A word of caution to the " put it all in a module" arguments

[JamesonCourage]

Modules have the potential to decrease the ability to actually use other materials for the game. The main example is adventures, which will be tremendously difficult to balance in a complex module system. Monsters will also be a possible problem, as they may have a dramatically different danger level between different modules.

I really hope that this is true. I'd want the ability to "turn dials" in such a way that monsters become harder or easier. Will it make balance harder? Sure. But balance is exactly something I want to be able to tweak. As always, play what you like

 

[El Mahdi]

Modules have the potential to decrease the ability to actually use other materials for the game. The main example is adventures, which will be tremendously difficult to balance in a complex module system. Monsters will also be a possible problem, as they may have a dramatically different danger level between different modules.

I understand, though I'm pretty sure they aren't going to just throw modules out and say "use at your own risk". They're going to tell you what the impact is, how it will affect the aspects of the game...in other words: they'll tell you what effect it will have on the "dials".

With that knowledge, there should be no running into power increases unless one wants them.

I'm still not seeing the problem...

 

[Incenjucar]

I understand, though I'm pretty sure they aren't going to just throw modules out and say "use at your own risk". They're going to tell you what the impact is, how it will affect the aspects of the game...in other words: they'll tell you what effect it will have on the "dials".

With that knowledge, there should be no running into power increases unless one wants them.

I'm still not seeing the problem...

Trying to balance 36 scenarios is harder to do than balancing 3 scenarios. It creates a lot more work for someone at some point, whether the designers or the DMs.

 

[Rhenny]

I understand, though I'm pretty sure they aren't going to just throw modules out and say "use at your own risk". They're going to tell you what the impact is, how it will affect the aspects of the game...in other words: they'll tell you what effect it will have on the "dials".

With that knowledge, there should be no running into power increases unless one wants them.

I'm still not seeing the problem...

True.

If you want a grittier game do this.....

If you want a heroic game do this.....

If you want to focus less on combat and more on story development do this...

If you want specific guidelines for "improvised actions" use these.....

etc.

 

[Abstruse]

I understand, though I'm pretty sure they aren't going to just throw modules out and say "use at your own risk". They're going to tell you what the impact is, how it will affect the aspects of the game...in other words: they'll tell you what effect it will have on the "dials".

With that knowledge, there should be no running into power increases unless one wants them.

I'm still not seeing the problem...

Only problems I see are more work for the DM and whiny players.

The DM has more work to do in order to decide the tone of the game - because modules are certainly going to do that. They're going to determine the speed of play, the difficulty to moderate, the complexity, and the overall "feel". A stripped-down core rules game is going to have a completely different feel than a more anything-goes game. A DM with a job and family is going to have trouble finding the time to do all the necessary prep work to get the dials just right, to stick with the metaphor. If they run published adventures, it's also going to be difficult as the modules themselves will run slightly differently, probably with lots of sidebars making notes, "If you use gridded combat..."

Whiny players, on the other hand...reading around on these boards, I think I'm the only DM with this problem. But the group I play with, what I know will happen is someone will have an idea in their head about what they want to play and if I try to exclude a module for tone or story or pacing reasons, they'll throw a passive-aggressive hissy fit. For example, in my current Pathfinder game I'm running a Greyhawk-set campaign with multiple plot threads that was originally written assuming a good or at least good-ish group and ended up with a bunch of evil and CN characters and had to throw out a ninja, a gunslinger, and a drow. And they whined and bitched and whined and bitched until I finally went with a group that had a monk and a Neutral-to-Evil group. Had to re-write half the friggin' campaign and redo everything from black-and-white morality to black-and-grey. Annoying.

Now say I leave out some of the modules. Next thing I'm going to have is one player whining about me leaving out Module A, another about Module B, and so on until I either put my foot down and they throw a fit or act all sullen, or I give up just to shut them up.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I'm not sure how common the passive-aggressive players actually are, there will certainly be the issue that this will constantly put Player Style X and Player Style Y at the same table long enough to realize that they're playing Style Z and to come into conflict because of it. Many a table will feel like being bushwacked into playing a game you have no interest in, like if someone invited you over for a rousing game of World of Darkness and said "Oh actually I meant Cyberpunk 2020."

This edition is going to have... interesting social consequences.

