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

dead said:
On occasion, I use a published adventure to suppliment my own creative efforts. The most recent adventure I used was "The Banewarrens" (albeit, significantly reworked). Anyway, I was bashed recently for using published adventures in my game. I was told that I was not a "true" GM if I could not write my own adventures EVERYTIME. This person said: "50% of the fun of GMing is running the adventure; the other 50% is writing them". (They also equated it with miniatures gaming. They said that 50% of the fun was playing, while the other 50% was painting them. Those who didn't paint their minis, were only pretenders.)

In the end, I felt a little dejected. I felt a little inadequate.

I keep telling myself: "Who cares if I used published adventures on occasion. Indeed, who cares if I used published adventures ALL the time! The aim of the game is to have FUN, right? And not all of us are professional writers, or on fire in the creative department 100% of the time."

What do others think?

I think this is utterly RIDICULOUS.

IMO, the only duty of a DM, is to entertain his/her players. Now, if he entertains with a published adventure, and bores with his own designed adventures, the only valid choice is to use published adventures. This should be obvious!

Now, I agree that a DM who don't use any adventure at all, but improvise everything during all the gaming session, is probably cheating. As such I cheat almost all the time... :\ Last gaming session, I noticed that also improvising monsters statisitcs also was easier, and enabled to well scale encounters for the PCs. So I am now all the more motivated to cheat even more when DMing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dead said:
On occasion, I use a published adventure to suppliment my own creative efforts. The most recent adventure I used was "The Banewarrens" (albeit, significantly reworked). Anyway, I was bashed recently for using published adventures in my game. I was told that I was not a "true" GM if I could not write my own adventures EVERYTIME. This person said: "50% of the fun of GMing is running the adventure; the other 50% is writing them". (They also equated it with miniatures gaming. They said that 50% of the fun was playing, while the other 50% was painting them. Those who didn't paint their minis, were only pretenders.)

In the end, I felt a little dejected. I felt a little inadequate.

I keep telling myself: "Who cares if I used published adventures on occasion. Indeed, who cares if I used published adventures ALL the time! The aim of the game is to have FUN, right? And not all of us are professional writers, or on fire in the creative department 100% of the time."

What do others think?

Whoever said that to you is on crack....seriously. Don't buy into that bull#@%. That's all it is.
 

Sounds like your player is an idiot. Many good DMs use publishrf adventures, thats what they are made for. And is sounds like you adapted the module to your campaign and players, besides DMs never cheat.
 

As a player, I have never felt cheated by the DM running a published adventure.

But as a DM, I feel like I am cheating if I use a published adventure. I cannot explain it. I'm running Last Stand at Outpost Three from the Dark Sun issue of Dungeon, and we're having a blast. Since I'm using it as a side trek in an ongoing campaign, I've made some modifications to fit it in my homebrew and to provide some minor hooks back to the broader campaign.

I know in my mind that it's preposterous to think that running an adventure that someone spend many hours creating and revising is cheating, but I haven't fully accepted it yet.

Is there a support group for neurotic DMs? :)
 


dead said:
On occasion, I use a published adventure to suppliment my own creative efforts. The most recent adventure I used was "The Banewarrens" (albeit, significantly reworked). Anyway, I was bashed recently for using published adventures in my game. I was told that I was not a "true" GM if I could not write my own adventures EVERYTIME. This person said: "50% of the fun of GMing is running the adventure; the other 50% is writing them". (They also equated it with miniatures gaming. They said that 50% of the fun was playing, while the other 50% was painting them. Those who didn't paint their minis, were only pretenders.)

In the end, I felt a little dejected. I felt a little inadequate.

I keep telling myself: "Who cares if I used published adventures on occasion. Indeed, who cares if I used published adventures ALL the time! The aim of the game is to have FUN, right? And not all of us are professional writers, or on fire in the creative department 100% of the time."

What do others think?

That is so stupid, it hurts. You're right, you're no less a GM to use published adventures. I laugh at people with elitist attitudes like that (luckily, I've known very few). I suppose you can't use a published setting, either. And you really should make up your own rules, too. Why bother with any books at all, if you're a real RPer, you shouldn't need 'em. Right.

