How Do You Feel About Published Adventures as a GM?

[prabe]

I do not run published adventures. I do not even consider running them. I have never played in a long published adventure that did not at least eventually turn out to have problems that broke my enjoyment of it. When I read published adventures, which I occasionally do, I am completely unable to make the kind of sense I need to make of them, to be able to run them.

More specifically: My experience of published adventures is that once they hit the table, the purpose of play at the table becomes to get through the adventure; I'd rather the purpose of play be more oriented on the characters (and my experience of published play is that characters do not matter to them).

 

[Shardstone]

There's a same-y quality to a lot of published adventures that cuts across a lot of games and genres, where the PCs are basically stepping into an amusement park-style haunted house, complete with animatronic jump scares and maybe the illusion of free movement, but really there's just one path.

I don't just mean railroading issues, which are sort of inherent to the whole project of writing and publishing an adventure. I mean that sense that the adventure has no bearing on the PCs, and that it's often quite the zany coincidence that they show up at just the right moment in some factional standoff. Sure, there's almost always some backstory to convince yourself as a player that you should care about (even though, again, you just showed up, you're just some guy/gal), but it's hard to shake the sense that the haunted house was powered down until the moment you set foot inside, and now the attraction springs to life.

Then it's on to the usual, recurring business of solving the puzzle—poking around until you find the safest route through, or in an adventure where you can talk to anyone, finding out which faction/NPC wants what, who they're beefing with, basically immersing yourself in someone else's story, rather than developing your own. And then, by nature, when the adventure is over, you're generally on your way, ride's over, time for a change of scenery, maybe with some shadow of a lingering plot hook or thread, but it's time to hit the next haunted house attraction where no one knows your character and everything is in a state of suspended animation until you show up.

I know there are lots of exceptions, and that some published adventures are more adaptable—or simply better written—than others. And if you're playing a full-on investigation game, working without any sort of published material can be hard to the point of impossible. But the default qualities of most published adventures, imo, kind of shine a light on how boring and repetitive RPGs can be when everything is scripted, and the GM's sole job becomes punishing you for doing the "dumb" thing, and rewarding you for the "smart" thing. Meanwhile, great narratives in other mediums don't care about what's dumb, smart, incorrect, or correct, just what's most interesting.

I dont see any of this as a flaw?

 

[Celebrim]

I love them but they do fall under Sturgeon's Law.

The goal of any designer should not be to publish a great game system, but to publish great adventures. In fact, start with the adventure and then figure out if you need a game system for it that isn't available on the market. Only then bother with a game system.

 

[Zaukrie]

I almost exclusively run modules at this point. So much time saved. I often alter them some, but not a TON.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The goal of any designer should not be to publish a great game system, but to publish great adventures. In fact, start with the adventure and then figure out if you need a game system for it that isn't available on the market. Only then bother with a game system.

My impression is that the people who love designing systems and the people who love writing adventures are often different people.

 

[Celebrim]

My experience of published adventures is that once they hit the table, the purpose of play at the table becomes to get through the adventure; I'd rather the purpose of play be more oriented on the characters (and my experience of published play is that characters do not matter to them).

My experience is that play oriented to characters is an attribute of having 3 or fewer players at the table. The fewer players you have, the more time you can spend focusing on character drama and character goals and slice of life. Get up to 6 or 8 players, and that becomes dysfunctional and getting through the adventure becomes a very functional way to game.

Neither is better or worse than the other. It's just depends on your players, what they enjoy about the game, and the size of your gaming group.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think (at least for me) WHEN I got into D&D impacted my willingness to read, modify and run prewritten adventures. When I started things like "splatbooks' and suppliments were few and far between if not non existent. I got into D&D a few years before the original UNEARTHED ARCANA came out. It was also a few years before T1-4 THE TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL and A1-4 SCOURGE OF THE SLAVE LORDS and GDQ 1-7 QUEEN OF SPIDERS.

So if you wanted to just modify something in an adventure for your group, you just kind of did it and there wasn't the sort of invasive scrutiny that there is now. Most GM's just understood and accepted that these changes were made for OUR table. The whole point of having the pre-written adventure was to take the work of creating from scratch off of the back of the GM. Which is something I welcomed when I realized that my players DID'NT CARE if the adventure was created by me or was a pre-written thing. AS long as they were having fun.

And as long time GM, it was WAY easier to read and then modify something that was pre-existing that it was to come up with something from scratch. I remember when DUNGEON magazine started and how overjoyed I was because now I had monthly access to not only full on adventures but adventure IDEAS and MAPS and the occasional new monster or magic item. Variety and resources are the spice of life for a GM and pre-written adventures are a HUGE boon.

The ability to read, then tailor a pre-written adventure specifically for your players is a skill set that I think, because of a lot of negative preconceived notions, is a skill set that very few GM's have and use. I've been told, TO MY FACE, that I was a lesser GM because I use pre-written adventures and didn't build everything including the world from scratch. To my credit I simply walked away from that person but it wouldn't be the last time that sort of thing was said or at least implied.

 

[uzirath]

I have always loved reading published adventures. I have nearly the complete run of Dungeon magazine, and I buy lots of adventures that I'll never run, just for ideas. I usually enjoy reading them cover to cover. I love looking at good maps, too. I like some of the intricacies of published adventures. Some of it is the "haunted house" stuff that someone referenced up-thread. It can be repetitive, but it can also be fun and interesting. I'm a huge fan of character-centric play, but I also enjoy puzzles that are really there for the players to solve. (I like this both as GM and player.)

When I run published scenarios, I invariably change them. I typically adjust the hook or setup to work with the particular characters I'll be running it for. Once they enter the adventure, it becomes their story and I'll adjust things according to the needs of the evolving fiction. Often this means that the final form of the story bears little resemblance to what I anticipated when I first read through it. Which is exactly how I like it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I do use published adventures. I would rather spend the money than time. Good adventures can help teach how to use the system.

For those people who heavily alter/dont like published adventure; I would like to see them write one so I can understand their style and desires.

Has anyone ever entered adventure writing because they think they can do better??

 

[Lanefan]

I run canned modules when one happens to fit with what I have in mind for an adventure or with what is likely to come next in the campaign. Saves me a lot of time and effort, even though I often have to change all the surrounding backstory to suit what's going on in the campaign.

The biggest issue I have is that my players are already familiar with a whole bunch of the published mocules I'm likely to run.