 

[Stormonu]

Whiny players, on the other hand...reading around on these boards, I think I'm the only DM with this problem. But the group I play with, what I know will happen is someone will have an idea in their head about what they want to play and if I try to exclude a module for tone or story or pacing reasons, they'll throw a passive-aggressive hissy fit. For example, in my current Pathfinder game I'm running a Greyhawk-set campaign with multiple plot threads that was originally written assuming a good or at least good-ish group and ended up with a bunch of evil and CN characters and had to throw out a ninja, a gunslinger, and a drow. And they whined and bitched and whined and bitched until I finally went with a group that had a monk and a Neutral-to-Evil group. Had to re-write half the friggin' campaign and redo everything from black-and-white morality to black-and-grey. Annoying.

Well, this is advice I've got to learn to take myself, but a D&D game isn't only owned by the DM - if the players don't buy in, there won't be a game - or it won't last long. It sounds like your players didn't have much buy-in on the original idea.

Same thing would happen with modules. If the DM thought a critical hit system was great but the players absolutely hated it, I think it'd be a bad idea for the DM to ramrod the module through without input from the players - especially if they were opposed to it.

 

[Abstruse]

Well, this is advice I've got to learn to take myself, but a D&D game isn't only owned by the DM - if the players don't buy in, there won't be a game - or it won't last long. It sounds like your players didn't have much buy-in on the original idea.

Same thing would happen with modules. If the DM thought a critical hit system was great but the players absolutely hated it, I think it'd be a bad idea for the DM to ramrod the module through without input from the players - especially if they were opposed to it.

I put between 2 to 10 hours a week in prep for an adventure. I'm writing all the plots and stories. I have to run the entire game. I can understand them not liking a plot and following something else or going off the rails every once in a while, but then there's doing the exact opposite of what I wanted to do. And because I'm running a game that isn't what I wanted to run, I'm getting burned out more frequently and thoroughly.

So I sent them to Ravenloft because at least there, DM fiat as rules and I can punish them via the Dark Powers anytime they do something that completely screws with the story I wanted. "We kill the evil overlord and take over his empire" has different connotations in Ravenloft than Greyhawk...

 

[El Mahdi]

Trying to balance 36 scenarios is harder to do than balancing 3 scenarios. It creates a lot more work for someone at some point, whether the designers or the DMs.

Are you talking about published adventures or scenarios not made for 5E? If so that may be why I misunderstood your post. (if I did...I'm not sure, but I'm getting the impression we're talking about two different things...maybe...).

But if that is what you're talking about, then Yeah: I can see it being more difficult for non-5E adventures or even homebrew compared to adventures made for 5E...but that's kind of the way it's always been. The default in this situation has always been "Adapt as Required". I don't know if it will be harder or not with 5E. My guess is it will be 6 of one, and a half-dozen of another...

If you're talking about using a published adventure made for 5E, I don't think it will be harder. On the contrary, I think it will be easier. I expect that part of the format (though maybe not as consistent with third party adventures) is that it will say up-front what modules the adventure design had in mind during creation, and what adjustments to make if they aren't being used. Shouldn't be too hard. I can't imagine it being any harder than bumping up or weakening an adventure for a bigger or smaller group, or different level PC's...adjustments that have been a common thing since the first published D&D adventures.

Now if you're talking about designing a 5E adventure, I think it's still pretty easy. Design the adventure you want, using the modules you want. Then simply be upfront with what modules you used, and what basic adjustments may be necessary if one doesn't want to use them. It's no different than including guidelines on how to adjust for party size or level.

 

[Li Shenron]

B) realization that modules by default will increase the power level of the game

Yes and no, depending on what "modularity" are you talking about.

For example, "skills" and "feats" can be seen as character creation modules. If you use them, then all your PCs are going to have various bonuses to checks and some special abilities. They are therefore more powerful.

But a rules module, for example the often mentioned tactical module, is not going to increase the PCs' "numbers" directly, but eventually it's going to increase only their flexibility.

Now, I am the first to advocate that flexibility is power, in fact, but only if you are able to use it properly In the hands of lousy players, it can actually even make the game more difficult.

If the game has a CR system for encounters, then it might be possible for the designers of a module to suggest adjustments to your encounter. XP alone may or may not suffice.

But then I'm not even sure it's so much needed to provide adjustments if each module doesn't make that huge difference... perhaps the best is to rely on the DM's judgement. I mean, you can make a couple of mistakes (hopefully unbalanced in favour of the PCs) when running your first adventure using a new module, but then you see how it goes and adjust the following encounters accordingly.