D&D General Do You Run Published Adventures, Homebrew Adventures, or Some of Both?

[Hexmage-EN]

I also personally do a lot of deep diving into D&D lore to use for my sessions and want to incorporate ways to use it.

For example, in researching Orcus I just found what is possibly the only reference to another servant of his allegedly on par with Doresain called Vermiturge (the source is Dragon #364). Now I suddenly want to figure out what Vermiturge's deal is (the only hint is that he represents a connection between undeath and disease) and maybe work him into an adventure somehow.

 

[Lanefan]

A mix here. Sometimes a published module fits what I have in mind, other times I have to make something up myself.

 

[Professor Murder]

About 90/10 for Homebrew to published for me over my entire tenure as a DM, and that's being generous to published.

 

[Hussar]

Here's a question. If I take a published adventure, use a different map, change a number of the monsters, add in a couple of encounters, subtract a couple of others, am I home brewing or using a module? I think it would be more fair for me to say that I start with a module, because it's done a lot of the scut work, but then whatever I run at the table is often pretty heavily adapted.

 

[JEB]

Here's a question. If I take a published adventure, use a different map, change a number of the monsters, add in a couple of encounters, subtract a couple of others, am I home brewing or using a module? I think it would be more fair for me to say that I start with a module, because it's done a lot of the scut work, but then whatever I run at the table is often pretty heavily adapted.

Was wondering the same thing. I've run some adventures that were so changed by game time that only partial maps and general ideas remained of the original.

EDIT: Addressing the original question, in our most recent campaign, I personally would run either heavily modified published adventures, or homebrew. Other DMs in our group would either run entirely homebrew (two of them) or a mix like me (the other three).

My older two campaigns were entirely homebrew (except for the very first adventure, taken from the 1981 Basic Rulebook).

 

[Azzy]

Everytime I run a published adventure, it makes me want to run a homebrew one instead. I tend to be a more fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants kind of DM. Not saying that I won't run (or even haven't enjoyed) prepublished adventures, but I prefer just to homebrew things.

 

[Green Onceler]

I don't have time or talent to run straight homebrew. I find it much easier to modify an existing framework. Thus, I use PF 1e adventure paths and alter as required. Paizo, from 2007 - 2017, released a number of adventures that suit my tastes very well.

 

[Li Shenron]

Nowadays all published adventures but mostly converted from older editions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I run a mix, although when I run published adventures they are heavily customised.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Here's a question. If I take a published adventure, use a different map, change a number of the monsters, add in a couple of encounters, subtract a couple of others, am I home brewing or using a module? I think it would be more fair for me to say that I start with a module, because it's done a lot of the scut work, but then whatever I run at the table is often pretty heavily adapted.

I think this is more common than we think, and doesn't fit neatly into either category of purely "published" or "homebrew". Homebrew, to me, means something purely original of your own creation. So I would not consider piecing published materials in a different order or arrangement as homebrew. Maybe we should have some more distinctions in the poll, like:

1. Published as written (i.e. out of the box, official).
2. Published with some modifications (i.e. tinkerer).
3. Mix-and-match materials from multiple published sources (i.e. revised or reimagined, aka "MacGuyver")
4. Completely original (i.e. homebrew).
5. Mix of the above.
6. Something else not listed (please explain).