Is it cheating for a GM to use a published adventure?

[Herpes Cineplex]

You know, I've always thought that it's much more difficult to run a published adventure well than it is to run something you put together yourself.

And by running it well, I mean that you fit it into the setting, you get the players fully interested in it, you are able to maintain a good pace, and you are able to improvise seamlessly when the PCs do something that the published adventure didn't anticipate. (I say "when" rather than "if" because there's no if involved at all; the PCs ALWAYS do something the published adventure didn't anticipate.)

It's one thing to make everything up on your own, and that's a nifty skill to have. It's a significantly different (and in many cases more useful) skill to be able to take someone else's work and use it effectively.

Maybe a lot of people have bad associations when it comes to published modules: the GM who followed the god-awful advice at the beginning ("If your players do not want to go on the adventure, FORCE THEM"), who droned his way through ten paragraphs of boxed text, gave a lackluster "welcome to room 18, there's a bugbear and a treasure chest with 867cp and a wand in here" presentation. And I've been in those games, and they blew.

But I've also been in games where if you didn't see the GM flipping through a module, you would have had absolutely no way of telling that he was running the group through a published adventure. And let me tell you, the GMs I've known who've pulled that off worked damn hard for it. It would've been far less effort for them if they'd just made up something out of whole cloth, I'm sure.


I'll also throw in, just as an aside, that the most recent and most successful integration of a published module into a campaign was done by the guy running our Scarred Lands game, and he used The Banewarrens as well. It's set up very well for adjusting and making it your own, he says, and he's recommended it to others.

--
so, good choice
ryan

 

[Wombat]

I always figured that the reason that these adventures are sold is that GMs should use them for their games.

Colour me surprised to think otherwise...

No, using such adventures is in no way cheating. Use it straight, alter it up to suit your tastes, change names to protect the innocent and/or guilty, it's all good.

Sure, I write up 90% of my own adventures for my games, but that is a matter of personal taste. I played in one campaign where every single adventure the GM used was a pre-packaged, across the counter adventure. It was a good campaign. Either way works well.

Go for the gold

 

[maddman75]

It is impossible for a GM to cheat. It is only possible for them to run a bad game.

If I use published materials, steal from books and movies and file the serial numbers off, if I make up bad guys without following all the guidelines, if I ignore rules right and left...but the players all had a good time and I had a good time, then I have done my job correctly.

'Did everyone at the table have fun' is the only metric that a DM need measure himself against. Himself included.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If using published modules is cheating, then someone needs to explain what's wrong with that kind of cheating.

Sure, some DMs can come up with wonderful original material every time. There are other DMs one might beg to run something someone else wrote. From the end user (player) POV, what matters is the quality of the game, not who wrote it. A DM can be every bit as unprepared, unfamiliar, uninteresting and dictatorial with his own material as with someone else's. It's no better for a DM to be say, "umm, well, I've got power attack so I'll power attack for seven [players: He's 7th level; we're so hosed]...no, well, what's his BAB anyway... oh I'll power attack for 3 and work it out later and he rolls a 15 so he hits [player: does he hit armor class 22?]... um well, maybe he doesn't, let me see...." or "I know I had his stats written down here somewhere [rummages through an odd assortment of 1980s tractor feed printer paper with AD&D stats convertede to 2e written on them, napkins with 3.0 conversions on the back, and the 3.5 conversion guide" than "umm, let me flip to the back of the modules where I've got the stats." What matters as a DM is whether or not you are familiar with the system, the world, and the story, not whether you wrote it or someone else did.

 

[Umbran]

What do others think?

I think the guy doesn't know what he's talking about

It is not cheating to use a published adventure, especially in today's busy world. The GM's job is to provide interesting and compelling stuff for his players to work with. How he does it is irrelevant in comparison. The final judge of a GM's skill are his players - if they have a good time, he's good. In the end, that's all that matters.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Only if don't start your characters above 1st level!

(? There have been some STRANGE topics on these boards lately in respect to "cheating")

Ways to "cheat" at D&D:

1) Lie/Fudge on die rolls

2) Lie about PC abililities/equipment/resources etc...

3) Metagame

4) Look at DM only material

I'm not sure there are any other ways to "cheat" at D&D

 

[Len]

Wow, I would never say something like that to my DM. It's obvious from the frequent "evil DM smile" that he's having plenty of fun (at our expense) even though he's running published adventures. And so are we.

Of course, some of those adventures are three editions old, so he's done a lot of work on them (like you've done), and he has to tie those adventures together with recurring NPCs etc. And he had to come up with the details of his campaign world (which must take a bit of work even though it's ripped from a series of novels). And he makes custom magic items, and plays party NPCs sometimes (since we don't have any spellcasting PCs). Plenty of work there, and plenty of creative fun.

The only thing I can think of is that your players want to feel that they're playing in a unique, custom-made campaign. Which is great - it's nice to be part of something special and unique. But if many of the adventures are custom-made, and the players are creating unique characters, they shouldn't complain about the DM only doing about five times as much work as they are.

Well, I guess they must be right. You're only having 50% fun. Sorry about that.

 

[babomb]

Yes. If the players have to do the work at the table, roleplaying and everything, then the GM should do his part and actually sit down and write and adventure for them.

Please tell me you're joking. GMs do much more "work" at the table than PCs, whether they're using a published adventure or not.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I used to have the opposite experience in that the players would whine if they thought it was something I had created and suddenly it had become a little bit tough.

Personally, I use a mixture of modules, Dungeon magazines and my own notes as I DM (and, really, I make a lot up as we go) and I have them with me at all times so that the players have no idea what is the source for any encounter or situation that they find themselves in the middle of.

As for the comments made to you, just ask the player if he would like to DM. That's normally enough to send 90% of players running for cover....

 

[Alhazred]

When I was in high school, I loved spending time creating a world in which my players could adventure, writing adventures, throwing the vilest villains at the group, etc. Now, as I try and finish grad school, I have A LOT less free time. While I still prefer to design my own material, falling back on a published adventure is sometimes necessary. More than a few times the choice has been either playing a published adventure, or cancelling the session.

The fellow who criticised your use of published material either has a lot of spare time in which to design material, or else has no idea how much time it takes to put together an adventure. The basic formula which I use when setting aside time for writing is 1 hour of play-time equals 1-1/2 to 2 hours writing time. All of which quickly goes out the window if your players propose a course of action for which you are not prepared.