Why are modules no longer popular

[Mark Chance]

Hear, hear!

The office and affairs of love might fit my playstyle from what I hear, but I would probably perfer to play in that adventure.

I think every d20 gaming group everywhere should play The Office & Affairs of Love! Even if your group doesn't have characters of the appropriate levels! Even if you're running d20 Modern!

That being said, I don't usually use modules much as a GM. I simply can't afford them. I'm poor. So, instead of modules, I homebrew pretty much everything.

 

[Enceladus]

Speaking of modules, what are the good high level d20 modules available out there now?

I need some ideas.

 

[rounser]

I'm also a little skeptical about the success of the mega adventure. I think that a better approach to the mega adventure is a series of interconnected adventures that work both as a massive adventure and as independent adventures in a specific location. The mega adventure can detail the location, while providing additional campaign hooks and potential adventuring ideas in addition to the adventures themselves.

Well, yes. Think the Dragonlance Classics series of modules without the railroading that was their undoing. No-one seems to have been able to do something of that campaign scale yet without similar problems (e.g. Fate of Istus and the excuses to get you to the next city) save perhaps Dead Gods from hearsay - haven't played that. I don't think Adventure Path dirt-venturing campaign counts, either....or if it does, it's a limited and poor example of the possibilities available.

I think that part of the failure of the Dragonlance modules lay in trying to cover too much territory. Concentrate all that material in a smaller area (say a kingdom rather than a continent) and there would be a lot less need to railroad the players.

The last mega adventure that I was involved with, CotSQ at GenCon, was terribly disappointing. Albeit, I only ran the prologue section of the adventure, however running it for four hours was painful enough, let alone doing it for multiple sessions.

Yeah, well CotSQ is a megadungeon, and every one I've played or ran has been too much of a good thing. WotC knows that dungeons sell well (anecdote was that they got higher sales just by sticking "Dungeon Crawl" on the cover of a series of modules), so they'll keep doing that.

Given WotC's devotion to the megadungeon, I think third party publishers are the only ones likely to provide a quality product format with regard to "mega-adventures".

 

[johnsemlak]

When it comes down to it, most DM's buy modules for one reason, time. They simply don't have the time to write their own material. So providing a product that provides adventure hooks, doesn't really solve the time matter. I'm certain that given the preference, 90% of DM's would opt to gamemaster their own material because it is tailor made for their campaign and they are intimately familiar with it. They can create whatever location or monster template that they want, stock it with any treasure that they want, etc. etc. Most DM's have enough talent to create an interesting story line and a good setting, while only a handful have the ability to craft sourcebooks and other generic products.

[/i]

While this may be representive of most DMs (certainly many) It does not represent my preference. Yes, using modules saves time, but also I like many of the good adventures out there, including manuy of the classics of previous editions and good 3e modules by WotC and others (by modules I'm including Dungeon and free online stuff; of course I've only seen a sliver of what's out there).

For me, good modules are a pleasure to run and play in. Homebrewed stuff can be good too, but my view is I can't write a better module myself than many of the better modules out there. Also, many modules are so good I simply want to run them, and some of them I would love to run again and again.

Many of the best modules I simply enjoy reading and even though I many not get constant use out of them, they often make. Particularly in the old days, I remember seeing new Modules in my FLGS, snatching them up, and devouring them in a single night.

Finally, to me modules are important RPG aides because, aside from the core rules, a module (either publsihed or homebrewed) is the most essential thing necessary to play the game. I mean, to play, you have to have some kind of prepared adventure. You can't say that about any of the d20 sourcebooks. Besides the core rules, adventures, the only other thing a DM needs is a setting. Splattbooks, monster books, etc are nice but not necessary for gaming.

 

[Fenes 2]

You can run a game without a prepared adventure, simply by winging it. I have done it often enough in the past. Nowadays I prepare more extensively, but often enough a tangent comes up and I have to wing it for a couple of hours. And while I prefer a soundly prepared adventure, I would rather play in a winged adventure that caters to my taste and is customized to the campaign than a store bought adventure full of challenges and puzzles I find boring and written for a playstyle I do not enjoy (i.e. dungeon crawls).

 

[Vaxalon]

What people want is locations.

