Books vs Home written adventures?

[Dedekind]

I use almost entirely published material. Huge time saver for me but it gives me enough space to add/subtract whatever I want.

A side benefit is the common experience of so many players playing the same material.

 

[Riastlin]

I prefer to homebrew everything but will from time to time plug in a published mod. However, when I recently started up a second campaign, I went with SOW because of the ease in prepping. I can handle homebrewing one campaign at a time, but just don't have the time needed to run two homebrews simultaneously. As others have said, even my homebrews will occasionally pull from published mods due to either time constraints or lack of ideas on my part. Unfortunately, as much as I might plan things out in advance, over the course of 30 levels, things will either change or just plain not work as originally intended. Maybe one adventure or location I had planned doesn't cover as much XP as I had planned, or maybe it covers more and now I don't have as much room for the next adventure I had planned, etc. More often than not though its just simple writer's block or a desire to run a highly regarded adventure.

 

[Herschel]

I use mostly published stuff which I make almost completely unrecognizeable as published stuff by the time I'm done modifying it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't agree that there's a 'best,' just a best for a given DM's style. I've rarely ever used a module, and I tend to improvise a lot. That's what works best for me. I've known other DMs to run good campaigns by creatively stringing together modules (often completely unrelated modules). I've known other DMs to run fantastic games by putting in lots of prep time. I've run good campaigns and good games with homebrew settings and lots of improvisation. It all depends on what suits a give DM's talents best.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

When I was DMing weekly, I used one of Paizo's adventure paths because of time constraints. I have since switched to only running a game monthly, and am making most if it myself, while stealing the occasional delve or encounter. I prefer the second method, but I'm not sure I could keep it up if I needed to do so every week.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Switch back and forth

I run about 60/40 with homebrew/prewritten. But rather than run such a mix all the time, I mostly switch back and forth between the extremes, at about that rate. When I run homebrew, it is nearly all homebrew. Of course, I might remember something I saw and get inspiration for it, but I don't tend to adapt such materials into the homebrew or look them up. I just remember the general idea and make it fully my own. Then when I switch to prewritten, I run it mostly as written. The urge to change things is strong, but I limit myself to what is signifcant for the groups' enjoyment.

I discovered long ago that if I don't do this, I tend to indefinitely run a quasi-prewritten that gets radically morphed into a defacto homebrew. It's a lot of work. But if I run just homebrew all the time, I get stale and/or burnout. By alternating, I recharge my batteries for the opposite style later, while having a good time now. About the time I start getting frustrated with the limitations of one style, I'm excited to do the other.

Only problem I've had with alternating is being sure to finish off a campaign before I feel the urge to switch, but I'm getting better at that.