed" the module doesn't mean that every NPC in the module just all the sudden disappeared or went into a stasis

QuoteNever mind that a lot of them are stupid dungeon crawls, which are a total waste of my time.

Good thing we've established years ago that you don't represent most gamers.

Quote from: Zak S;635743In that essay you conflate tailoring a campaign to fit a group (which can be done with or without the group's explicit input) with asking them what they explicitly say they want. Those are 2 separate concepts.

Yeah, I was thinking specifically about them in combination, but sure, it's possible to strip them out.

I've yet to read a module that was any better than what I can come up with myself.

And I'm not even a very good DM.

Quote from: J Arcane;635778I've yet to read a module that was any better than what I can come up with myself.

And I'm not even a very good DM.

The question isn't if you could come up with a better module; the question is whether the cost/benefit in time and energy is worth it. A lot of people have trouble finding time to game, let alone time to prepare for gaming at the 3:1 ratio it typically takes to create your own settings, maps, NPCs, and adventures.

I'm doing it myself right now - writing up a regional gazetteer and outlining some conflicts and adventures. I'm only about 20 hours in, and I'm starting to peter out already.

I've been getting more and more modules as time goes by, but most of the time I just cannibalize them for ideas. I take the NPCs and events and locations and let them hang out there in case PCs want to interact. The ToEE example given in this other thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=635830&postcount=77) is very relevant, as in my notes for running ToEE wiuth C&C (which I never did) I wanted a more CoC vibe, so I made Lareth (renamed Lothar) a cleric of Tharizdun (renamed "The Dweller In Darkness") and even gave him a tiny, secret cult following back in Hommlet which tipped him off to the PCs' movements.

This is the assumed use of old school adventures (hence, "module") but can be done with other published adventures too. In fact, I'm in the process of doing this to the railroaderrific Ashes of Middenheim module for WFRP 2e.

I do a very poor job of adhering to modules that presume a "correct" sequence of events and locations. I feel constrained, which is kryptonite to my GMing style; my adherence to sandbox principles is less of a philosophical statement, and more about how my brain is wired to run RPGs.

Quote from: The Butcher;635834I do a very poor job of adhering to modules that presume a "correct" sequence of events and locations. I feel constrained, which is kryptonite to my GMing style; my adherence to sandbox principles is less of a philosophical statement, and more about how my brain is wired to run RPGs.

Definitely. I really tried to give Paizo's adventure paths a try, but the scripted dialogues and railroaded plot-lines repelled me. I just can't get my head around the notion that an RPG adventure involves telling someone else's story.

I don't understand why we don't see more adventure settings like Griffin Mountain, the Vault of Larin Karr, or Ancient Kingdoms: Mesopotamia*. I guess a lot of groups have trouble developing stories in play. Which strikes me as weird.

* The most poorly named setting book in D&D history. It has little to do with history, and is in fact the best Sword and Sorcery RPG book I've ever seen (the author used to host a Conan fan-site). If it had been titled "Ruins of the Red Waste", or "Lost City of the Vampire Lord" it would have sold like hot-cakes.

Quote from: Haffrung;635780The question isn't if you could come up with a better module; the question is whether the cost/benefit in time and energy is worth it. A lot of people have trouble finding time to game, let alone time to prepare for gaming at the 3:1 ratio it typically takes to create your own settings, maps, NPCs, and adventures.

I'm doing it myself right now - writing up a regional gazetteer and outlining some conflicts and adventures. I'm only about 20 hours in, and I'm starting to peter out already.

I guess we chalk this up to us all being different.  
I really have no time.  I just like my own stuff and it fits the campaign better than something rewritten or shoehorned.

Quote from: The Were-Grognard;635458If memory serves, it was the introductory adventure in the 1993 boxed set.  I think there was even an illustration of it.

Jesus fuck.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;635494All right, I want a video of Ed Greenwood apologizing for this.

Did Greenwood even actually have anything to do with this?

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Butcher;635494All right, I want a video of Ed Greenwood apologizing for this.

(http://i.imgur.com/p5WVcgZ.jpg)

It was actually written by somebody named Don Bingle, who was apparently an RPGA addict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bingle).

But here's a picture of Elminster and his pooch:

(http://i.imgur.com/YfJ7vTC.jpg)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;636260It was actually written by somebody named Don Bingle, who was apparently an RPGA addict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bingle).

Why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? The RPGA seems to be a wellspring of an inordinate amount of terrible ideas about D&D, from design through game culture and all the way to modules (Jeff and Bruce Rabe, responsible for some of the worst 2e era modules, were also RPGA people).

Also, why does this guy have a Wikipedia article?

Frustrated author turning to modules. How surprising.

Quote from: Melan;636354Why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? The RPGA seems to be a wellspring of an inordinate amount of terrible ideas about D&D, from design through game culture and all the way to modules (Jeff and Bruce Rabe, responsible for some of the worst 2e era modules, were also RPGA people).

Also, why does this guy have a Wikipedia article?

While I wasn't paying attention during the run up to 4e, what I've heard is that much of the feedback and player opinions that the developers gathered in the early stages came from RPGA types.

Explains a lot.

Quote from: Dimitrios;636394While I wasn't paying attention during the run up to 4e, what I've heard is that much of the feedback and player opinions that the developers gathered in the early stages came from RPGA types.

Explains a lot.

The problem isn't the quality of organized play which the RPGA. They produced fun and exciting adventures as well as piss poor ones. The problem is designing for organized play versus a home campaign. Something that I learned while organizing and running boffer LARP events.

The crux of the issue is being fair to a large number of players playing the game. The scale difference is ridiculous compared to a normal tabletop session. I ran events with a 60+ players and for the RPGA it is even larger. The consequence of being fair means that many elements are watered down compared to a tabletop game of 5 to 6 players.  For those wondering why people like organized play, it is largely about able to develop a character from event to event which becomes very compelling and even addictive.

Which is why I firmly believe that any good RPG designer/company should take the suggestions of the organized play customer base and apply it only to a specific product line catering to organized base. And by no means make it the main product line or the main focus of the game's design.

The needs of organized play versus regular tabletop sessions simply don't mesh.

I think it's a systemic problem that not only has to do with organized play as the source of design (and it does), but how adventure modules are construed and designed, which not coincidentally at all does indeed mesh with the "aspiring author" stereotype and the fandom of several authors/designers who have wrecked adventure design with their own personal approaches which were given center stage at TSR at some point.

Quote from: estar;636402Which is why I firmly believe that any good RPG designer/company should take the suggestions of the organized play customer base and apply it only to a specific product line catering to organized base. And by no means make it the main product line or the main focus of the game's design.

The needs of organized play versus regular tabletop sessions simply don't mesh.

Definitely. Not least among the problems of the organized play model is the notion that everybody must play by the same rules, and the GM should have limited discretion to change the framework of the game. Hopefully, with the commitment to modularity in 5E, D&D will become more flexible and hive off RAW modules for organized play.

Even in some really bad modules, I have found NPC's or encounter ideas that I wouldn't have come up with on my own. You should be able to salvage something from just about any adventure.

It's a good point. There is always, or nearly always something salvageable in a module. True.

The only times I've honestly felt that I wasted my money on a module have been when it turned out to be a totally generic dungeon crawl.

And that's only happened a few times in decades.

One thing I've always noticed (but never seem to learn) about running modules versus home-brewed adventures is that the game flows smoother with home-brew, probably because all the details are in my head already.  I don't have to pause mid-game to re-read a room description, for example.

So no, modules don't suck, but home-brewed play runs somewhat better by virtue of it being more...organic (?)

One of the best gaming I've had was playing the three modules of Against the Giants series.

There was little to no story, only a place to explore. Crazy shit happened, with a player plane shifting a pregnant hill giantess to Mount Celestia, starting an orc slave rebellion (after that they killed all the slaves as well) and setting lots of things on fire.

So my experience with modules has been rather good.

Quote from: danbuter;636412Even in some really bad modules, I have found NPC's or encounter ideas that I wouldn't have come up with on my own. You should be able to salvage something from just about any adventure.

As long as we take the benefit-cost ratio of the salvage operation in account.

Strip-Mining Adventure Modules: A Practical Guide (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5774/roleplaying-games/strip-mining-adventure-modules)

As I figured. Most of the truly awful things in Forgotten Realms books have nothing to do with Greenwood.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;635778I've yet to read a module that was any better than what I can come up with myself.

And I'm not even a very good DM.

Do you have a limited exposure to modules, or are you truly capable of whipping up something more creative than The Expedition to the Barrier Peaks or Ravenloft for your players on a given weekend?

Quote from: Replicant2;636842Do you have a limited exposure to modules, or are you truly capable of whipping up something more creative than The Expedition to the Barrier Peaks or Ravenloft for your players on a given weekend?

I'm pretty sure no one here has written something along the lines of Night Below either.  Claiming that you can write something better than everything else out there either means

a) you haven't read hardly anything else out there to compare

or

b) you're pretty damn conceited, and most likely full of poopoo

Any module is no better than the DM running it, and if the DM's at all half-decent, then what he can create for his players will always be better tuned to their collective tastes than some pre-written bunch of keyed and numbered dungeon entries.  

This is a creative hobby.

Be creative.

I know I wrote that I don't like modules earlier, but I've run Grinding Gear twice as is, and it was bad ass.

Also ran Death Frost Doom, but that didn't resonate all that well.

Quote from: J Arcane;636888Any module is no better than the DM running it, and if the DM's at all half-decent, then what he can create for his players will always be better tuned to their collective tastes than some pre-written bunch of keyed and numbered dungeon entries.  

