Okay, so *why* is EN World GM-centric?

[radmod]

I think I might have to agree with Umbran on this one, in that I have met several GMs that will "very humbly" tell you that they never use published adventures because the published writers just aren't as good as they are.

I have to disagree with this. Quite a while ago, half a dozen DMs/GMs (none of which used modules/adventures) had a similar conversation. We thought some of the modules were fantastic and we would happily steal ideas from them. But as one guy put it, it was like being forced to play a pre-generated character. There was no soul.

Which, of course, brings us to the rest of your post, which I wholeheartedly agree with. When I 'house' DM, I know what the world is like, what is going to happen/may happen, etc. If I have a guy who wants to be a dragon-slayer, voila, there just happens to be more dragons in the game. Likewise, I get to control many of the aspects (such as treasure) that I find harder to do with modules. Finally, my storylines tend to be heavily interleaved; that is, something in the first adventure may impact the 3rd, 7th and 15th.

And, of course, there's always been the problem of the player who buys all the adventures so he knows what is supposed to happen.

Oh, and I post here because I'm looking for things my perception might not see. Especially since I have a hard time remembering if a rule/concept was 1e, 2e, 3.x or some house rule I created or heard about. So what is the rule now? What do others think about it?

 

[Lanefan]

I have to disagree with this. Quite a while ago, half a dozen DMs/GMs (none of which used modules/adventures) had a similar conversation. We thought some of the modules were fantastic and we would happily steal ideas from them. But as one guy put it, it was like being forced to play a pre-generated character. There was no soul.

Fair enough, but I have to ask: what edition were you running? The quality of "official" published modules has varied widely between editions: 0-1-3e generally good, 2-4e generally not so good (though the 4e modules seem to be improving of late). The only real experience with "unofficial" modules I've had is with 1e and 3e, and despite a few glorious exceptions during 3e they were generally rather grim, or worse.

Finally, my storylines tend to be heavily interleaved; that is, something in the first adventure may impact the 3rd, 7th and 15th.

Which is excellent. That said, doing such doesn't - or shouldn't - exclude you from using canned modules, as you can always lob things in that reflect your own world and campaign. As an example, I ran Keep on the Shadowfell (converted to 1e) early in my current campaign...the Hobgoblins they met in there - straight out of the module - worshipped a deity that in theory hasn't existed for ages, and called themselves a different racial name. This was intended to (and still might, someday) point toward a 5-adventure path later in the campaign where they'll investigate this racial division further; and at least two of those adventures will be normally-unconnected canned modules as well.

The modules are the christmas lights. The story is the wire that powers 'em and holds 'em all together.

And, of course, there's always been the problem of the player who buys all the adventures so he knows what is supposed to happen.

Yes. But those players do not remain players for long...at least not 'round here.

Lanefan

 

[Starfox]

What player would like to advance in level and become an orc or hobgoblin?

 

[Blackbrrd]

My players aren't usually thinking too much about the game outside the sessions. In other words - they don't look for a RPG site.

 

[ST]

My players aren't usually thinking too much about the game outside the sessions. In other words - they don't look for a RPG site.

This, exactly. Players are often invested in "their game" by which they mean "That timeslot when we get together and game". GMs are often more heavily invested in the system, the prep, brainstorming, all that.

 

[HoboGod]

Um, how about the fact that most GMs are also players? I think GM to player ratio can be best represented as a bell curve. There are a few people who are only GMs, a great deal of people who are both GMs and players, and there are a few people who are only players. There's only one person in my group who has never been a GM and we've never found anyone to join the group as a dedicated GM.

Besides, at a certain point, anyone who frequents an RPG forum will accrue enough information to confidently GM at a satisfactory level. So many of the people who were "only players" become GMs as well.

 

[wingsandsword]

Could that be why their builds assume a flat featureless plain that the character fights in?

One with no variables at all?

I might be onto something.

That makes me think of this comic OOTS 216 Giant In the Playground Games

Seriously, most of these "CharOp" types that create "invincible" builds create characters that are stunningly powerful under very specific circumstances (typically involving abusive interpretations of the rules, ideal conditions not likely to happen in any vaguely realistic scenario, or abilities that were specifically never meant for PC hands).

Then again, ENWorld is typically not a place that encourages such high-yield min-maxing, so that portion of the player base would probably be happier over at WotC's site.

 

[Saeviomagy]

That makes me think of this comic OOTS 216 Giant In the Playground Games

Of course if he'd just spring attacked around in a circle, no problems...

Seriously, most of these "CharOp" types that create "invincible" builds create characters that are stunningly powerful under very specific circumstances (typically involving abusive interpretations of the rules, ideal conditions not likely to happen in any vaguely realistic scenario, or abilities that were specifically never meant for PC hands).

I think this is pretty much a myth. Most of the charop builds work on making characters stunningly powerful in a particular scenario, true. However very few of them (these days) suffer more restrictions than the average character.

It's true that they usually abuse the rules, but it's also rare that this requires much interpretation to do: often it's just that the rules as written are highly abuseable.

Then again, ENWorld is typically not a place that encourages such high-yield min-maxing, so that portion of the player base would probably be happier over at WotC's site.

I think it's also got a lot to do with the fact that wizards write the rulebooks. A lot of the builds that get posted are posted to say "this rule is stupidly broken, and here's the worst thing you can make with it". And wizards pays attention.

 

[WizarDru]

Of course if he'd just spring attacked around in a circle, no problems....

Not to sidetrack and I may be misremembering, but IIRC, you I thought you couldn't take multiple AoOs against the same opponent in a single round? The joke still works, but I think that's factually incorrect.

 

[jimmifett]

We get a secret handshake? That's not in the DM's manual!

That information is above your security clearance citizen. Friend Computer kindly mandates that you report to the nearest Fun Time Soylent Processing Center w/ Animatronic Pizza Parlor Band for joytime enhancement debriefings. Have yourself a maximum-required happy day.