"Reviewing" stories of homebrew adventures vs. published adventures

Why are we (gamers in general) more willing to accept scenarios or situations in/from published adventures than from homebrew adventures?

For instance, if a poster describes how the PCs reacted to encountering a basilisk wondering around in the middle of a slaver fort, in the middle of a town, many folks (here, at least) would jump in with how illogical that situation is. But if the poster mentioned upfront that he was DMing a published module, the "logic police" won't speak up on that point.

And if the above scenario was included in a currently published adventure, reveiwers would mention it as bad/illogical design. But when the scenario is in older, "classic" adventures, folks remember it as an exciting and fun encounter.

Why is this?

Quasqueton

Because when they played the classic adventure, they were much younger and didn't care whether the module was unbalanced or illogical. They just had a fun time without a whole lot of overanalysis. What they remember is the fun. Today, many approach everything with a critical eye towards balance and logic, but less the fun aspect of a game.

A variety of reasons:

Older adventures were VERY short by today's standards. As a result, it was implied that the DM would have to do some work retrofitting the material and justifying the contents. Today's adventures give a lot more info on these things.

There is certainly a good amount of nostalgia playing into it, no question.

Lastly, the assumption is that an adventure has undergone playtesting if its professionally produced. That may or may not be justified. But it means people are more likely to look for a fault in their own handling of the adventure than in the adventure itself, whereas in a homebrew, it's more likely to be the fault of the DM.

As someone who ran A1 - Slave Pits module as an adult to great effect (with some changes) I know exactly the encounter you are referring to. . .

In my opinion, it is the DM's job to make those encounters make sense (in mine the basilisk wandered around locked into the inner courtyard of the semi-abandoned upper level and was used as a way of disposing undesirables (the backstory being the basilisk was there when the place was taken for use in the slaving ring and the slavers rather than risking fighting it or driving it away figured it was easier to lock away in the area it was found in).

Now, the PCs may never discover "the reason" but good players trust their good GM to make things make sense so it really is no hang up.

Quasqueton said:

Why are we (gamers in general) more willing to accept scenarios or situations in/from published adventures than from homebrew adventures?

Click to expand...

Because publishing gives a situation a sort of canonic objectivity. The fact that multiple different unrelated groups can experience something, and react to it in different ways, makes it more 'real'. It's no longer 'a basilisk in a town square', it's 'the basilisk in the town square'.

Also, homebrew has connotations of unpredictability, unorthodoxy and danger (much like home brewed anything, e.g. my mother's exploding elderflower champagne). This is best reflected in the devastating Munchkin card 'Monster the DM made up himself.'

Quasqueton said:

Why are we (gamers in general) more willing to accept scenarios or situations in/from published adventures than from homebrew adventures?

And if [a] scenario was included in a currently published adventure, reveiwers would mention it as bad/illogical design. But when the scenario is in older, "classic" adventures, folks remember it as an exciting and fun encounter.

Why is this?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is any different on a logical basis. But the essential difference in terms of responses is largely one of addressing the complaint to the proper recipient of one's ire.

If I am running a pre-published adventure with a given "unfair" encounter or trap, then there is a reduced incentive in someone responding to the post and complaining to me about the unfairness of the design. After all, its not my design, is it?

In contrast, if I am running a homebrew adventure, and make mention of the poor design element on a thread on ENWorld, then I am waving the red cloth at those who take issue with it. In such a case there is increased incentive to complain of the poor design - as it is my "fault" as a designer for creating the situation in the first place.

While arguably it is always the "fault" of any DM for running an inappropriate encounter or trap, regardless of who designed it, such missteps tend to be overlooked when it is a published adventure. It's all part of the "blame game".

With respect to condoning terrible flaws in designs of "classic" modules, we really don't do that directly. In my view, we don't so much condone as ignore and overlook. In most cases, the undercurrent of the discussion is effected by (if not centred upon) nostalgia. The discussion is therefore premised upon one's fond recollections as improved by the effluxion of time - and not from a more logical analysis of the design.

In the eighties my party would not believe that I did not make up the cheesy name "the new master" for a BBEG when I was running the temple of elemental evil. After I showed them the name in print it started us off on "I can't believe this module, what were the writers thinking" stories. That was with classic 1e modules when 1e was still the newest edition. One of my friends after reading Tomb of Horrors said "I can't run this, I can't believe I wasted my money on this. Its just death traps with a big surprise of someone gets possessed at the end if you succeed and then you have to use techniques you have no clues about to defeat the bad guy or he kills everybody. Who is going to use gems as sling stones? Why would they think that would be a good idea?"

Quasqueton said:

Why are we (gamers in general) more willing to accept scenarios or situations in/from published adventures than from homebrew adventures?

Click to expand...

Couldn't tell ya. I'm more critical of published material than I am of homebrewed stuff, because I expect more of the former than I do of the latter.

re

Its more fun to tear down someone on the boards than attack an official product. If someone asks for help in a thread and someone finds a logical inconsitency (in D&D? you don't say!), its fun to take a big crap on the thread by attacking their idea.

Its much harder to spit in a designer's face. Then again, I'm sure there are people who actually email the author of a module if they find a flaw.

demonpunk said:

Its much harder to spit in a designer's face. Then again, I'm sure there are people who actually email the author of a module if they find a flaw.

Click to expand...

I've actually emailed designers of both books and modules, before, and generally I've had people thank me. Editing is a bear, and nobody catches everything.