This is a creative hobby.

Be creative.

This certainly is a creative hobby. But I see it not just in homebrews and seat of your pants DMing, but also in the endeavors of those who have penned memorable adventures for the likes of TSR and Dungeon magazine. It strikes me as rather hubristic thinking to think that DMs should ignore this wealth of creative output in favor of their own homebrewed adventures, all the time, because of some mystical link they have with their players.

Note I'm not suggesting that a DM play a string of modules; that would lead to incoherence and railroaded behavior. But I don't see what's wrong with dropping in a module from time to time, either. Sure I could whip up my own haunted tower as my PCs adventure across a wasteland, but why not drop in something like The Ghost Tower of Inverness instead? It may contain some creative ideas that I might not have otherwise conceived, and lead to a memorable adventure.

Quote from: J Arcane;636888Any module is no better than the DM running it, and if the DM's at all half-decent, then what he can create for his players will always be better tuned to their collective tastes than some pre-written bunch of keyed and numbered dungeon entries.  

This is a creative hobby.

Be creative.

While I agree with that in principle, as a gm, I am able to take a module and fine tune it on the fly.

While I may in theory create a better module from scratch, in practice, it saves time, and I get to draw on ideas from other people.

When I gm a campaign I tend to use about a 50/50 mix of modules and my own material.

Quote from: everloss;636907I know I wrote that I don't like modules earlier, but I've run Grinding Gear twice as is, and it was bad ass.

Also ran Death Frost Doom, but that didn't resonate all that well.

In all fairness, many modules are difficult at best, to run as written.

There are a few gems out there though.

100 bushels of rye from Harn is one I have used in countless fantasy rpgs regardless of game system.

Quote from: J Arcane;636888Any module is no better than the DM running it, and if the DM's at all half-decent, then what he can create for his players will always be better tuned to their collective tastes than some pre-written bunch of keyed and numbered dungeon entries.  

This is a creative hobby.

Be creative.

Running a published adventure can also involve a lot of creativity. I'd guess that the way Sacrosanct or Bill ran Night Below would be very different to how I have run it. You can modify and interpret any dungeon to suit your own group's preferences. Descriptions of the environment, characterizations of NPC, how you run combat - all are going to vary dramatically depending on who is running the adventure. The game at the table is a lot more than the keyed encounters and map, whether you're running a published adventure or a home-brewed one.

I am quite fond of the UK series of modules. Jim Bambra, Graeme Morris, Phil Gallagher, and Tom Kirby were great in my opinion.

They also did some Basic D&D modules that are good.
O2 Blade of Vegeance
B10 Night's Dark Terror
CM6 Where Chaos Reigns
X8 Drums on Fire Mountain

Quote from: Haffrung;637062Running a published adventure can also involve a lot of creativity. I'd guess that the way Sacrosanct or Bill ran Night Below would be very different to how I have run it. You can modify and interpret any dungeon to suit your own group's preferences. Descriptions of the environment, characterizations of NPC, how you run combat - all are going to vary dramatically depending on who is running the adventure. The game at the table is a lot more than the keyed encounters and map, whether you're running a published adventure or a home-brewed one.

I actually greatly enjoy sifting through a module to gather info about npc's, and then find ways to weave them into the setting.

Thats usually the first thing I do to prepare a campaign. Flesh out the npc's.

Quote from: Replicant2;637031This certainly is a creative hobby. But I see it not just in homebrews and seat of your pants DMing, but also in the endeavors of those who have penned memorable adventures for the likes of TSR and Dungeon magazine. It strikes me as rather hubristic thinking to think that DMs should ignore this wealth of creative output in favor of their own homebrewed adventures, all the time, because of some mystical link they have with their players.

Note I'm not suggesting that a DM play a string of modules; that would lead to incoherence and railroaded behavior. But I don't see what's wrong with dropping in a module from time to time, either. Sure I could whip up my own haunted tower as my PCs adventure across a wasteland, but why not drop in something like The Ghost Tower of Inverness instead? It may contain some creative ideas that I might not have otherwise conceived, and lead to a memorable adventure.

Totally disagree.

You want to take the shortcut, or you've gotten busy, no stress.

But no module will really fit into the setting like something designed with that setting in mind.  It's not Hubris, I just know my setting better than anyone else and the feel it should exhibit.

Quote from: LordVreeg;637179Totally disagree.

You want to take the shortcut, or you've gotten busy, no stress.

But no module will really fit into the setting like something designed with that setting in mind.  It's not Hubris, I just know my setting better than anyone else and the feel it should exhibit.

I'll disagree with that. Not all settings are equal. For that matter, the importance setting takes at each game table isn't equal either. So while it is certainly true that the more your setting is specific and important to the flow of the game and it's been developed for a long time and all, the more it might be decreasingly rewarding to do the necessary work to incorporate a module into it as opposed to coming with the adventure setting whole cloth, it's not going to work that way for every game table.

Personally, it'd depend on the setting. Running the D series of modules in Hyperborea (AS&SH) might require more work than is worth if I was coming up with Underborean expedition and a big bad guy city underground myself. But if I am running straight AD&D in my Greyhawk, I think running them along with the G series would be a no brainer.

Quote from: Replicant2;637031This certainly is a creative hobby. But I see it not just in homebrews and seat of your pants DMing, but also in the endeavors of those who have penned memorable adventures for the likes of TSR and Dungeon magazine. It strikes me as rather hubristic thinking to think that DMs should ignore this wealth of creative output in favor of their own homebrewed adventures, all the time, because of some mystical link they have with their players.

Do not do anyone the insult of pretending anyone is arguing about "mystical" links.

It's practical stuff we're talking about here: you know your groups tastes, capabilities, what tends to motivate them. etc. The module writer doesn't.

No matter who you are, while it may be hard to write something you(replicant) think is abstractly "as good" as a published module. I do not think it is the least bit incorrect in any way to say many many GMs are capable of thinking up something that When they run it with their group comes out way better than if they run a module for their group.

QuoteBut I don't see what's wrong with dropping in a module from time to time, either.

I wouldn't argue with that.

Quote from: Zak S;637226Do not do anyone the insult of pretending anyone is arguing about "mystical" links.

It's practical stuff we're talking about here: you know your groups tastes, capabilities, what tends to motivate them. etc. The module writer doesn't.

No matter who you are, while it may be hard to write something you(replicant) think is abstractly "as good" as a published module. I do not think it is the least bit incorrect in any way to say many many GMs are capable of thinking up something that When they run it with their group comes out way better than if they run a module for their group.

I meant no insult, Zak S., but I wonder if a DM who believes that he or she is always capable of coming up with great adventures for his or her group is in the best position to make that call in any objective sense. Friends have a way of excusing bad games, and socializing and group banter can cover up a lot of warts at the game table. It's very easy to remain in a group in which the game is marginal at best because its a safe, comfortable outing for the players. In short, we may believe we know what our players want, but we might not always be right.

I've read a lot of discussions about why pen and paper RPGs are declining, but I rarely hear about uninspired DMing as a root cause. A good game needs someone running it who is not only creative, but can read the mood of a group and de-emphasize or steer clear of elements that they do not enjoy. They also need to avoid ruts and shake things up to keep players engaged and interested. It's a difficult job!

Running the occasional module allows a DM to (ironically) stretch their creative muscles; no a module is not an adventure of their own design, but running a module requires analysis and adaptation of its contents, and role playing situations and NPCs you might not have otherwise been comfortable with. Which leads to DM growth and player engagement.

Quote from: Zak S;637226Do not do anyone the insult of pretending anyone is arguing about "mystical" links.

It's practical stuff we're talking about here: you know your groups tastes, capabilities, what tends to motivate them. etc. The module writer doesn't.

No matter who you are, while it may be hard to write something you(replicant) think is abstractly "as good" as a published module. I do not think it is the least bit incorrect in any way to say many many GMs are capable of thinking up something that When they run it with their group comes out way better than if they run a module for their group.

I meant no insult, Zak S., but I wonder if a DM who believes that he or she is always capable of coming up with great adventures for his or her group is in the best position to make that call in any objective sense. Friends have a way of excusing bad games, and socializing and group banter can cover up a lot of warts at the game table. It's very easy to remain in a group in which the game is marginal at best because its a safe, comfortable outing for the players. In short, we may believe we know what our players want, but we might not always be right.

I've read a lot of discussions about why pen and paper RPGs are declining, but I rarely hear about uninspired DMing as a root cause. A good game needs someone running it who is not only creative, but can read the mood of a group and de-emphasize or steer clear of elements that they do not enjoy. They also need to avoid ruts and shake things up to keep players engaged and interested. It's a difficult job!

Running the occasional module allows a DM to (ironically) stretch their creative muscles; no a module is not an adventure of their own design, but running a module requires analysis and adaptation of its contents, and role playing situations and NPCs you might not have otherwise been comfortable with. Which leads to DM growth and player engagement.

Quote from: The Were-Grognard;636428One thing I've always noticed (but never seem to learn) about running modules versus home-brewed adventures is that the game flows smoother with home-brew, probably because all the details are in my head already.  I don't have to pause mid-game to re-read a room description, for example.

So no, modules don't suck, but home-brewed play runs somewhat better by virtue of it being more...organic (?)

I'd agree with that. When I run a module, I have to read it a few times through to make sure I grok how it's supposed to go down. Reading that the kobolds are going to dump boiling oil from room 5 into room 4 when the adventurers pass through it is useless if I don't remember those kobolds when the adventurers make it to room 4.

If I wrote the adventure, I'm much more likely to remember those details.

Quote from: Zak S;637226Do not do anyone the insult of pretending anyone is arguing about "mystical" links.

