Home brew Vs Modules

[jtolman3]

YOu might try looking at Frandors keep from Kenzerco for Hackmaster 5e.

They did a great job on that product.

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.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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.

I still fail to understand this statement after all those years. How can you know that no module can give you your much wanted freedom of choice?

Where does this feeling of being limited in your choices come from?

I gladly concede that there are a) lots of bad modules and b) GMs who try to hide behind the module. But in all my games over the years, in which I use lots of pre-written modules as basis for the game, I've encountered just one situation where I had to step out of the adventure and explain some limitation of the module to the players.

 

[Dioltach]

As a DM, I prefer homebrew. I own a bunch of modules, but I use them as a source of inspiration for individual encounters or antagonists, or for the maps.
As a player, I've only ever played homebrew adventures, never modules.

 

[steenan]

I still fail to understand this statement after all those years. How can you know that no module can give you your much wanted freedom of choice?
Where does this feeling of being limited in your choices come from?

The GM is able to improvise, reacting to what players do. And the GM can prepare an adventure with player goals in mind, so it contains what they are interested in.

The module - however it is written - is static. It can't adapt. So it either leaves things for the GM to decide, or forces the plot. When too much is left for the GM, there is no gain from using a module (books and movies work better as inspiration). When too little is left fluid, players like me go off the rails and the module just doesn't work.

Maybe there is a module that hits the narrow line between the problematic cases and offers fun experience. But I never met such these I played in. And my time became too limited recently to risk wasting it trying any new modules.

 

[howandwhy99]

Whether the GM or another built the adventure I see it as homebrew because the DM needs to convert it to the rules he or she is going to use for our campaign. The quality of published works tends to be better overall IMHO, if only for the sake of professionals in a community learning and studying together what many players want.

I don't play or run plotted games and don't consider improv games part of roleplaying, so all modules are sandbox for me.

 

[Yora]

The GM is able to improvise, reacting to what players do. And the GM can prepare an adventure with player goals in mind, so it contains what they are interested in.

The module - however it is written - is static. It can't adapt. So it either leaves things for the GM to decide, or forces the plot.

For my current campaign, I have a number of factions that have different plans and are opposing each other. I have a bunch of specific events planned and the players can chose to either oppose or ally with almost any of those groups. But as of now, I don't have the slightest idea how the story will end.
And the best thing is that I don't need to. By the time we get there, the direction will become obvious because I know what everyone is trying to achieve and what methods they use, so it makes sense that the villains will have to come up with alternative plans based on the chaos the PCs will have caused at that point.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The GM is able to improvise, reacting to what players do. And the GM can prepare an adventure with player goals in mind, so it contains what they are interested in.

The module - however it is written - is static. It can't adapt. So it either leaves things for the GM to decide, or forces the plot. When too much is left for the GM, there is no gain from using a module (books and movies work better as inspiration). When too little is left fluid, players like me go off the rails and the module just doesn't work.

Does "module" mean to you that it's unchangeable, unmalleable? Then we're talking about different things, here.

A module is nothing but a collection of plot, evil guy(s), goals of said guys, and maps. Everything else (boxed text with scripted speech, lead-in, rewards, ...) is more or less decoration.

How is this different from a set of notes prepared by the GM? Why can't one change the typically lame lead-in to fit the status of one's campaign? Why can't one make the evil guy part of a group or connected to other evil guys whom the players are working aginst?

And if the players leave the tracks and do something different, one is in the same situation as with one's own notes: some of the preparation is going to waste.

A real difference for the home brewer is that he can plan and prepare from session to session. This degree of total flexibility can't be reached with neither pre-planned homebrew nor published material. But that's not the way I run my games, because my players and me want a certain element of story or plot going on. Our adventures have a beginning and an end, though there often isn't a clear cut between one adventure and the next.

Movies and books for inspiration is another pet peeve of mine. Both are characterized by a pretty tight plot. There's hardly a book or movie where I could make some quality improvisation if the players would stray from the plot.

Ah, isn't it great that such widely different tastes fir under the RPG umbrella? Play any way you like, just make sure that your players and you have a good time.

