Anyone else of this opinion? Or not?

I use modules when I'm behind the writing schedule of my home-brew adventures .
, IMHO , with a little adaptation , all modules are adaptable .

Recently I ran the " Dancing Hut of Baba Yaga " , adapted to my needs ( I deleted all the 3rd .level ) and converted to 3.0 .
More in the past , I ran "Saga of the Shadow Lord " . I modified heavily my campaign world map ( added the Kingdoms of Wendar and Denagoth ) .
Both the modules were received very good by my players .

Now , Wendar , has become the main base of operations of my PCs . King Gylharen granted two baronies to them , and the kingdom is the center of various political plots , including the annexation of southern Denagoth by Wendar .
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't think modules are to blame.

I've found that a good GM can make a module work by modifying it to fit the characters or properly motivating the characters to go on the adventure by incorperating it into the ongoing plot.

I have found that modules in the hands of bad GMs can sometimes accentuate their problems. They get stuck in the mentality that the module must be run the way it is presented, and if they misread something then their pedantic adherence to the rules can be deadly to the party.
 

You know what my favorite module of all time was? The Castles Forlorn box for Ravenloft. You were given almost everything, the domain, in detail, the NPCs, the haunted time shifting castle, even some stock encounters..

...the only thing that they didn't give you was a plot...

...It was up to each DM to decide how to use the adventure. To insert the events into their campaign as they saw fit. I think if more adventures were written like that I'd find myself buying more of them.
 


A good GM can easily overcome the shortcomings of a bad module.
A bad module can rarely stump a good GM.

However, woe to the gaming group faced with an inherently flawed module gripped in the hands of a poor GM.
 

Remove ads

Top