It's practical stuff we're talking about here: you know your groups tastes, capabilities, what tends to motivate them. etc. The module writer doesn't.

No matter who you are, while it may be hard to write something you(replicant) think is abstractly "as good" as a published module. I do not think it is the least bit incorrect in any way to say many many GMs are capable of thinking up something that When they run it with their group comes out way better than if they run a module for their group.

Precisely. And I find the act infinitely more creatively rewarding as well.

As I once put it years ago on RPGnet, sure, whatever you come up with may indeed just a hoary collection of cliches, but they're your cliches, you made them, and you and the other players taking part in them is what's meaningful.  

As long as everyone at the table is on the same page and contributing, anything the group comes up with collectively is always going to ring more true than any pre-written adventure.

I've written dozens on dozens of adventures. I mapped, wrote, and DMed my first dungeon when I was 10. I submitted a dungeon to Dragon magazine when I was 12 (typed it out myself and everything). I've been creating my own material for over 30 years. My group's tastes (and mine) are idiosyncratic, to say the least. 90 per cent of the published adventures I've come across are absolute shit.

However, I know I'll never write a dungeon as good as Caverns of Thracia. It's the best dungeon I played in as a player (twice), and the best I've DMed (three times). If I were incredibly inspired creatively, and had the energy and focus to sit down and actually write a 140 room dungeon, I might come close to the text, the NPCs, and the monsters. But I couldn't come up with a map like that. I just couldn't. And if I ever came close, it would only be because I used Caverns of Thracia (and the Dark Tower) as a template.

And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard. If each group's preferences are so particular and unique, how can we explain dungeons that hundreds and thousands of groups have had tremendous fun playing? Even if you have some really peculiar play-style, like your group only enjoys playing gnome adventurer-merchants who establish trade routes in forested lands and prefer negotiations to combat, there's probably a couple pretty good modules that fit the bill with a little tweaking.

How much you play - and how much time you have to make up material - is a huge factor. When I was 10-14, we played three of four times a week, often for 6 or more hours at a time. Even though I wrote about a dungeon* a month, I couldn't come close to keeping up. At one point, we were probably going through 15-20 dungeons a year - about half bought and half homebrew. If some of you guys can create quality material at that pace - hat's off to you.

* And by dungeon I don't mean a few lairs, or a couple connected encounters on a journey. I mean 2-4 level mapped dungeons with monsters, NPC, and descriptions of rooms all written up. And affter the first year or so, I wasn't writing bare-bones monsters motels, but fully themed and conceived locales like the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. You can't just pull that kind of stuff out of your ass in a couple nights.

Quote from: Haffrung;637309And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard. If each group's preferences are so particular and unique, how can we explain dungeons that hundreds and thousands of groups have had tremendous fun playing?

That line of reasoning makes no sense.

Hundreds of thousands of people fit a size 12 shoe. Not me.
 
Hundreds of thousands of people like Barry Manilow too.

PLUS:

Dungeons are almost always fun. What you need to prove is not that the module is fun but that it's more fun than what you could have thought up in the same amount of time it took to read and prep.

It's not a "canard". It's observed reality. You like Thracia. Great. Run it. It doesn't mean I do or my group will like it.

Personally I think Thracia's fantastic as modules go, but it still doesn't fit my taste:

Greco-roman stuff where there should be viking stuff, an underground wilderness (yawn), a bunch of boring primitives (again), very few puzzles or complex traps, and a very low overall weirdness quotient.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-caverns-of-thracia-is-best.html

Your mileage may vary but that's the point. Everybody needs different stuff.

Some people happen to occupy the same aesthetic niche as the people who write modules. Good. They should be happy. Enjoy running the stuff you like.

They shouldn't pretend everyone is going to like them, however, that gets nobody anywhere.

Damn, I posted during that site outage last night and somehow my reply to Zak S. now appears twice, and before the post to which I was replying! Looks like I entered some sort of time warp. Anyway, see (identical) posts 132-133 above.

Quote from: LordVreeg;637179But no module will really fit into the setting like something designed with that setting in mind.  It's not Hubris, I just know my setting better than anyone else and the feel it should exhibit.

While I could drop some modules into my (Judges Guild) Wilderlands without a lot of work, dropping anything but a very generic dungeon or town adventure into my Arn setting would require practically rewriting it from scratch. Dropping an adventure like Night Below in either would be pretty hard neither setting has an "underdark". Also dark elves in Arn don't live underground and they are part of Arnish society (the ruling elite). Dark elves are disliked by other elves because they sided with the Dragon Empire in the Elf-Dragon Wars thousands of years ago.

Quote from: Zak S;637226No matter who you are, while it may be hard to write something you(replicant) think is abstractly "as good" as a published module. I do not think it is the least bit incorrect in any way to say many many GMs are capable of thinking up something that When they run it with their group comes out way better than if they run a module for their group.

Most of what I run would not do well as a published module. Despite that, most of what I run works better at my table than published modules do -- because what I come up with (even if I am making it up on the fly) fits my group and my campaign better.

This does not mean that I think a module-based campaign is bad, just that I could not do one unless I somehow designed the setting around the modules I wanted to run pretty much "as written". Even then I would have to change a lot of stuff in many modules just to fit our play style.

For example, recent WOTC modules would be unplayable as they seem to be little strings of set-piece combat encounters, something neither I nor my players have any intererst in.

Quote from: Benoist;637183I'll disagree with that. Not all settings are equal. For that matter, the importance setting takes at each game table isn't equal either. So while it is certainly true that the more your setting is specific and important to the flow of the game and it's been developed for a long time and all, the more it might be decreasingly rewarding to do the necessary work to incorporate a module into it as opposed to coming with the adventure setting whole cloth, it's not going to work that way for every game table.

Personally, it'd depend on the setting. Running the D series of modules in Hyperborea (AS&SH) might require more work than is worth if I was coming up with Underborean expedition and a big bad guy city underground myself. But if I am running straight AD&D in my Greyhawk, I think running them along with the G series would be a no brainer.

"But no module will really fit into the setting like something designed with that setting in mind"  
You'd disagree with this?

I don't see you disagreeing above so much as qualifying.   I see you saying that If the setting is less specific and less important, there is a different cost/benefit, which I don't see as worth really going over.  And running a module in 'your' Greyhawk (the setting they WERE made for, my point exactly) is exactly what I said works.

One of the jobs of the GM is to make the setting come to life.  We talk about this in other threads.  This is part of it, to me.

But I also fully admit I am demented about this stuff and take the 'setting-first' view as a GM.  I am not going to tell anyone what is fun; just what and why it works for me.

Quote from: Benoist;636407I think it's a systemic problem that not only has to do with organized play as the source of design (and it does), but how adventure modules are construed and designed, which not coincidentally at all does indeed mesh with the "aspiring author" stereotype and the fandom of several authors/designers who have wrecked adventure design with their own personal approaches which were given center stage at TSR at some point.

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2009/01/490px-khan_scream.jpg)
[SIZE=12]NILES![/SIZE]

Quote from: Zak S;637337Some people happen to occupy the same aesthetic niche as the people who write modules. Good. They should be happy. Enjoy running the stuff you like.

They shouldn't pretend everyone is going to like them, however, that gets nobody anywhere.

I don't get what you are saying here. To me is obvious that not everybody is going to like a module or find it suitable for their game.  Nor do am I reading that Haffrung is claiming that everybody who roleplays (or roleplays D&D) like certain modules.

He gives his reason for why he feel using published adventures are useful. From personal experience I found many other, including myself, who feel the same way. That there are certain adventures that are fun to run and often bring something that I couldn't otherwise do in the same amount of prep.

The history of roleplaying games has demonstrated that are adventure modules that are popular to run. Modules that that withstood the test of time and are considered classics. And as time goes on there will be other adventure modules that will be considered classics.

And there will will be folks that will still have no use for any of them.

So again what is the point of contention here?

Quote from: LordVreeg;637179But no module will really fit into the setting like something designed with that setting in mind.  It's not Hubris, I just know my setting better than anyone else and the feel it should exhibit.

I disagree and it depends on how much the assumptions of the referee's settings overlap that of the author's assumptions. Also your first law of setting design contradicts this.

QuoteVreeg's first Rule of Setting Design
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

If I write an adventure with the assumption of a particular rule system in mind. If the above is true, then the work the referee will need to do adapt the adventure to his setting is trivial. Note I am not equating this to the prep needed to run the adventure itself. The memorization of NPCs, locales etc. But focusing on what needed to make the placement of the adventure in the campaign seamless.

Quote from: estar;637375I don't get what you are saying here. To me is obvious that not everybody is going to like a module or find it suitable for their game.  Nor do am I reading that Haffrung is claiming that everybody who roleplays (or roleplays D&D) like certain modules.

Yes. I'm not saying any modules have universal appeal. I'm just questioning the notion that every single group is so unique that there can't possibly be any published adventures that would suit them. There have been literally thousands of D&D modules published by hundreds of writers. Even if you think 90 per cent or 99 per cent are not suitable to your group, it's hard for me to imagine there's no published adventure you could use to support your game.

And from my understanding, most people do not use published adventures strictly as-written. But I suppose some DMs don't have the knack for revising published material to suit their campaign.

Quote from: LordVreeg;637357"But no module will really fit into the setting like something designed with that setting in mind"  
You'd disagree with this?

