Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 6251207" data-attributes="member: 46713">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 work2) to inspire the DMThe 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.</blockquote>