When using published adventures...

[Insight]

When we hit the part that's depicted on the cover, I tend to work the title into a corny and overdramatic expostulation coupled with a slow reveal of the cover from behind the DM screen.

Yeah I know, I wish there was a help group.

Hey, I did almost the same thing when I started running Keep on the Borderlands a few weeks back. Of course, the whole point of the game is that they have played it before, although not in 3.5 obviously.

 

[Bryan898]

I usually don't tell them the name of the module, though I often tell them the name of the author. I'm not big on taking credit where it isn't due . Plus, if they don't like it they can blame someone else. We have a friendly "hatred" of Bruce R Cordell adventures for instance because they can be so absolutely EViL.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

even if they've never seen or read the module, they may still know what its about from reviews, etc. The Module cover may also give away some important information (Hello, Witchfire Trilogy!)

Or the Adventure Path modules. If there's a new monster in it, it's on the cover!

 

[Li Shenron]

I think I've probably always told them, so that in case some of them have a copy of the same adventure, they know they shouldn't pick it up from the shelf before we finish it, or it'll spoil their fun. I expect this responsibility from them. Anyway, I'd rather be sure myself that I'm not running something which half of the group has already played before...
Even if I didn't tell them, some might have figured out after a while that the adventure is one he knows about. However I also often change something here and there, mostly monsters which aren't of my personal taste.

 

[robberbaron]

There's no need for them to know.
Then again, the modules I use are generally for extinct game systems that I have picked up for pennies so the name wouldn't mean that much.

 

[Ed Cha]

There seems to be this sentiment that using a published module makes you appear less creative of a DM. As the owner of literally hundreds of modules, I have to disagree.

 

[jonesy]

It really doesn't matter either way because I rarely use published adventures 'as is'. They get merged into a campaign heavily modified, and sometimes combined with other adventures.

I'm a customizer by heart. Just ask prince Alebane whom the PCs tried to take care of by setting up a meeting with him and a very angry Jammudaru. Much to the shock of the PCs Alebane then proceeded to kill Jammudaru, "his god", without even breaking a sweat.

 

[Pandion]

There seems to be this sentiment that using a published module makes you appear less creative of a DM. As the owner of literally hundreds of modules, I have to disagree.

My experience with this sentiment is that it usually comes from a)someone who's not married with no kids and/or; b)still in high school or college and/or; c)someone who doesn't have a full-time job. Published modules are just fine as long as the DM knows how to manipulate them for the group. And yes, The Witchfire Trilogy books definitely let my players know who the evil protag was after 2 seconds. grrrr

 

[Davelozzi]

I generally don't tell them, but like Maliki, I don't make tons of effort to hide the module either. None of my players would want to go out and buy the module, read it, and cheat anyway, so if there's any concern at all, it's simply not to give anything away too soon.

 

[pogre]

My game has 2 DMs whose games I don't play in, so I tell them the name of the adventure. If they like it they might use it in their games, otherwise it's money not wasted.

Hey! How did you know my answer?

By the same token, we also have to compare notes so that I do not run modules the two and a half DMs in our group might have read.