OK that's not how I originally read the comment, but since you mention it (;)) I'll disagree with that too. It's totally possible to make a module really fit a setting like something designed for it from the ground up. It requires modifications, thinking, perhaps in some cases more work than actually coming up with the adventure from the ground up, but it's possible. I still want to one day run the G series with my AD&D Ptolus for instance, which will require some modifications on my part, but the pay off is to increase for me and the players the synergy between the setting, Ptolus, and the actual game it should reflect in my mind, AD&D 1st edition, just like the original reflected 3rd edition D&D and vice versa.

Quote from: estar;637377I disagree and it depends on how much the assumptions of the referee's settings overlap that of the author's assumptions. Also your first law of setting design contradicts this.



If I write an adventure with the assumption of a particular rule system in mind. If the above is true, then the work the referee will need to do adapt the adventure to his setting is trivial. Note I am not equating this to the prep needed to run the adventure itself. The memorization of NPCs, locales etc. But focusing on what needed to make the placement of the adventure in the campaign seamless.

First of all, I love you, man.

  The First Rule of Setting design is about matching System to Setting and Game style.  I and you can both be playing the same system, but our setting may have very different histories and feels and details and cultures and especially histories, so the way the adventures represent this is different, therefor.   Your ecology of the orc may be very different than mine in the same game system, and this affects your adventure design, in how they would act and prepare and even how they might act.  This is the same for thousands of other little facts and facets.

Example of room.

Adventure: ST

Room id: 26

Room Name: Fresco Of Stenron

Purpose: illustrative

Light: Totally dark

Odor: Moldy and dusty


Basic Description: Very Large and open room, with the sense of airyness.  The walls are grey stone, floors are blackish 24"x24" tiles.
The Ceiling has a few chunks taken out of it, but is shaped like a pyramid, with the walls being 12' high but the apex being 24' high.

There are wooden remains of three benches , each 15' long, facing the north wall.  Behind the easternmost bench is the skeletal remains of an orcash in rotted studded leather armor.

The dominant feature of the room is a frecoed tryptich on the north wall.  one large 15' wide in the middle, flanked by a pair of 10' wide ones.  Each fresco looks worn, but still clear.


The eastern fresco is of an older man, still hale, with a ancient wizened omwo~ next to him.  There is a window behind them and they seem to be in a sunlit tower chamber, rounded, with bookshelves all around.  The man has a bald pate and white hair, and a well-kept white beard, in some outlandish gold and green-gold leather armor (colors of House Tiante, Lore+10%, house armor of Stenron's repose, made by Jamik the Horned, Lore-5%).  He is handing ther robed omwo~ a book, over a desk strewn with papers (one of which has scrawled "I Warp You By Spellcasting", if someone looks).


The Middle Fresco is a depiction of the same man, middle age but very vital, in gold-tinted chainmaille with a diamond-shped curved, gold shield and weilding a Light flail. 3 headed with a slight blue tinge (custom Nacdilis, "Jeremy's Bane, Lore-5%) .  It is a winter mountainscape (mount Kanderhide, lore+5%), with the man charging across a slight incline, at a group of 14 orcash in black armor with a red diamond (Bone Tribe of the ancient Red Pass, lore+10%).


The third, western Panel, shows a much ypunger Stenron, beardless in beautiful green-tinted chain leather with a gold cloak, dueling with a grizzled human/klaxik in the ancient ringed armor (of the old Marcher army of Hardness, lore+10%).  It is a pennanted field, with many watching in the stands, the field is mown, and green, and young Stenron weilds a heavy balled flail, and a yellow diamond shaped shield, while the grizzled half breed smiles, a thick person, with a broadsword and a main gauche  (Verin Greyspoke lore-10%, ancient weaponmaster of the Hardness).   This particular version is of surpassing beauty and the expressions leap off the wall. (done in the Goodeval style, by Harmtax Geo Amrikake, student of Goodeval, lore-15%)


Basic Notes:  informational.

Encounters:  none

DM only 28 Stenrons Tomb Describe your changes:(hide this)Edit
 

This is a room example from my Tomb of Stenron adventure.  And while in some underdeveloped settings it would not matter much, almost all these names and facts are mentioned in other places and apply in many different adventures and in the history.  
My fundamental belief is that the adventure is a crystalization and magnifactiied representation of some segment of the setting.  I think it might be trivial to create a superficial match, but to create an adventure as I consider it, nearly impossible.

Quote from: Benoist;637385OK that's not how I originally read the comment, but since you mention it (;)) I'll disagree with that too. It's totally possible to make a module really fit a setting like something designed for it from the ground up. It requires modifications, thinking, perhaps in some cases more work than actually coming up with the adventure from the ground up, but it's possible. I still want to one day run the G series with my AD&D Ptolus for instance, which will require some modifications on my part, but the pay off is to increase for me and the players the synergy between the setting, Ptolus, and the actual game it should reflect in my mind, AD&D 1st edition, just like the original reflected 3rd edition D&D and vice versa.

I think to do it right, you'd be, at best, rewriting and expanding over 1/2 the work.  Which is possible, as you say.  I like making sure even my treasure is idiosyncratic (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/55210840/Flamberge%20of%20Vitality).

Quote from: Replicant2;637252Running the occasional module allows a DM to (ironically) stretch their creative muscles; no a module is not an adventure of their own design, but running a module requires analysis and adaptation of its contents, and role playing situations and NPCs you might not have otherwise been comfortable with. Which leads to DM growth and player engagement.

Depends on the group and the GM.

The Ramones did great cover songs and the world is better for them--other bands never do covers as good as their original stuff.

And the clumsy way almost all modules are written in terms of at-the-table reference means running a module is not gonna work at all for many GMs.

As for GMs judging whether they are good or bad, that's irrelevant here--some GMs are bad and know it, some are bad and don't, some are good and know it, some are good and don't--none of that leads logically to any conclusion about modules.

Quote from: estar;637375The history of roleplaying games has demonstrated that are adventure modules that are popular to run. Modules that that withstood the test of time and are considered classics. And as time goes on there will be other adventure modules that will be considered classics.

And there will will be folks that will still have no use for any of them.

So again what is the point of contention here?

The point of contention at the moment is this particular fallacy that Haffnung typed:

"And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard (Conclusion). If each group's preferences are so particular and unique, how can we explain dungeons that hundreds and thousands of groups have had tremendous fun playing (Evidence supposedly leading to that conclusion)?"

That evidence--while it may be true--in no way leads to the stated conclusion.

Quote from: Zak S;637438As for GMs judging whether they are good or bad, that's irrelevant here--some GMs are bad and know it, some are bad and don't, some are good and know it, some are good and don't--none of that leads logically to any conclusion about modules.

But if a module in any way can help a struggling DM, or give a good DM new ideas to make him a better one, than ipso facto modules don't suck.

Personally, I'm kinda interested in the axiom that modules don't sell. (As much as rulebooks) Which makes sense, until one looks at Paizo and Goodman Games, as a couple of examples of modules selling quite well.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;637463Personally, I'm kinda interested in the axiom that modules don't sell. (As much as rulebooks) Which makes sense, until one looks at Paizo and Goodman Games, as a couple of examples of modules selling quite well.

I think people took Ryan Dancey's remarks that TSR wasn't making any money from modules in the years just prior to it's collapse and elevated them into a general axiom that "modules don't make money".

Quote from: Dimitrios;637464I think people took Ryan Dancey's remarks that TSR wasn't making any money from modules in the years just prior to it's collapse and elevated them into a general axiom that "modules don't make money".

"Modules don't sell..." and "Modules don't make money..." are two different things. Moreover, with the manure that was many of the modules TSR was producing just before being acquired by WotC, I wouldn't be surprised to find that both were true...for TSR at that time. Although I can't really say that what WotC released shortly thereafter was much better.

Well when you are shoveling out shit module after shit module, you won't be making much money out of them, that's for sure.

Quote from: Benoist;637476Well when you are shoveling out shit module after shit module, you won't be making much money out of them, that's for sure.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to ask Dancey more details about the comment directly, particularly in light if successes like Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer, etc. I know he very occasionally posts here, so one can hope I suppose.

Early on, Modules were hugely successful for TSR.  BUT - I understand completely that early on everything was hugely successful for TSR.  They were sating a need that people couldn't get filled anywhere else*.

For example, I believe Frank Mentzer has said that they shifted 250,000 copies of S1 Tomb of Horrors alone.  You'd have to ask him.

...

*SHUT UP, JUDGES GUILD FANS

Quote from: Replicant2;637448But if a module in any way can help a struggling DM, or give a good DM new ideas to make him a better one, than ipso facto modules don't suck.

Sure, For that guy or gal.

That doesn't mean all of the stuff you said before in defense of that position suddenly makes sense.

Quote from: Zak S;637441The point of contention at the moment is this particular fallacy that Haffnung typed:

"And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard (Conclusion). If each group's preferences are so particular and unique, how can we explain dungeons that hundreds and thousands of groups have had tremendous fun playing (Evidence supposedly leading to that conclusion)?"

That evidence--while it may be true--in no way leads to the stated conclusion.

Sure it does, mass entertainment of all kind relies on the fact people have common experiences and backgrounds. Just as it is obvious that mass entertainment doesn't caters to everybody interest.

Adventure modules are no different. There are two things going on with adventure modules that gain mass appeal. One is that Dungeons and Dragon and it's near clones are the dominate roleplaying game for both the hobby and industry. Another that a good many roleplaying games are designed with an implied background even for those that target a genre rather than a setting.

Both mean that by and large there are large groups of gamers that share a common background. Which makes possible to write adventure modules that useful for the majority of it's target audience.

And again I stress that by no means this is a 100% for any segment of the hobby/industry. By their nature roleplaying games are very flexible with a wealth of possibilities for campaigns and settings possible with a given game. Which is why if I had to guess likely at best probably only a slim majority of referees of a given game are interested in published adventures.