Precisely. Keep an eye out for the first of a line of this kind of product in the coming year... hopefully early summer. Depends on how motivated I can get my artist...

 

[Frostmarrow]

I like that location-module idea. I saw something similar in Silver Marches. Neat stuff. Today I asked myself why I don't buy more modules since I like them so much. The answer was "I don't want to spoil anything in case I get the opportunity to play a particular module later." So that's basically the problem. However that doesn't necessarily apply to a location-module. Well, reading a location-module might spoil some of it (special rooms, traps, etc) but it won't spoil the plot.

 

[FDP Mike]

D&D needs adventures!

Okay, I finally have a chance to jump into the discussion again. Cannonball!!

Celebrim, your five points definitely represent very key elements of successful adventures (Nikolai's addition falls mostly into your 5th point, I believe, but it too is important). With regard to your first and second points, I think we agree. Moreover, a good story should generally lead to the creation and development of those aspects of an adventure that involve "evocative situations" -- thus encouraging the players to care about what happens. As I mentioned, a good, engaging story lies at the core of any successful adventure.

With regard to originality (which also ties to Nikolai's point), the very notion of a game designer as opposed to the regular DM sort of inherently suggests that the designer should and even must come up with stories, ideas, and uses of the rules in a way that captures the attention and imagination of a DM. Good NPCs, for instance, more truly function as elements of the story: if they have clear and intriguing motivations and distinct personalities, their role in the story should be memorable. Then again, much of an NPC's significance to the players relies upon the DM -- i.e., how he plays the NPC in the game. A designer can create the most intriguing NPC ever, but that could mean little if the DM does not take the material and do something interesting with it.

Still, after a while, with so many DMs out there and several of them having DMed for quite some time, ensuring that a particular adventure presents a completely new twist, trick, technique not yet seen or done before becomes difficult . . . if not unrealistic. This point also addresses Nikolai's regarding standard vs. unusual monsters: asking that an adventure contain encounters with only unusual or extraordinary monsters is somewhat unrealistic, partly because the "standard" forms go toward saving the DM time in many respects and partly because unusual monsters should not be included simply for the sake of doing so in order to show off one's originality. Unusual or extraordinary monsters work best in service of the story. Granted, the d20 rules most certainly provide designers with a wealth of tools -- if not the incentive -- to tweak standard monsters. Such tweaking, however, must have a purpose. Tweaking for the sake of tweaking merely demonstrates one's agility with the game mechanics, not one's prowess at crafting a good adventure.

As for maps, well, I agree and disagree. I think that you overstate the case, Celebrim (i.e., asking for professional architectural training in your cartographers), but that you also make a valid point. Maps can definitely also capture a DM's imagination, but to make them the single most important element of an adventure product quite quickly focusses upon a aspect of an adventure that bears little relation to story and originality. Admittedly, the maps should be good if not exceptional; poorly crafted maps do hinder an adventure product's overall quality. Maps, however, are a primarily physical and functional element of adventures. As well, we should not forget that some of the most successful modules included pretty average or even amateurish maps (Temple of Elemental Evil, anyone? ) -- in the distant past and more recently.

Celebrim wrote:
Mark my words. We are hitting crunchy bit saturation. Sooner or latter everyone is going to have more rule books than they can use, and the only people still making money are going to be the ones that have settings and stories that excite people and attract a fan following.

With this sentiment I agree completely, and this is why I think that adventures could make something of a comeback over the next little while. Adventure designers still face the nightmare of "crunchy bit saturation," but, as you suggest, if they can give us exciting stories, then perhaps all of that "crunch" will get put to good use. I'm also going to bet that we'll see adventures incorporating more and more OGC, which of course offers designers a truly vast field of opportunities for flexing their originality. FDP will be using OGC in its adventures this year; I have edited adventures from Necromancer Games that include OGC.

As well, I think that adventure designers likely now hold more awareness than ever of making their adventures as "portable" and/or "adaptable" as possible (another mark of quality and originality, perhaps). Such portability relates a bit to jester47's notion of focussing upon locations, though the key remains a good, engaging story. For instance, one of the initial design goals behind FDP's Gates of Oblivion was to give the adventure a kind of "dual" utility: on the one hand, that kidnapping plot wrapped up in a planar adventure I mentioned in my previous post; on the other hand, providing the DM with several very interesting locations and encounters that could easily be pulled out of the adventure and used as the DM sees fit. It's the balancing act between offering a great story in an interesting setting and not making an adventure so tied to a particular setting that it cannot easily be adapted by a DM to her own campaign. If that makes any sense . . . .

