Home brew Vs Modules

[jtolman3]

What do you prefer as a Gm and what do you prefer as a Player.

Modules where everything is laid out and prepared.

Or Home brew where the gm puts in effort to make the campaign what it is.

and with the Home brew side of things, Do you prefer the GM concentrate of a specific adventure that he "leads" you down or do you prefer an open sandbox adventure.

 

[gamerprinter]

It depends. I like many styles of playing. Sometimes I like sandbox, sometimes I like something more linear, I really don't have a preference. I have written and/or helped the development of published adventures as a freelancer/publisher, and those adventures (because of my creative inclusion) I love to run for my players. I do periodically purchase published adventures from other publishers whose work I admire and with enough good press on a given product. Mostly I like to homebrew my games, even within a setting I've published (Kaidan setting of Japanese horror - PFRPG, for example). So in a way, my published setting is also my homebrew - its the same thing.

 

[jasper]

New group Modules. And switch to homebrew as I get to know the players better.
As a player it does not matter as long as the dm has no favorites.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Playing part of a module as a player is perhaps the worst rpg experience I've ever had. Given what I know now as a DM, I'd expect that. I'd never do it again as a player or a DM.

I prefer a fairly open-ended and improvisational game in which the DM does not have a lot of preconceived plot points to hit, because I want the time we spend during the game to matter.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Depends on the amount of investment on the players' side and the quality of the GM.

Low investment and sandboxy play style: boring fo all involved

Strong investment and a GM insisting on running a fixed plotline: fights between players and GM.

 

[delericho]

As a player: Good homebrew beats good module. Good module beats indifferent homebrew. Indifferent homebrew beats indifferent module. And poor anything probably isn't really worth playing.

As a DM, my preference would be to homebrew everything. The reality is that I just don't have the time. For the moment at least, I'm using pre-gen settings. I do, however, still homebrew adventures, simply because our play schedule doesn't mesh well with the pacing assumed by most pre-gen adventures (and if I'm doing lots of work to adapt them, I might as well do the same work to homebrew).

But if I had good pre-gen adventures to hand that did fit, I'd probably use those.

 

[Jhaelen]

Definitely homebrew. Even if I'm DMing a published module, I'll modify it extensively to make it a better fit for the pcs and the campaign/storyline. I never really run anything straight out of the book, unless it's intended as a one-shot. As a player I don't mind playing the occasional module more or less straight from the book, but homebrew is always preferable.

 

[Yora]

The problem with modules is, that most of them aren't really good.
It seems like there are only two types around. Strictly linear railroad modules in which the whole thing is already predetermined from start to finish, almost to the point where there's a specified order in which you go from room to room, and with a clear outcome for every encounter.
And the other type are old-school modules, which are basically just a map of a dungeon with nothing else.

I take things from both, but I can't really see how you can run a good game actually using them.

I read about Darkening of Mirkwood for some Lord of the Rings rpg a few days ago, and that seemed to be the first piece of published material that actually aims to provide the background for an open-ended game in which the players can make meaningful choices. At least as far as I am aware.

 

[delericho]

The problem with modules is, that most of them aren't really good.

Sadly, this is true.

I read about Darkening of Mirkwood for some Lord of the Rings rpg a few days ago, and that seemed to be the first piece of published material that actually aims to provide the background for an open-ended game in which the players can make meaningful choices. At least as far as I am aware.

There have been a few, but only a few. Which, for 40 years of output, is really not too good.

 

[steenan]

Definitely homebrew, on both sides ot the table.

As a player, I need the freedom of choice that no module gives me. Having to follow a pre-planned plot ruins the fun for me, and the only sandboxy modules I met were very combat-centric.

As a GM, I tend to improvise a lot, reacting to what players do. I don't typically follow my own notes, other than NPCs' stats and motivations. Running a module, I would either ignore most of it (so what's the point?) or end up feeling constrained and frustrated.