Quote from: LordVreeg;637392First of all, I love you, man.
  The First Rule of Setting design is about matching System to Setting and Game style.  I and you can both be playing the same system, but our setting may have very different histories and feels and details and cultures and especially histories, so the way the adventures represent this is different, therefor.   Your ecology of the orc may be very different than mine in the same game system, and this affects your adventure design, in how they would act and prepare and even how they might act.  This is the same for thousands of other little facts and facets.

I agree that roleplaying games are very flexible but also many games come with implied backgrounds. For example for the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual there is a definite, but light, sense of an implied world behind all the monster entries. Which accounted for that fact that back in the day many campaigns in my hometown treated Orcs largely the same.

The net effect that for gamers of a given system have a shared body of experience and assumptions that can be used to craft a adventure modules that is broadly useful and appealing.

However it nowhere near a 100%. Because of the flexibility of RPGs I would say only a slim majority of referee would be interested in published adventures at best. For some games where flexibility is part of the design (GURPS, Savage Worlds, FUDGE) that number of referee interested in published adventures is vastly lower.

Quote from: LordVreeg;637392Example of room.

Adventure: ST

Room id: 26

Room Name: Fresco Of Stenron

Purpose: illustrative

Light: Totally dark

Odor: Moldy and dusty



This is a room example from my Tomb of Stenron adventure.  And while in some underdeveloped settings it would not matter much, almost all these names and facts are mentioned in other places and apply in many different adventures and in the history.  
My fundamental belief is that the adventure is a crystalization and magnifactiied representation of some segment of the setting.  I think it might be trivial to create a superficial match, but to create an adventure as I consider it, nearly impossible.

I would say it is a challenge to design a useful adventure that will appeal to  somebody with the detail of your campaign (and mine as well) but not impossible. While you have a lot of details, I bet many of them are born of our common heritage of myth and legends.  That while the combination of details is unique, the details themselves are recognized variations of existing themes.

If the goal of the author of a adventure module is going to appeal to a referee of a detailed campaign then the author needs to supply some adaptation. In short to lay bare the "bones" of the adventure. Then the referee can go, you know that shrine to a saint is 90% the same as I would have for a shrine of Saint Joseph.

Now I only attempted something like this once with my recently released Scourge of the Demon Wolf. But on the flip side for the Majestic Wilderlands I deliberately stuck with tropes of the vaguely medieval fantasy setting. I developed a lot of interesting detail in the way a US soap opera develops compelling plots set against the lifestyle of the United State.

I did this to make the setting details more approachable to my players because as a GURPS referee I always had to be recruiting novice players as time went on. However another side effect is that various D&D modules released over the years, even things like Harn modules were easily adaptable to the details of my setting.

In short if a referee's campaign is like Barker's Tekemul then yeah it is highly unlikely any published module will appeal to that referee. But if it say something like Harn then the chance go way up as many fantasy RPG share Harn's medieval and fantasy roots. Then if you get something like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk which was welded to AD&D from the get go it almost become a no brainer. Which is probably why Golarion was developed by Paizo.

Using my Scourge of the Demon Wolf adventure it is a adventure module revolving around a village being attacked by wolves. Just about applicable to any fantasy setting there. But...

It is also a Majestic Wilderlands adventure with the assumptions of that setting.  For this adventure it means

1) The village is a part of a quasi feudal system
2) That there is a culture of wandering vagabonds vaguely similar to Travellers or Gypsys
3) That mages live together for mutual protection, research and to pool living expenses
4) That demons are part of the metaphysics including the magic to summon them.
5) That bandits exists.
6) That there a dominate religion that most of a village would adhere too

By adding these element I limited the audience of Scouge, but since I think most of these elements are shared by the majority of older edition fantasy referees that the limitation won't impact sales severely. Furthermore I explicit spell all this out in a couple of paragraph which perhaps doesn't do much good for sales of this product. But I think will hugely impact the sale of the next adventure as I hope to gain a reputation of easy to adapt adventures.

And above all it is a balancing act, tip too far in one direction then I think sales will be negatively impacted but get it right then I have a shot.

Quote from: Dimitrios;637464I think people took Ryan Dancey's remarks that TSR wasn't making any money from modules in the years just prior to it's collapse and elevated them into a general axiom that "modules don't make money".

A decade ago, this was also true for every other publisher I worked for, too. In general, whatever money you spent on developing an adventure module would earn only a fraction of what the same money spent on developing any other supplement would earn you.

But two things turned out to be true:

(1) Games need adventure modules in order to find an audience. Some people require them because they don't have time to prep material for themselves (or simply don't want to prep material for themselves). For others, they'll start running a system by using adventure modules and eventually use those modules as a guide for how to design, develop, and balance their own material.

When the adventure modules are missing, the whole game line suffers.

(2) The failure of adventure modules for most game lines was symptomatic of the larger "what do I do with this game?" problem that a lot of games were suffering from (and many continue to suffer from). When there's no clear, default game structure for the game, any given game module is less likely to be useful for more than a tiny fraction of your audience.

The failure of adventure modules for TSR, on the other hand, was simply a wider problem of TSR's glutting of their market. I'm not going to dig up the numbers right now, but there was a lengthy period of time in which they were cranking out 8-10 modules per month in addition to the 5-8 modules found in Dungeon every other month. When groups aren't likely to be using more than 1-2 modules per month at most, it's pretty easy to see that TSR was literally decimating the potential market for any given module.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;637463Personally, I'm kinda interested in the axiom that modules don't sell. (As much as rulebooks) Which makes sense, until one looks at Paizo and Goodman Games, as a couple of examples of modules selling quite well.

Those are examples of 3.x modules selling well. Back in the 80's and 90's neither I, nor any other DM of my acquaintance would have been caught dead using modules on a regular basis. Most players in the area just didn't respect DM's who did so.

I experimented with running modules a year or so ago and reached pretty much the same conclusion as Zak S.

One week, being short on prep time and having a killer headache to boot, I ran a module I really like a lot and was already very familiar with, Matt Finch's Pod Caverns, a module that's pretty easy to drop into a campaign. I was chafing the whole time. It was kinda like wearing someone else's ill fitting clothes.

The only one I really enjoyed running was Death Frost Doom. Partially because I don't have much experience running horror themed adventures, so I just went with it instead of arguing with Mr. Raggi about every little detail.

The Evil-gasm at the end was pretty fun, as well.

The evidence does not lead to the stated conclusion...

Quote from: estar;637502Sure it does,

No, it does not, again. Here's the conclusion:

Quote"And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard" (Conclusion).

Here's all the evidence you gave:

Quote....mass entertainment of all kind relies on the fact people have common experiences and backgrounds. Just as it is obvious that mass entertainment doesn't caters to everybody interest.

Adventure modules are no different. There are two things going on with adventure modules that gain mass appeal. One is that Dungeons and Dragon and it's near clones are the dominate roleplaying game for both the hobby and industry. Another that a good many roleplaying games are designed with an implied background even for those that target a genre rather than a setting.

Both mean that by and large there are large groups of gamers that share a common background. Which makes possible to write adventure modules that useful for the majority of it's target audience.

And again I stress that by no means this is a 100% for any segment of the hobby/industry. By their nature roleplaying games are very flexible with a wealth of possibilities for campaigns and settings possible with a given game. Which is why if I had to guess likely at best probably only a slim majority of referees of a given game are interested in published adventures.

Not a
Single.
Word.
Of that supports the conclusion "And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard"

Not a word of it. A "canard" is a false or invalid argument meant to distract (canard=french for 'duck'=decoy) from the real point.

Nothing you said suggests that argument is incorrect.

Not a single word of it.

The fact that GMs can customize games for their group and thus make them work and have that specific advantage over module designers is in no way invalidated byt he fact that a lotta people buy modules or have things in common.

Quote from: Zak S;637495Sure, For that guy or gal.

That doesn't mean all of the stuff you said before in defense of that position suddenly makes sense.

Sorry, I'm not seeing where I've been nonsensical otherwise.

I've tried to make the case that A) Modules can be fun to play, as a player, even memorable; and B) Can be of aid to a DM as a time saver (when dropped whole and entire in to an existing campaign, or partially, such as a single encounter or a map) or as a source of inspiration (as in, "hey, this idea is pretty cool, I think I'll steal that for my next game.")

I'm not saying that they are superior to homebrewed adventures, but that they can and do serve a valuable purpose, either as a tool or an imaginative aid.

Quote from: Replicant2;637520Sorry, I'm not seeing where I've been nonsensical otherwise.

Pay close attention then..

QuoteI've tried to make the case that A) Modules can be fun to play, as a player, even memorable; and B) Can be of aid to a DM as a time saver (when dropped whole and entire in to an existing campaign, or partially, such as a single encounter or a map) or as a source of inspiration (as in, "hey, this idea is pretty cool, I think I'll steal that for my next game.")

I'm not saying that they are superior to homebrewed adventures, but that they can and do serve a valuable purpose, either as a tool or an imaginative aid.

Those things are all true.

This thing is not true:

Quote"And the whole 'for my group' qualifier is a bit of a canard"

Quote from: Zak S;637530Pay close attention then..


Those things are all true.

This thing is not true:

Well no the whole "for my group" in this context totally looks like a canard because it is invalid to the wider discussion and a sidetrack to the real point, which is that modules do not suck for plenty of other groups for a whole bunch of reasons we've been talking about all along. So your "for my group" thing is all fine and good, but it is a particular case, it is invalid to the wider discussion, and more generally, the more you pursue this post after post to get the point across, the more it looks like a decoy regarding what others were actually talking about.

