Home brew Vs Modules

[gamerprinter]

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.

This is true with every module. If you look at The Curse of the Golden Spear trilogy of modules for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, for example, especially the second module and third modules, Dim Spirit and Dark Path. Boxed text provided throughout the module make suggestions should the party not follow a particular road or direction, how certain encounters can be relocated and what options GMs can take to maintain the storyline. The adventure writer understands that not every party will follow the same path.

Not every module is static.

 

[jtolman3]

I Have used modules in the past, they jsut end up being so heavily Modified that I might as well as be home brewing lol

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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>

Then I advise to use the beginner's modules present in a lot of RPG books. Core books tend to be much sturdier than those flimsy 32 page pamphlets and provide much more armor protection!

 

[Umbran]

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.

False dichotomy - use of modules does not imply the GM is not putting in effort. The GM may not be personally generating 100% of the content, but they're still finding, reviewing, editing, and so on.

Which I prefer depends on many things - what game we are playing, how good the GM is designing adventures and how good the GM is at running published adventures.

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.

I don't have an overall preference. Sometimes, a campaign calls for more sandbox, sometimes for more leading.

 

[Elf Witch]

When I DM I do use some modules if they fit in my game. So my game is a combo of home brew and modules. I do make the modules fit my game I have had players be surprised that they just ran through a module.

As a player it depends on the DM some DMs are just not that good at coming up with creative ideas. My roommate is that way she runs Pazio's Adventure Paths and they are a blast to play in. But her home brews are lacking. Yes there is an element of railroading but the players understand this and we do our best to pick up the hooks and go with them. We also make characters that work with the Adventure Path.

My favorite is a home brew with a creative DM when you get that mixed with good involved players that is when you get RPG gold.

 

[Phototoxin]

A mix. I'm fussy with modules. Also since my setting is 4E faerun most geneic D&D modules need to be converted in terms of location and deities. But if it's a good module it'll be worth it - case in point - Gardmore abbey. I loved it.

Now I'm converting/adapting the 3E 'red hand of doom' for my campaign. So its' a bit of column A and a bit of column B for me.