 

[delericho]

Movies and books for inspiration is another pet peeve of mine. Both are characterized by a pretty tight plot. There's hardly a book or movie where I could make some quality improvisation if the players would stray from the plot.

Usually when I use a movie or book for inspiration, I either steal an element or two from it (a particular monster I like, or the BBEG, or whatever), or I lift the premise, themes, or something similar. Either way, I'll then graft my own plot (well, outline) onto the resulting adventure.

For example, my most recent Serenity game was one part the prison-break segment from "Chronicles of Riddick", one part "Prison Break" itself, and used the crew of Betty from "Alien: Resurrection". But once I'd got my ingredients, I stuck them in a blender and used what came out. Seemed to work pretty well - and it was for the players to drive the plot forward since all I did was set up a fairly tight setting and let them work out how to get out.

 

[Jhaelen]

When too much is left for the GM, there is no gain from using a module (books and movies work better as inspiration).

I beg to differ. Books and movies are by definition 'railroads'. They only describe a single course of action. Modules, even (most) bad ones, take into account different approaches and outcomes. I also get a lot from modules that saves me time, even if I completely ignore the module's default storyline: maps, encounters, monsters, npcs, items, etc. You cannot get any of these from a novel or movie (at least not in a way that is ready to be used in an rpg)!

My approach to using modules is to rip out the pieces, mix them up, alter some, add some of my own, and reorganize the chosen pieces in a different way to make it my own. At least for me this works a lot better than developing a homebrew adventure from scratch or only using a novel or movie as an inspiration.

Imho, there's two main goals for modules:
1) to save the DM work
2) to inspire the DM

The former often manifests as modules that can be played with little to no preparation but are extremely rail-roady.
The latter is more of a 'sandbox' which cannot be played without additional preparation and customization; it's something I prefer to call an 'adventure site' or 'adventure setting'. The Hammerfast supplement for 4e was a good example of this: chock-full of hooks and ideas but without any fully developed storyline.

 

[amerigoV]

d b) GMs who try to hide behind the module.

I have to hide behind the module all the time.

Me: "Your PC dies a horrible and humiliating death."
Player: "But that is not fair!"
Me: "Its in the module!"

<then I have to hid behind it as the player pelts me with random thrown objects>


One thing I like about modules as a player and GM is the shared experience. One of my fondest as GM is the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. On Monte's board that module was vibrant community all in itself. Some of the dastardly ideas that board came up with still warms my evil GM heart. As a player, its fun to talk with others that have gone through the same adventure on how they handled certain situations. It gives players something they can talk about with other groups without being "that guy" - you know "well, my Monk/Totem Farter/Aristocrat killed Asmodeus by taxing him to death in our homebrew campaign". The shared experience gives context.

That said, the newer modules I find to have too much detail. If you like whats there, its great. If you like some if it, it becomes hard to unravel the aspects you like without a lot of work. IMO, its one of the reasons some of the old modules are still popular - since they are generally site based with a thin plot, its easier to change without the whole thing becoming a major rewrite.

My favorite style these days comes from Savage Worlds - Plot Points and Savage Tales. Plot Points are campaign arcs - the 8-10 really interesting story points within a campaign. Each has bit of detail around them and is a page or two in detail (ie, a PP campaign is NOT an AP (Adventure Path) level of detail). They all link together, but not always back to back, which leaves room for the GM to put other stuff in (flexibility!). Savage Tales tend to be shorter on description but with enough to get you through a couple of sessions with minimal prep (but SW is know for its minimal prep anyway). These can run from a couple of paragraphs to a page or so in material. These are perfect items to slip between the Plot Points to flesh out the campaign.

50 Fathoms (D&D meets Pirates of the Caribbean) is their best one and I am running it right now. For me, anyway, they give just enough detail to really fire up the imagination without weighing you down. I find I can expand the material to taste if the players really get into an area without breaking the plot. Or I can run it bare bones if it is just "ok". I can add things whole cloth since the Plot Point is loose in its timing (think of games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls - you can explore without having to immediately follow The Plot). Its interesting that people struggle to make a good sandbox but this 50 Fathoms campaign book is a perfect one (there is structure based on where people go, but there is open room to expand or you can contract as needed).