So yeah. You might not have intended it as a canard, but it looks more and more like it.

Quote from: Zak S;637530Pay close attention then..


Those things are all true.

This thing is not true:

Ironic that you've accused me of being nonsensical, and for evidence have produced a quote for careful consideration that is not mine (it's Haffrungs; I never said that). But I'll play along.

Okay, so modules serve no purpose for your group. You're a creative guy perfectly in tune with a great group of players and so don't need modules at your game table. That's fine, no problem here, and in fact I'm a little envious. But how does your example invalidate what I (and many others in this thread) have professed: That modules do serve a valuable purpose for many? Do you deny that's the case?

Quote from: Replicant2;637541Ironic that you've accused me of being nonsensical, and for evidence have produced a quote for careful consideration that is not mine (it's Haffrungs; I never said that). But I'll play along.

Okay, so modules serve no purpose for your group. You're a creative guy perfectly in tune with a great group of players and so don't need modules at your game table. That's fine, no problem here, and in fact I'm a little envious. But how does your example invalidate what I (and many others in this thread) have professed: That modules do serve a valuable purpose for many? Do you deny that's the case?

i don't. Scroll through the thread, I've said that like 9 times.

Quote from: Benoist;637535Well no the whole "for my group" in this context totally looks like a canard because it is invalid to the wider discussion and a sidetrack to the real point, which is that modules do not suck for plenty of other groups for a whole bunch of reasons we've been talking about all along. So your "for my group" thing is all fine and good, but it is a particular case, it is invalid to the wider discussion,

Why is it invalid? The OP argued took issue the idea that modules "really aren't needed".

That's true. They really aren't needed. "Need" literally means you can't run a game without them. And that isn't true. It's not even true that you can't run a good game without them.

Quoteand more generally, the more you pursue this post after post to get the point across, the more it looks like a decoy regarding what others were actually talking about.

If you wanna be weirdly suspicious all the time for no reason, that's your problem.

Quote from: Zak S;637554Why is it invalid? The OP argued took issue the idea that modules "really aren't needed".

That's true. They really aren't needed. "Need" literally means you can't run a game without them. And that isn't true. It's not even true that you can't run a good game without them.




If you wanna be weirdly suspicious all the time for no reason, that's your problem.

Oh come on. Get the fuck over yourself man. You made a claim pertaining to your group, which may well be valid for you and yours, but not for everyone else on planet Earth. People have been talking about how they like to play some modules, how they're useful to them in a variety of ways, but instead you choose to go on with silly tangents, rhetorical/lexical crap and teenager arguments of shit like "NO I really didn't SAY that because THAT WORD".

Fuck that noise man. Go back to your pointless back and forth bullshit, if you love it that much. That'll be without me.

Is he like this with everybody?

Quote from: Zak S;637559Is he like this with everybody?

Yes.

"Weirdly paranoid for no particular reason" describes him quite well, I think.

Quote from: Zak S;637559Is he like this with everybody?

Anyone who would deserve it, yes. This is one such occasion.

If you're being super-thick in conversations, at some point I'm going to give up and either stop talking to you in some way, or tell you to go fuck yourself. You've been really thick in past conversations we've had together, and I really don't feel the need at this point to do all the legwork by myself to end up just getting into another round and round exchange that leads nowhere. So I'm moving on.

Quote from: estar;637506I agree that roleplaying games are very flexible but also many games come with implied backgrounds. For example for the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual there is a definite, but light, sense of an implied world behind all the monster entries. Which accounted for that fact that back in the day many campaigns in my hometown treated Orcs largely the same.

The net effect that for gamers of a given system have a shared body of experience and assumptions that can be used to craft a adventure modules that is broadly useful and appealing.

However it nowhere near a 100%. Because of the flexibility of RPGs I would say only a slim majority of referee would be interested in published adventures at best. For some games where flexibility is part of the design (GURPS, Savage Worlds, FUDGE) that number of referee interested in published adventures is vastly lower.




I would say it is a challenge to design a useful adventure that will appeal to  somebody with the detail of your campaign (and mine as well) but not impossible. While you have a lot of details, I bet many of them are born of our common heritage of myth and legends.  That while the combination of details is unique, the details themselves are recognized variations of existing themes.

If the goal of the author of a adventure module is going to appeal to a referee of a detailed campaign then the author needs to supply some adaptation. In short to lay bare the "bones" of the adventure. Then the referee can go, you know that shrine to a saint is 90% the same as I would have for a shrine of Saint Joseph.

Now I only attempted something like this once with my recently released Scourge of the Demon Wolf. But on the flip side for the Majestic Wilderlands I deliberately stuck with tropes of the vaguely medieval fantasy setting. I developed a lot of interesting detail in the way a US soap opera develops compelling plots set against the lifestyle of the United State.

I did this to make the setting details more approachable to my players because as a GURPS referee I always had to be recruiting novice players as time went on. However another side effect is that various D&D modules released over the years, even things like Harn modules were easily adaptable to the details of my setting.

In short if a referee's campaign is like Barker's Tekemul then yeah it is highly unlikely any published module will appeal to that referee. But if it say something like Harn then the chance go way up as many fantasy RPG share Harn's medieval and fantasy roots. Then if you get something like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk which was welded to AD&D from the get go it almost become a no brainer. Which is probably why Golarion was developed by Paizo.

Using my Scourge of the Demon Wolf adventure it is a adventure module revolving around a village being attacked by wolves. Just about applicable to any fantasy setting there. But...

It is also a Majestic Wilderlands adventure with the assumptions of that setting.  For this adventure it means

1) The village is a part of a quasi feudal system
2) That there is a culture of wandering vagabonds vaguely similar to Travellers or Gypsys
3) That mages live together for mutual protection, research and to pool living expenses
4) That demons are part of the metaphysics including the magic to summon them.
5) That bandits exists.
6) That there a dominate religion that most of a village would adhere too

By adding these element I limited the audience of Scouge, but since I think most of these elements are shared by the majority of older edition fantasy referees that the limitation won't impact sales severely. Furthermore I explicit spell all this out in a couple of paragraph which perhaps doesn't do much good for sales of this product. But I think will hugely impact the sale of the next adventure as I hope to gain a reputation of easy to adapt adventures.

And above all it is a balancing act, tip too far in one direction then I think sales will be negatively impacted but get it right then I have a shot.

Well, once again twixt you and Ben we are getting some useful meat from this conversation.

System assumptions (implied settings) and shared tropes (Like your Majestic Wilderlands exaple above) are examples when it is a very different cost/benefit.

And as I said, I like my adventures to be magnified versions of my setting, so for me it is harder.  More like Tekumel, in that way.  I still think that it is going to be purely a cost/benefit, and that a GM's own adventure for their own setting is going to reperstent it better, and provide a better fit. You read my descriptive phrase (admittedly, I chose this room as it was an exagerated example), and this is how I like my rooms to be, so that my PCs are as much archeologists as adventurers (really.  I mean that).

Quote from: Zak S;637554Why is it invalid? The OP argued took issue the idea that modules "really aren't needed".

That's true. They really aren't needed. "Need" literally means you can't run a game without them. And that isn't true. It's not even true that you can't run a good game without them.

I wouldn't get too fixated on that throwaway snippet. I don't believe that modules are crucial to the success of any game.

But the whole of my OP, and the subsequent discussion that followed, was whether modules serve a purpose and are helpful to the RPG hobby. These points seem to be settled in the affirmative, so I'm prepared to move on.

Quote from: Replicant2;637622I wouldn't get too fixated on that throwaway snippet. I don't believe that modules are crucial to the success of any game.

But the whole of my OP, and the subsequent discussion that followed, was whether modules serve a purpose and are helpful to the RPG hobby. These points seem to be settled in the affirmative, so I'm prepared to move on.

okay

Quote from: Zak S;637559Is he like this with everybody?

Yes, he can get that way.

Just remind him of this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23744), and in particular this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=577404&postcount=1316).

Quote from: Zak S;637680okay

By the way, I think you have some great ideas (via your blog) for how modules could be better packaged, and made more user-friendly.

Quote from: Benoist;637476Well when you are shoveling out shit module after shit module, you won't be making much money out of them, that's for sure.

Unless you own a brand that people will buy no matter what. Even if it's just to add to their collection.

Quote from: jeff37923;637706Yes, he can get that way.

Just remind him of this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23744), and in particular this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=577404&postcount=1316).

I'm actually glad to be reminded of that fiasco. I think it was a great moment for me, and my appreciation of games really, when I owned up to the fact that I was full of shit making blanket statements about this or that game and their fandoms, and actually realized that when people want to be assholes, whether at the game table or on this or that internet venue, they just are, individually... and as much as it doesn't say much about who they actually are in real life, it doesn't say much about the fandoms of these games either, in general.

Like you being an opportunistic asshole on your personal vendetta smelling blood and posting for the increased aggravation right now? That doesn't say anything about Traveller or Labyrinth Lord fandoms in general. I know that now.

Thank you, Jeff, for this reminder.

Quote from: Zak S;637559Is he like this with everybody?

That made me spit out my Colt 45. (I'm a poor hoodrat, I make no apologies)

Not because I dislike Benoist (quite the contrary) but I think he's been riding you in this thread far beyond what is reasonable and I don't really see why.

That might be because I mostly agree with you; I don't think modules are necessary, I tend to (tend to) think they make GMs lazy, and are more work than they are worth. But that's because I learned how to play RPGs by playing games that didn't have them. In 15 years of GMing, I didn't use them until 2 years ago, with the exception of one spectacular failure that I had to completely redesign on the fly mid-game session.

