When I was a kid new to RPGs in 1985, having discovered the Basic Set and then the Expert set, the only premade adventures we ever used were the Basic dungeon, Threshold and environs, and The Isle of Dread. These were sufficient to teach us how to make our own adventures. For the most part, all through the 80s, 90s and early 00s I never used published adventures. I bought and read some, including Dungeon Magazine and adventures for other games (I especially liked reading Champions of DC Heroes adventures) but I used them as inspiration or to steal stats from. I did dabble a little in trying to run the original Dragonlance adventures at some point, but it did not go very well.
Later, in the mid 00s, I started using published adventures more. I ran the 3E "adventure path" modules (Sunken Citadel, Forge of Fury, etc) and Red Hand of SDoom (still th best module WotC has ever published). It was not until the Paizo and Pathfinder era that I really started running pre-written adventures more often. More recently, using Fantasy grounds for most of my gaming, I now run adventures more often than creating my own.
But here is the thing: I really, really don't like running modules and I absolutely hate reading them (especially WotC and Paizo style modules). I still default to modules when learning a new system (Shadowdark, for example) just to get a sense of the design intent. But if I like the game and I "get it" I prefer strongly to just run the game.
Part of it is simply that I am an improv GM and I don't see the value in detailed adventure design even if I am writing it. A loose outline, a handle on the rules, and a list of names are really all I need. That is how I run games in person and at cons. I just find that more difficult on Fantasy grounds than it is in person, so I default to adventures. But, Monday I started a new adventure "my way" even using FG and it went great. Now, I am dreading running my Pathfinder2ER Abomination Vaults campaign tonight because I do not like the adventure as written.
Anyway, enough about me. How do you feel about published/pre-written adventures? Do you run them as is? Strip them for parts? Don't even consider them? When you run an adventure of your own design, do you "write it" before play? If you do use pre-written adventures, what kind of "prep" do you do with them?
Later, in the mid 00s, I started using published adventures more. I ran the 3E "adventure path" modules (Sunken Citadel, Forge of Fury, etc) and Red Hand of SDoom (still th best module WotC has ever published). It was not until the Paizo and Pathfinder era that I really started running pre-written adventures more often. More recently, using Fantasy grounds for most of my gaming, I now run adventures more often than creating my own.
But here is the thing: I really, really don't like running modules and I absolutely hate reading them (especially WotC and Paizo style modules). I still default to modules when learning a new system (Shadowdark, for example) just to get a sense of the design intent. But if I like the game and I "get it" I prefer strongly to just run the game.
Part of it is simply that I am an improv GM and I don't see the value in detailed adventure design even if I am writing it. A loose outline, a handle on the rules, and a list of names are really all I need. That is how I run games in person and at cons. I just find that more difficult on Fantasy grounds than it is in person, so I default to adventures. But, Monday I started a new adventure "my way" even using FG and it went great. Now, I am dreading running my Pathfinder2ER Abomination Vaults campaign tonight because I do not like the adventure as written.
Anyway, enough about me. How do you feel about published/pre-written adventures? Do you run them as is? Strip them for parts? Don't even consider them? When you run an adventure of your own design, do you "write it" before play? If you do use pre-written adventures, what kind of "prep" do you do with them?