"Run as Written" or "Adapt as Desired"

[BryonD]

I adapt very aggressively. More often than not I just keep a map, npc, or key conflict idea and re-build around that.

Modules are more like a muse than anything else for me.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Oh yeah, I also strip out 75% to 90% of the magic items, and 40% to 60% of the treasure.

I always did that too!

 

[Fifth Element]

My method is to read the module (that word right there should give you an idea of what's coming next), take the maps pretty much as is, take the core idea, and then change everything to be nearly unrecognizable.

Seconded.

 

[kenmarable]

Mostly run as written, but nearly always changing the context and motivations. I like tying it much more into the individual PCs and a larger campaign, but I rarely change actual encounters and such. If I do, it's usually to throw in more non-core to match the party's level of non-coreness.

 

[Desdichado]

Almost never run modules as written. I read them, absorb their basic ideas and recreate them into all new adventures. Occasionally I literally steal a map, NPC, or something more directly from a module, but otherwise I practically never run them as written.

 

[Wombat]

The only way I use written adventures nowadays is as research material -- perhaps pull an encounter idea, a trap, or something like that.

The adventures never fit my world, my style of play, or the tastes of my players, so I am pretty much done with even looking at them.

 

[Aeolius]

I don't use published modules, aside from mining them for the occasional inspiration. I set my campaigns in the World of Greyhawk, but not in regions used by RPGA's Living Greyhawk. So, while technically not a homebrew, I haven't found a published adventure that I could shoehorn into my current campaigns.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I use modules mostly as written, but make some pretty big changes to them. I usually overhaul the flavor to fit my homebrew, and I change the NPCs to fit with recurring villains of the campaign, if possible. I also make a bunch of on the fly adjustments; for the aforementioned Whispers of the Vampire's Blade, for example, I tossed out several of the encounters in the middle of the game because they were getting redundant.

 

[Arnwyn]

A mix of the two styles, leaning closer to running them as written. Most of my adaptations are simply proper nouns.

 

[Agamon]

I see each published adventure as a set of guidelines. I throw out/add in encounters, change names and locations, whatever it takes to make the adventure fit the campaign, PCs, and my and the players tastes. The current mod I'm running, The Prince of Redhand, I didn't want to change a lot because it's incredible as is, but the players are doing some unexpected things (I love it when they do that, it doesn't happen often enough in APs) and I find myself reacting on the fly. The last adventure, Spire of Long Shadows, got a complete facelift, though I doubt I need to go into why.