The people I game with were all ADnD buffs back in the day, but as far as I know, they didn't run modules either. I know that they own a LOT of modules, but as far as I know, they've never run them, at least when I've played with them.

All I've ever needed was a rule book and my imagination. Sounds cliche, but cliches exist for a reason.

I've only started using modules (and only three: Grinding Gear, Death Frost Doom, and some thing I can't remember the name of I found on Dragonsfoot) the past couple years because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Grinding Gear was spectacular, DFD was mediocre, and the Dragonsfoot adventure (I doubt it can even be called a module, actually) I had to modify so much that it barely resembles the original (and I probably could have made something better in less time if I wasn't trying to use a module).

So, in my opinion, modules are unnecessary and more work than they are worth.

But then again, I've never purchased a $100+ module and tried to run it, so I have no feelings to get hurt over someone saying modules are pointless.

Quote from: jeff37923;637706Yes, he can get that way.

Just remind him of this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23744), and in particular this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=577404&postcount=1316).

Did you bookmark that in the hope that someday you could try to throw it in his face?

Or did you actually spend the time to search for it?

Either way, dude...

Quote from: everloss;637775Did you bookmark that in the hope that someday you could try to throw it in his face?

Or did you actually spend the time to search for it?

Either way, dude...

My initial reaction, as well.

Quote from: J Arcane;636888Any module is no better than the DM running it, and if the DM's at all half-decent, then what he can create for his players will always be better tuned to their collective tastes than some pre-written bunch of keyed and numbered dungeon entries.  

This is a creative hobby.

Be creative.

I agree; at the same time, modules do HALF the work for the uber-creative GM. He doesn't need to run them as-is, but he can brutally defile them into the particular vision he has, often saving time with things like maps, monsters, etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;638159...modules do HALF the work for the uber-creative GM. He doesn't need to run them as-is, but he can brutally defile them into the particular vision he has, often saving time with things like maps, monsters, etc.

RPGPundit

Exactly. As I've gotten older I've used more and more published material, primarily because other demands on my time have increased dramatically. Using modules saves me a lot of work, even if I have to substantially alter them.

EDIT TO ADD: I also think Justin makes an excellent point upthread: modules often serve as an introduction or entry-point into what a game does. People here are speaking (largely) from years of prior experience. You had your introduction, probably from other players. But growing the hobby is greatly aided by someone being able to pick up a couple books and figure out what to do with them without the requirement of a mentor. The Basic line (with its included adventures) worked very well as that gateway through the 80s.

Quote from: Bobloblah;638332Exactly. As I've gotten older I've used more and more published material, primarily because other demands on my time have increased dramatically. Using modules saves me a lot of work, even if I have to substantially alter them.

Agreed. It also gets easier to use a module for your purposes as you repeat the process.

I am at a stage where I am able to do most of the alterations on the fly.

I don't rewrite the entire module.

Quote from: Bill;638334Agreed. It also gets easier to use a module for your purposes as you repeat the process.

I am at a stage where I am able to do most of the alterations on the fly.

I don't rewrite the entire module.

Exactly. I also read far, far faster than I can write or type (even truncated notes), and have always had the ability to absorb (memorise) text I've recently read. This has made using modules a no-brainer. Add to that the fact that TSR era D&D (and any clone) is very easy to modify on the fly, unlike newer editions, and it's a winning combination when time is a constraint.

Quote from: Bobloblah;638332Exactly. As I've gotten older I've used more and more published material, primarily because other demands on my time have increased dramatically. Using modules saves me a lot of work, even if I have to substantially alter them.

EDIT TO ADD: I also think Justin makes an excellent point upthread: modules often serve as an introduction or entry-point into what a game does. People here are speaking (largely) from years of prior experience. You had your introduction, probably from other players. But growing the hobby is greatly aided by someone being able to pick up a couple books and figure out what to do with them without the requirement of a mentor. The Basic line (with its included adventures) worked very well as that gateway through the 80s.

BTW, reading Justin's Old School uses of Caverns of Thracia in game on his blog is a fucking treat.

Quote from: Bobloblah;638335Exactly. I also read far, far faster than I can write or type (even truncated notes), and have always had the ability to absorb (memorise) text I've recently read. This has made using modules a no-brainer. Add to that the fact that TSR era D&D (and any clone) is very easy to modify on the fly, unlike newer editions, and it's a winning combination when time is a constraint.

There is something about many newer modules that feels wrong to me, and I don't know what it is yet.

Quote from: LordVreeg;638367BTW, reading Justin's Old School uses of Caverns of Thracia in game on his blog is a fucking treat.

Thanks for the tip, but I have, in fact, read them, and they're as good as you say. Justin's blog is one of the few RPG blogs I've intentionally gone back to.

Quote from: Bill;638379There is something about many newer modules that feels wrong to me, and I don't know what it is yet.

Is that to say modules for newer systems (e.g 3.x, 4E, etc.), or simply anything newer chronologically speaking?

Quote from: LordVreeg;638367BTW, reading Justin's Old School uses of Caverns of Thracia in game on his blog is a fucking treat.

Thanks! Link for those interested. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/tag/odd-in-the-caverns-of-thracia)

This also highlights another way in which modules can be useful: Injecting someone else's creativity into your campaign world. (I often compare this to the difference between developing an original script for a theatrical production and remounting Hamlet or The Crucible.)

In Caverns of Thracia, for example, Jaquays' creates a really unique "pulp Greek mythology" vibe that I wouldn't have created on my own. But I really enjoyed picking up those toys and playing with them. And once I played with them for awhile, their influence ended up being felt throughout the entire setting.

Similarly, Monte Cook brings his own unique viewpoint to the dungeon complex in the Banewarrens. Even though I've added an extra half dozen original vaults, revamped some of the original vaults, and remixed the active opposition to include factions personalized to my PCs, Cook's creative vision is still there.

The result of all this is that my game worlds are richer specifically because I'm incorporating and interpreting the creative visions of other people.

Quote from: Bill;638379There is something about many newer modules that feels wrong to me, and I don't know what it is yet.

For me, it's a couple of things.

First, a lot of them rely on badly constructed linear plots. A lot of my efforts in using modules published in the last 20 years is in ripping out the plot and reconstructing the situation (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots).

Second, a lot of modules in the last 10-15 years are bloated to a point where they're almost unusable at the table. It's not unusual to see location keys that are 1-2 pages of largely undifferentiated text (not including stat blocks). A key like that is impossible to use efficiently at the table. (This wasn't unheard of back in the day, either. Tomb of Horrors suffers from it badly, for example.)

Alternatively, you get retro-stuff that tries to avoid that bloat. But a lot of OSR stuff somehow ends up stripping out the interesting stuff and focusing on the banal. (See Castle of the Arch-Mage and Dwimmermount for key examples.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;638409First, a lot of them rely on badly constructed linear plots.

Second, a lot of modules in the last 10-15 years are bloated to a point where they're almost unusable at the table.

Both so true, and pretty much the exact points I was going to respond to Bill with. I think the former has become worse over time (Paizo suffers from a bad case of it), and the latter over game systems (WotC has this problem) - although, as you say, there are examples of it from earlier editions, too.  

It's funny that, after this much time and material published, there isn't a defacto best format widely used for 3.x (or many other systems) modules, for example. It's very hit and miss, with standouts like Ptolus, and botches like Rise of the Runelords.

I tried to stretch my boundaries and appreciate a couple of the Paizo adventure paths. I really tried. How could so many gamers, a lot of them long-timers, be wrong? But I found several insurmountable barriers to using them in play:

* The characters are like something out of a Pixar movie, rather than any fantastic fiction I've ever read. Anachronistic, superficial, and cheesy. Also, anachronistic.

* Bloated text. Backstories of NPC's cheesy romantic entanglements. Detailed descriptions and backstories of characters who have no long-term role in the game. Really long-winded three paragraph descriptions of hazards that could be summarized in two lines. And only a fraction of the book devoted to describing the actual game setting. Oh, and did I mention the endless NPC backstories?

* The linear plotlines. Now, I expected there to be villains with agendas, and clear goals for the PCs, and some sort of climactic finish to each chapter. However, I didn't expect so much of the adventure to be 'now that the characters have uncovered the inkeeper's treachery and made an alliance with the planar half-elf rogue/sorceror pirate princess, he will set up an ambush in the graveyeard'. Don't assume what my players will do. Just don't.

* Paizo's kitchen-sink world. It's a tone-deaf mashup of renaissance Europe, pirates, horror, and whatever else is popular with the videogame crowd these days. Serial-killers? Teenage runaways? Asylums? Top-hats and carriages? The creative direction relies on all sorts of geek tropes that I have absolutely no fucking interest in. Tropes, it seems, that are mainly from the 19th century. When did D&D become a Victorian horror genre?

* The reliance on ever-more-bizarre monsters and monster variants in the place of creative use of existing monsters. Apparently, WotC D&D players have all memorized the MM, so in order to present effectively challenging encounters, adventures need to provide new 'crunch' material  in the form of medusa-goblins, vege-walruses with a level in Ranger, and dire pigeons.

I try to brush all that tone and style and backstory and anachronism out of the way and just use the skeleton of the adventure content. But I can't. I just can't do it. Tone and feel is just too important to me, and this stuff is aimed at an audience with dramatically different sensibilities from mine.

Quote from: Haffrung;638459Tone and feel is just too important to me, and this stuff is aimed at an audience with dramatically different sensibilities from mine.

That sums it up for me, too.

Quote from: Haffrung;638459When did D&D become a Victorian horror genre?

