D&D General I defend published adventures constantly then I spend two hours tweaking every one I run. At what point am I just homebrewing with extra steps?

[Celebrim]

Fully homebrewing my Star Wars game is/was no less work than adapting published source material like X1: Isle of Dread, 'Of Sound Mind', or 'Mad God's Key'.

 

[jayoungr]

It would be great if adventure publishers could have the self-awareness around what kind of adventure they're publishing and make it clear outside the shrink wrap which type their product is, so everyone could pair off with the stuff they are looking for.

Until that day comes, this is what reviews and forum discussions are for.

 

[Umbran]

Point is that a published adventure shouldn't be treated like a script; it's a blueprint. Use as much or as little as you like...

I am about to agree with you.

But, um... blueprints typically contain a lot of engineering necessities that aren't optional. If you want an airplane to fly, or a house to stand (or pass inspection), you kind of have to follow the blueprint pretty closely.

Which is not to say I argue with the end point - you can buy a product, and use what you like, change other bits, and add or ignore at your whim.

The point is more that, broadly speaking, the point of any sort of plan - script, blueprint, recipe, etc - is to have a specific thing at the end. That final product at the end is what has value.

But that's not, generally, the point of RPGs. Nobody is going to use the final construct of your campaign for anything. The process, the play, is the valuable bit, not the end product. So, nobody should care what plan you did, or didn't, follow.

 

[saviirkad]

Neither one is wrong. It would be great if adventure publishers could have the self-awareness around what kind of adventure they're publishing and make it clear outside the shrink wrap which type their product is, so everyone could pair off with the stuff they are looking for.

But don't they already? I don't think I've seen an adventure, certainly not an official 5e adventure, that was designed primarily for cannibalization that didn't make that purpose and intent clear in its marketing and discourse

 

[Koloth]

I am about to agree with you.

But, um... blueprints typically contain a lot of engineering necessities that aren't optional. If you want an airplane to fly, or a house to stand (or pass inspection), you kind of have to follow the blueprint pretty closely.

Which is not to say I argue with the end point - you can buy a product, and use what you like, change other bits, and add or ignore at your whim.

The point is more that, broadly speaking, the point of any sort of plan - script, blueprint, recipe, etc - is to have a specific thing at the end. That final product at the end is what has value.

But that's not, generally, the point of RPGs. Nobody is going to use the final construct of your campaign for anything. The process, the play, is the valuable bit, not the end product. So, nobody should care what plan you did, or didn't, follow.

True about blueprints IF the goal is to have a functional product as described by the blueprints. But if one buys the blueprints for an airplane because one wants a house that looks very much like an airplane, almost certain that modifications will be made in the process of making said airplane like house.

I have seen folks use the 'construct of a campaign' as inspiration for other things. Artwork, stories, etc. The daughter of a friend of mine is becoming an 'artist of note'(she has several published book covers and is now being requested). She uses things that happen during games she is playing/running as subject matter for some of her artwork. The actions of PCs often exceed even the wildest of artist's imaginations.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But don't they already? I don't think I've seen an adventure, certainly not an official 5e adventure, that was designed primarily for cannibalization that didn't make that purpose and intent clear in its marketing and discourse

I cannot recall WotC especially saying of its big campaign-length books "hey, you should expect to spend hours making this $60 book work." As has been said, a lot of that is outsourced to the early buyers going online and talking about that.

 

[saviirkad]

I cannot recall WotC especially saying of its big campaign-length books "hey, you should expect to spend hours making this $60 book work." As has been said, a lot of that is outsourced to the early buyers going online and talking about that.

There's a difference between a book intended to be taken apart and used for its pieces and a book that just doesn't live up to the standard or interest of a particular customer.

 

[Umbran]

True about blueprints IF the goal is to have a functional product as described by the blueprints. But if one buys the blueprints for an airplane because one wants a house that looks very much like an airplane, almost certain that modifications will be made in the process of making said airplane like house.

Well, presumably one will take the airplane blueprints, give them to someone who knows what htey are doing, and they'll make a set of house blueprints out of them before you start building the house.

Houses and airplanes and angle food cake (and many complicated real-world things) have requirements that need pre-planning. Our campaigns, often/usually not so much.

I have seen folks use the 'construct of a campaign' as inspiration for other things.

Are you trying to make conversation, or are you trying to claim that this is common enough to weaken my general point. Because this sounds pretty edge-case to me.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I am about to agree with you.

But, um... blueprints typically contain a lot of engineering necessities that aren't optional. If you want an airplane to fly, or a house to stand (or pass inspection), you kind of have to follow the blueprint pretty closely.

Which is not to say I argue with the end point - you can buy a product, and use what you like, change other bits, and add or ignore at your whim.

The point is more that, broadly speaking, the point of any sort of plan - script, blueprint, recipe, etc - is to have a specific thing at the end. That final product at the end is what has value.

But that's not, generally, the point of RPGs. Nobody is going to use the final construct of your campaign for anything. The process, the play, is the valuable bit, not the end product. So, nobody should care what plan you did, or didn't, follow.

Fair point. I admit I suck at analogies, but I think anyone may be hard-pressed to find a suitable word to describe "published RPG adventures" within the context of the current discussion. Maybe I should try a meme...

(Jokes aside, I may have something more to add to the conversation. Just need to get my thoughts together first.)

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm an improv-focused GM, so I don't typically use published adventures for more than study materials unless it's sanctioned play, which I only dabble in. Years ago I was asked to GM a sanctioned play for some 4E adventure because of a scheduling issue, and I looked the adventure over and said "nah" and changed the story on the fly while keeping the mechanical elements to make it actually exciting.

Ideally, an adventure will work 100% fine as-written when running with a generic party, and then from there a GM can tweak it to make it better or cut out parts for use elsewhere. An adventure that is not mechanically or thematically sound is troubling, but something that at least works can be a foundation for something better while saving the GM all the time to build that foundation. Maps and encounter math and properly pacing skill challenges can be significant work!