Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[hawkeyefan]

Yep, this is me too. The only reason I've leaned towards published settings recently is because they have a map, and because I have players that will actually do some homework to learn the setting.

I've never understood the idea that "prepublished adventures save me time". It takes me way longer to read the book and understand the adventure structure than it does to just make something up. And the stuff I make up is already customized for the PCs!

I've been finding this more and more true as time goes by. I think that's likely because many adventures these days are designed as an entire adventure path, or as part of that path. So you have to either become familiar with a lot of material, or you have to sift through a bunch of it for the bits you like.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've been finding this more and more true as time goes by. I think that's likely because many adventures these days are designed as an entire adventure path, or as part of that path. So you have to either become familiar with a lot of material, or you have to sift through a bunch of it for the bits you like.

Yup, those relatively short modules where much easier to digest than the modern trend for epics.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yup, those relatively short modules where much easier to digest than the modern trend for epics.

Exactly. I picked up Trilemma Adventures, a kind of OSR style bundle of short site based adventures to see if that kind of product would be more helpful. And it is a bit....each of the many adventures in the book fits onto 1 to 3 pages. The entries are utilitarian yet evocative.

But I'm still finding that my mix of minimal prep and improv at the table to be the best approach for my game.

I think it's more a question of if there is any improvement in the experience at the table, for my players most importantly, but also for me, when using published material. My players seem to enjoy my personal approach at least as much or more than when I run published material, and it's easier for me to do my thing.....so it's a win/win.

I still like to pick up published material for inspiration and lifting of some basic elements like maps and stat blocks, but I don't find them to be much use at the table during play.

 

[Umbran]

I've never understood the idea that "prepublished adventures save me time". It takes me way longer to read the book and understand the adventure structure than it does to just make something up.

In a game (like 3e, say) for which generation of combat encounters takes a lot of effort, I think published material save many people a lot of time.

And, to be brutally honest... not every GM is a writer of intricate novels. Many of us don't come up with particularly interesting or tangled situations as the basis for their adventures. For these folks, a published adventure can save them a lot of brain-wracking.

 

[prabe]

I always do a homebrew campaign. But you know what? I find it far less work and time than running a published campaign while also being much more responsive to my players.

The thing is, I'm lazy. Like really, really lazy when it comes to running a campaign. I have a bunch of lists of random names and locations that I generate online. I think of campaign arcs and plot points during my commute. I jot a few notes down when I get a chance, grab a handful of monsters and I'm ready for a session. I almost never predraw maps other than to have a general idea of the likely areas the PCs are going to go. After the session I jot down a few notes. I use a map I made years ago but only use the portions that actually matter to the PCs.

For me it takes roughly half the time to plan and document a home campaign than to run a mod.

This is about where I am. Granted, I have been ... forcibly retired for a little more than two years, so I have more time on my hands, but what takes time in my experience is making the world before Session One (or Session Zero). Once a campaign is going it's usually pretty easy to see where it will go; every once in a while, a party will have resolved what they were working on and I will have to sketch out things for the directions I can think of, but even that isn't something I find all that hard.

Of course, there's also the fact that I more or less can't understand published adventures, and what I do understand seems like more work to fix than writing my own (including figuring out a way to tie the characters to it, which is rarely a strength in published adventures, IME).

 

[Oofta]

In a game (like 3e, say) for which generation of combat encounters takes a lot of effort, I think published material save many people a lot of time.

And, to be brutally honest... not every GM is a writer of intricate novels. Many of us don't come up with particularly interesting or tangled situations as the basis for their adventures. For these folks, a published adventure can save them a lot of brain-wracking.

I occasionally buy published mods to farm for ideas, but by and large they seem to be lacking much in the way of plot or intrigue anyway. Maybe I just haven't picked up the right ones but they seem to be quite simplistic. A cult is yet again bent on death and destruction, blah, blah, blah.

I can get as much depth from online random plot and NPC generators.

But different strokes for different folks and what-not.

 

[Zardnaar]

I like printing maps from adventures and stocking it with my own stuff.

 

[Umbran]

I occasionally buy published mods to farm for ideas, but by and large they seem to be lacking much in the way of plot or intrigue anyway.

Well, D&D doesn't sell itself as having a focus on such things. Go look at a Shadowrun or Ashen Stars module - these games have much more focus on intrigue and investigation, and their modules show it.

 

[Coroc]

I always do a homebrew campaign. But you know what? I find it far less work and time than running a published campaign while also being much more responsive to my players.

The thing is, I'm lazy. Like really, really lazy when it comes to running a campaign. I have a bunch of lists of random names and locations that I generate online. I think of campaign arcs and plot points during my commute. I jot a few notes down when I get a chance, grab a handful of monsters and I'm ready for a session. I almost never predraw maps other than to have a general idea of the likely areas the PCs are going to go. After the session I jot down a few notes. I use a map I made years ago but only use the portions that actually matter to the PCs.

For me it takes roughly half the time to plan and document a home campaign than to run a mod.

I like that. Sometimes when i wing and improvise, i do things like complex riddles on the fly. But i normally run official settings and modify the mto my needs because i do not want tocreate long lists of names and locations

 

[Hussar]

Wow.

You'd think that no one actually read the 1e DMG where Greyhawk is specifically used - artifacts being probably the easiest example. Or the 1e PHB with it's "named" spells. The non-human deities in Deities and Demigods? "There was no Greyhawk" before 1980? Seriously?

Sorry, no. It was ALL Greyhawk. All those proper nouns in modules like the GDQ series? Which, by the way, DO predate 1980.

Greyhawk is not like other settings. It wasn't, "boxed set first". Those modules, the references in the core books? That's Greyhawk. That's how the setting was presented. Not setting first and then some modules and supplements to showcase the setting. It was modules and adventures first.

Heck, Tomoachan was pretty much the sum total of the information we had on the Olman society for a long, long time. It still is the basis for the setting information.

Oh, and, by the way, since folks don't seem to know their history - orcs were referenced in the Dragonlance novel Kendermore (1989) with a half-orc character. Oops. It's not considered canon and it's generally simply considered a mistake.