Ask Strahd von Zarovich, he might know.

Quote from: Haffrung;638459I try to brush all that tone and style and backstory and anachronism out of the way and just use the skeleton of the adventure content. But I can't. I just can't do it. Tone and feel is just too important to me, and this stuff is aimed at an audience with dramatically different sensibilities from mine.

I totally don't get why so many adventures had this lame, Pixar filtered through a shitty 70s cartoon show aesthetic. The Hobbit was the biggest movie this past Christmas. The fucking Boston Sports Guy took a break from covering sports to write about Game of Thrones.

Do RPG writers ever leave their houses? Do they read or watch anything?

Quote from: Chairman Meow;638570I totally don't get why so many adventures had this lame, Pixar filtered through a shitty 70s cartoon show aesthetic. The Hobbit was the biggest movie this past Christmas. The fucking Boston Sports Guy took a break from covering sports to write about Game of Thrones.

Do RPG writers ever leave their houses? Do they read or watch anything?

Yeah, take a look at the artwork for Game of Thrones boardgames, Tolkien calendars, and other mainstream fantasy licenses. It's textured, gritty,  menacing. I have no idea why Pathfinder has a Final Fantasy meets Disney's Beauty and the Beast aesthetic. I mean, the quality of the artwork - the composition, the use of colour, the dynamic poses - is first-rate. But I just don't get where the aesthetic of bizarre proportions and anime characterization is coming from, and why it's so out of step with the aesthetic of massively popular fantasy settings like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.

It's especially bizarre when you consider that some of the content of the adventures, such as in the Rise of Runelords adventure path, is decidedly adult and dark in subject matter. Nasty/grotesque + cartoony is such a really weird, almost absurd combination. Can someone explain to me the source of this aesthetic, or other examples? Is it a comic/graphic novel thing? Japanese?

Quote from: Bobloblah;638383Is that to say modules for newer systems (e.g 3.x, 4E, etc.), or simply anything newer chronologically speaking?

3X, 4E dnd modules. Many feel a bit off to me.

In all fairness, some of the older modules are far from perfect as well.

Quote from: Haffrung;638459I tried to stretch my boundaries and appreciate a couple of the Paizo adventure paths. I really tried. How could so many gamers, a lot of them long-timers, be wrong? But I found several insurmountable barriers to using them in play:

I have a lot of the same problems with Paizo's stuff. Never mind aesthetic tastes, a lot of their stuff is just difficult to run at the table; they seem to think every game runs on rails, and believe that the best way to present you relevant information is to bury it in half-a-page of irrelevant backstory. Plus, I hate the format of putting the stats at the back. Although, to be fair, that last part is pretty much the norm now, and is no doubt less of a problem in .pdf format.

Quote from: Haffrung;638459* Paizo's kitchen-sink world. It's a tone-deaf mashup of renaissance Europe, pirates, horror, and whatever else is popular with the videogame crowd these days. Serial-killers? Teenage runaways? Asylums? Top-hats and carriages? The creative direction relies on all sorts of geek tropes that I have absolutely no fucking interest in. Tropes, it seems, that are mainly from the 19th century.

Out of curiosity, how did you feel about Mystara? I personally liked that setting a great deal, and it was also kitchen-sinkish, but I'm decidedly lukewarm on Golarion, and I can't put my finger on the reason (maybe it is the anachronistic pastiche of aesthetics).

Quote from: Haffrung;638459When did D&D become a Victorian horror genre?

Quote from: jadrax;638471Ask Strahd von Zarovich, he might know.

I see what you did there.

Quote from: Bill;6386223X, 4E dnd modules. Many feel a bit off to me.

In all fairness, some of the older modules are far from perfect as well.

I think I'm going to start a thread on which modules people think are actually good.

Quote from: Bobloblah;638653Out of curiosity, how did you feel about Mystara? I personally liked that setting a great deal, and it was also kitchen-sinkish, but I'm decidedly lukewarm on Golarion, and I can't put my finger on the reason (maybe it is the anachronistic pastiche of aesthetics).

Mystara is okay. It's pretty middle of the road and inoffensive, in the way a lot of later B/X D&D modules were middle of the road and inoffensive. I prefer Judge's Guild's Wilderlands. Or for something weirder, Talislanta. They're both kind of kitchen-sink, but in a good way.

It's the anachronistic stuff I just can't get past with Paizo and Golarion. Not just in the renaissance/pirate/victorian clothing, but in the characterizations. In an effort to make them sympathetic, Pazio makes the NPCs far too modern. I want the people and beings who populate my fantasy world to be as strange as the geography and history. Not Tekumel-eight-legged-Aztec-insect-warrior-priest strange. But with more flavour of the middle ages than of early 21st century suburban Seattle.

Mystara was fairly "inoffensive" (I would say "clean-cut") its true, but somehow managed to do so in a way that was really awesome.

RPGPundit

I like Golarion.

I like the premise of a lot of.Paizo's adventures but they're a mess and I cant see how they'd be worth the effort of.running.

The modern tone of the characters generally has my eyes rolling, although I guess there's a niche for contemporary situations in fantasy drag.

Still, I wish they would cut out ALL of the emo/soap opera horseshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;639132Mystara was fairly "inoffensive" (I would say "clean-cut") its true, but somehow managed to do so in a way that was really awesome.

You should do a review or analysis of what made Mystara awesome. It sounds like it was setting that was more than the sum of it's parts.

Quote from: estar;639303It sounds like it was setting that was more than the sum of it's parts.

It definitely was that. I think a big part of that was how great much of the product writing for it was. A lot of that goes back to Mystara being Bruce Heard's darling. He was in charge of the (largely) freelancers who worked on it, and he simply made sure that the hired talent was up to his high standards. Not to say that there were no missteps (GAZ4 Ierendi, anyone?), but the signal to noise ratio in Mystara products was very good.

Quote from: RPGPundit;638159I agree; at the same time, modules do HALF the work for the uber-creative GM. He doesn't need to run them as-is, but he can brutally defile them into the particular vision he has . . .

Something about 'brutally defiling' a module made me smile.

I don't know a lot about Golarion, but from the bits and pieces I've gathered, it sure sounds a lot like Mystara; the same "theme park" approach to world-building (here's fantasy Egypt, there's fantasy Scandinavia, this is the demon-worshipping evil kingdom, this is Renaissance Italy, etc.).

I don't think this is a bad way to go about building a fantasy world. It worked for Robert E. Howard, right?

I think the theme park approach is excellent, and is useful for adventures/modules/dungeons as well.

Quote from: The Butcher;639536I don't know a lot about Golarion, but from the bits and pieces I've gathered, it sure sounds a lot like Mystara; the same "theme park" approach to world-building (here's fantasy Egypt, there's fantasy Scandinavia, this is the demon-worshipping evil kingdom, this is Renaissance Italy, etc.).

I don't think this is a bad way to go about building a fantasy world. It worked for Robert E. Howard, right?

I don't know anything about Golarion, but I quite like Mystara (though parts of it -- e.g. Alphatia -- are way too high-powered for my tastes).

The great thing about the "theme park" approach is that, whatever it lacks in verisimilitude, it gains in enabling players to immediately 'grok' the relevant parts of the setting ("this realm is sorta like ancient Egypt...").

Quote from: estar;639303You should do a review or analysis of what made Mystara awesome. It sounds like it was setting that was more than the sum of it's parts.

It certainly was but I don't know if I can actually say what made it awesome; I guess you could say it was the ultimate kitchen sink.  It was also the setting absolutely MADE for RC D&D.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Akrasia;639551The great thing about the "theme park" approach is that, whatever it lacks in verisimilitude, it gains in enabling players to immediately 'grok' the relevant parts of the setting ("this realm is sorta like ancient Egypt...").

Yes, and that's very valuable.  I've always found it far better than the alternatives (either "This is a vaguely generic medievalish place that's not quite like anywhere in particular" or "this is a totally bizarre alien culture that has no rooting in anything in human culture and thus you'd have to read an entire 3000 page setting book to begin to grasp it").

RPGPundit

Plus, y'know, the world kind of is a theme park.

Like "Over here it's the Wild West and over here it's gothic victorian murder mystery and over here it's samurais"

That really happened.

Just because it's hard, on a literary/creative level, to make those transitions feel right doesn't mean it can't be done or shouldn't be tried.

Quote from: Akrasia;639551The great thing about the "theme park" approach is that, whatever it lacks in verisimilitude, it gains in enabling players to immediately 'grok' the relevant parts of the setting ("this realm is sorta like ancient Egypt...").

Quote from: RPGPundit;639873Yes, and that's very valuable.  I've always found it far better than the alternatives (either "This is a vaguely generic medievalish place that's not quite like anywhere in particular" or "this is a totally bizarre alien culture that has no rooting in anything in human culture and thus you'd have to read an entire 3000 page setting book to begin to grasp it").

I would go further and say that this type of instant recognition it absolutely critical for a setting to be effective and viable.  One of the great thing about RPGs is the shared imagined space, and the ultimate goal of the game is to bring all the participants perception of that shared reality as close together as possible to the point of overlapping.  Now, we all know that this is a lofty goal by is sheer nature since it's fairly obvious that it is very difficult to get just two people, let alone four to six, on the same page.  Great art and visual aids are an excellent tool to bridge that gap in perception and reality of the shared space, but so are easily and recognizable tropes like saying 'this culture is akin to earth's Viking culture.'

Quote from: Drohem;639878I would go further and say that this type of instant recognition it absolutely critical for a setting to be effective and viable.

Yes, that's pretty much what I was implying.

RPGPundit