The players know too much

[Warmaster Horus]

Good players separate player knowledge from character knowledge. I usually defer on making any pertinent party decisions in mods I've already played. Also as has been mentioned, more mods have branching options that can be played differently from one session to the next. Some DMs will also ratchet up the threat level if they know that several current players have already done the module.

 

[Steve_MND]

IVe had players actually flipping through to the monster section at the back of the book while Ive been running the scenario. They of course deny it, but Im no Dumb Dumb.

One of the ways around that that sort of peruse-the-book metagaming I've often used (when it is doable by the needs of the storyline) is to just describe the physical appearance of a creature as something entirely different and alien, and not call it by whatever it actually is. Keep the game mechanics, etc., exactly the same, just not let them latch onto a stat block right away they can pull up on their cellphones.

 

[Nevvur]

Whenever I first sit down to run, I see who has already familiar with the mod, and ask that they try to please keep any out-of-character knowledge to a minimum, and to allow the players who have not played it yet to take the lead when at all possible. Unless the player in question is a jerk (intentionally or unintentionally), that reminder is usually enough to keep them from making any obvious reveals and ruining things for the new guys.

Also, on a related note, I rather like how many modules (Oubliette obviously not being one of them due to its short length) have more possible encounters/areas than one would be likely to fit in a standard 4-hour time slot. This allows for a certain amount of replayability by choosing encounters that your group hadn't done the last time they were in there.

Oubliette's two-hour companion, Dark Rites, uses optional encounters despite the time length. I think Oubliette's encounter design has much more to do with the dungeon itself than time limits.

I'd like to see more open-endedness to modules in the future. Poos of Radiance Resurgent stands out as one of the better examples. It takes my favorite approach to adventure design, describing what happens if the PCs do nothing, rather than telling the DM what the players must do.

 

[Coredump]

AL actually allows a lot of DM modifications. There are some hard limits, but otherwise you can pretty dramatically change up the module.
Re-arrange rooms, swap around where creatures are, increase/decrease numbers, etc.

 

[Eltab]

As a player, the downside I've experienced was when another player was playing through the same LFR module for the third time (with three different characters). "To avoid spoilering," she was almost asleep during the Investigation section and only woke up when we got to the Big Boss Fight at the end.

I prefer playing with active co-participants.

 

[Endur]

I'm against module replay. Playing it once should be enough.

 

[delericho]

Just wanted to see how people feel about players having access to the campaigns/modules in AL, or running through them a second (or third...) time with new characters.

As a rule, I prefer players not be familiar with the adventure material they're running through. And, indeed, I'll prefer not to play in a game if the DM is running an adventure I know.

That said, it can work - provided the players operate in good faith, it shouldn't spoil too much. And, anyway, a lot of the RPG experience comes not from the adventure but instead from the other players and what they do, which will inevitably be different.

(I tend to believe, also, that a well-designed adventure should offer plenty of routes through. In which case, playing it once only means you know one of those routes. A well-designed adventure, then, should be open to re-play. But, of course, that theory isn't always reality, especially with short adventures.)

Incidentally, the most extreme case of this is actually happening in my group right now - we lots of players and several games running concurrently. In particular, we have two "Rise of the Runelords" campaigns running in parallel - and the guy who is GM of one of those campaigns is actually playing in the other.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

I'm against module replay. Playing it once should be enough.

I am as well to a degree. However, this season has forced me to run more replays due to a reduction of Tier 1 content released. When half of your table is a revolving door of players, it's hard to get enough people up to Tier 2. There are still Season 1 Expeditions that I haven't been able to run because of this. As a store organizer, that means that more Tier 2 certs are going to pile up and collect dust (metaphorically speaking, as I keep them in a file drawer) while waiting to get enough people up to 5th level and beyond.

Hell, I created a spreadsheet with the rewards for each Expedition, so that I can always run the one that the players are eligible for which gives the most XP and DTD. My goal is to get as many people as possible to 4th level by season's end, so that they can use the catch up option to open up the next tier of play. Otherwise, my tables are going to be stuck in replay hell for the foreseeable future.

The only other option that I can think of to pull my FLGS out of this situation is to rescind the scheduling autonomy I granted my other DMs until enough of the revolving door people have a Tier 2 character. That's the nuclear option that I don't want to resort to, as it could backlash and I lose DMs.

 

[DocSharpe]

Good players separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

To this point, not all players who come to game stores are "good players". It's the nature of a public league. We've a few players across the stores I play at that play there...well, because they don't get asked to play in private games.

People are going to know things. Especially if they're finally getting a break from DMing to play (and TBH, those are usually people who would ENJOY you scrambling the map, or inverting puzzles). As has been pointed out...there are only 17 Tier 1 adventures and less than 45 released adventures total. We've been playing for over a year...it would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone who plays every week not to have run some of them at least twice. What's important is how they handle the information...if they're at least TRYING to be subtle about it.

And most players just need a reminder, or some sort if indication that they're crossing a line. As a general rule, I usually give players who are blurting out information to which they shouldn't have access a warning or two, depending on the situation and what I think their intent is. For example, I might not worry that someone knows the fork to the left is not going to further the story ...but I might not be so forgiving to the player who is clearly referencing the Monster Manual for things they might fight. Suggesting that "if they can't keep that information to themselves, then they aren't going to be able to play" usually does the trick (and yes, you do have to be relatively discreet and polite about it...).

 

[SnakeEyes097]

Running modules again with a different character is fine, as long as your table doesn't use player knowledge all over the place or metagame all to heck, which I think spoils the fun. I've played a few modules a couple times, and No More Fools three times, and I always just let the players who haven't run it before take the lead. I also remember what my initial actions were before I knew the stories, and will usually do similar actions. My area (Victoria, BC) has two game stores that run AL on alternating weekends and only a few people go to both, so there have been a few times where the DM will run the same adventure at each place. As long as your not ruining it for first time players, I don't see a problem.