In the end, one way of looking at adventures might be to see them as real goldmines of ideas and inspiration, even if the particular story or intended character levels do not exactly match a DM's group and/or playing style. They are brimming with locations, NPCs, situations, plotlines, crunchy bits, and so forth. Of course, the best adventures will excite DMs to run them (almost) as is.

Perhaps, though, johnsemlak makes the best point. Adventures, when you really think about D&D, form one of the most crucial parts of playing the game. There is no game without an adventure. You can still game without all the class and splatbooks at the table. You cannot game without a story, a goal, a quest. Published adventures, then, fulfill a basic need of the game; the good and exceptional published adventures enhance the game immeasurably.

Right, again that's enough out of me. I think my dog will have a hernia or something if we don't get out to the park RIGHT AWAY.


Take care,
Mike

 

[Celebrim]

I did not say it was necessary for an adventure to have a completely new twist. I said ideally it has a completely new twist. Simply a fresh approach to a well worn idea will work. I think I saw a list somewhere with every possible type of module that could be written. I dare say that we've covered the list.

I don't think it is too much to ask that the person getting paid to do maps be professional. He doesn't have to be an architect, but it wouldn't hurt if he thought like one. He doesn't have to be an architect, but he should have more than a layman's familiarity with a palette of architechtural elements. I've scarsely met the DM who hasn't read books on history and mythology and folk lore to flesh out his creations. It isn't too much to ask a guy who is planning to get paid for making maps to do some research on architechtural technique.

Gygax's modules are typically short on story. And a quick glance at his maps will show that they are no better drawn than the average DM with a sheet of graph paper and a pencil. But in his really best work what isn't quite so obvious to casual observation is the depth of understanding he shows in making a dungeon environment. In alot of ways GDQ are primitive modules which by the standard I laid out above are pretty pathetic. Nostalgia aside, they continue to be remembered fondly in large part to the careful sculpting of the maps and other basic DMing. Very few modules published since approach GG's simple but powerful use of the environment. The map of S1 looks superficially like something I drew when I was in junior high, but it very much is not. It is a map with the elegant simplicity of a choose-your-own adventure book. It is a carefully crafted sequence of rooms with wonderfully descriptive touches that carry through into the illustrations. I've walked down those halls. I've felt the horror from inside them. It takes more art to achieve that than is generally credited.

I3, I4, I5, I6 and the DL modules have been unsurpassed in map quality since thier publication nearly 20 years ago. Why is that? Why do so many modern maps feel like well, maps on peices of paper, rather than an actual locations? I can't help but feel that there is a failure in someone's imagination somewhere.

Some critics have said of JRRT's work that he made his setting the most important character in the story. Whether that is true or not, it can't be denied that he had a powerful visual understanding. That visual texture is far more important for transporting someone in time and place than internal narrative or other aspects of story telling. As a DM, I can't tell players what they feel. I can't tell readers what my NPC's feel. What I principally finding myself doing above all other things is telling my players what they see. Humans are primarily visual creatures. What my players see is principally above all other things the result of the map principally, and how it is dressed secondarily. It is not a trivial element of the story. Given the limitations of space, a professional module author is better off selling a picture of his place than a thousand words about it.

When I buy I module, I accept that I will have to do some work to bring the module up to close the standard that the writer would have played the module at, rather than the standard of what he could fit in 64 pages. I will add and flesh out NPC's. I will take away treasure that doesn't seem appropriate. I will dress rooms that are otherwise barren, and add notes and details where it seems appropriate. I will spend some time imagining myself in rooms and trying to get an idea for how it would feel to be there to ready myself for the description. But I think I'm being asked to go just a little too far if I have to rework the maps of your dungeons.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't like modules because they're hard to insert into my campaign without lots of reworking. They're written for anyone to play, so it's harder to base them directly on the PCs. Which, I think, is the most important part of any adventure.