Some people don't have the time, the energy, the abilty or the inclination to write their own stuff. My PbP MnM game is completely made up by me. Because that takes a lot of spare time, my table top FR game is completely published mods. Mind you, those published mods are reworked to fit into the campaign, but their still mods. What does that make me?
 

dead said:
On occasion, I use a published adventure to suppliment my own creative efforts. The most recent adventure I used was "The Banewarrens" (albeit, significantly reworked). Anyway, I was bashed recently for using published adventures in my game. I was told that I was not a "true" GM if I could not write my own adventures EVERYTIME. This person said: "50% of the fun of GMing is running the adventure; the other 50% is writing them". (They also equated it with miniatures gaming. They said that 50% of the fun was playing, while the other 50% was painting them. Those who didn't paint their minis, were only pretenders.)
Kill them and take their stuff.

Seriously, this is one of the most lame comments, ever. Modules have been around since before most of your players were probably even born (he says, making a big generalization, assuming you and your players are 27 or younger). As far as I'm concerned, I get 100% of my fun from my players having fun. If that happens, mission accomplished.

And I've been a minis gamer for more than 30 years, and I hate painting the little buggers. It's all about the end result, for me.
 
Last edited:

I came across a fascinating statement on this very subject from David Cronenberg. This is out of a book of interviews done back in the early '90s:

Q: Your works from Stereo in 1969 to Videodrome in 1983, with the small exception of Fast Company, were all from your original screenplays. But since Videodrome, all four films have been collaborations and adaptations, no original screenplays, and your next will be based on the play "M. Butterfly." Do you make any sense of this?

Cronenberg: Not really. I can't find anything in me that has any recognition response to this. In the Middle Ages, you know, you got no points for originality. In fact, it was just about proscribed. You always built from the past, and you elaborated that into your own unique version. When you're young, I suppose there's a great ego necessity to say, "Hey, it's all original, I did it all myself!" It might simply be that. Even then, I knew that where the material comes from is almost irrelevant. Does it matter that it's [from] a newspaper article?

Q: There's a kind of friction that comes with adaptation and collaboration, which you don't get from your own original work. [...] I don't mean friction in a negative sense, I mean friction in terms of heat -- your consciousness is up against the consciousness of someone else.

Cronenberg: Yeah. There's a Hollywood version of collaboration, which can also be positive.

[...]

But you run up against other things anyway, which is why I don't think it's that different from an original script. As soon as you start to introduce characters that fight back -- you want to get rid of them and they won't go! -- you're always collaborating with yourself, with projections of yourself. That's why I feel the metaphor of [Naked Lunch's] Bill Lee's typewriter -- giving him orders, pushing him around, telling him what to write -- is like normal writing to me. Whether there is another human being in the room or not, it feels the same.

I don't think I'm trying to rationalize anything here. As time goes on, it doesn't matter whether it's a dream I start with, or a newspaper article, or a story someone told me, or a story someone said actually happened, or a biographical incident, or somebody else's fictional work. It all seems like intake; it's narrative and conceptual intake and then you do something with it. Now, when you're starting out and you really have a lot to prove, and you have not yet necessarily found your cinema voice, and you are desperate not to dilute that, because it's so fragile, there might be a real pressure not to collaborate. "I'm the only guy who wrote this, I made it up, I didn't get it anywhere else." But what I'm doing now might be more pure and honest and straightforward than what I did then.
 

Buttercup said:
bug·a·boo n. pl. bug·a·boos
  1. An object of obsessive, usually exaggerated fear or anxiety: “Boredom, laziness and failure... These bugaboos, magnified by imagination, keep [the workaholic] running” (Dun's Review).
  2. A recurring or persistent problem: “the bugaboos that have plagued vision systems: high price and slow throughput” (Lawrence A. Goshorn).
  3. A former poster on Eric Noah's 3rd Edition News website, the precursor to EN World, who delighted in elaborate trolls. Many of us oldtimers wonder if he's still here, posting under an alt.
Seriously, the accusation leveled against you is so silly and wrong-headed that some people here are having a hard time believing anyone could possibly say something like that. No one intends to be mean to you. They just wonder if you are teasing. :)

Similarly, LostSoul is probably teasing, because everyone who has played even once realizes that DMing is a great deal of work.

Thanks for the info Buttercup. :)

Perhaps in the future I'll refrain from using the word "cheating".
 

arnwyn said:
Based on this thread and the other "cheating" thread you started, I think you hang around with a bunch of nitwits.

I don't hang out with these people.

These are just things I've heard over the many years I've gamed with people. The comments are mainly from people I've known by association. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top