Why do 3e/3.5e modules suck?

[rounser]

i don't agree. i find technical writing to be much more difficult than creative writing.

Varies from individual to individual, no doubt. And there's no way of knowing whether the level of skill required to create quality rules is in any way related to the level of skill required to create a quality adventure. It's like comparing computer programming with novel writing.

 

[el-remmen]

Don't forget, if you are looking for a good place with adventure "nuggets" to work from there is always: The IRON DM Archive Site

I think 80% of those entries would be better than any 3E adventure I have ever heard of if fleshed out. . .

 

[diaglo]

not all of the 2000ed nor 3.11ed for workgroups adventures R 4 suXX0rs.

but i think there are some valid points already mentioned in this thread and similar ones.

style of play.
context.
adaptability to campaigns.
change for change's sake.
fluff, crunch, stat blocks, new ideas/concepts....

 

[MonsterMash]

I for one don't think all 3/3.5 modules suck, but there is so much product out there that there is probably a higher level of deriverative work and rehashes of existing plots and scenarios than in 'the old days'.

Even back with the original TSR and Judges Guild releases not all the modules were good.

Currently Necromancer and Goodman Games are doing good modules IMHO, and I'll check out Ed Cha's publications.

Examples of good modules recently published are The Grey Citadel and Morrick Mansion from NG, and there are a few others with a good rep I can't read as I'm up to play in them.

 

[WayneLigon]

Why is this? My guess is that products have a real crunch focus these days, at the expense of interesting stories, characters and other fluff.

I didn't buy very many 2E modules at all for this very reason. All too often, the good part of the module was indeed the fluff. And said fluff was usually almost unusable in the games I was running. I could have tossed out the fluff, but that would leave me with a map and a key that half the time I couldn't use. So I just didn't buy many. Haven't bought many 3E modules, either.

 

[The_Gneech]

Hmmm, nobodies mentioned what is probably the bigget reason.

The common wisdom now is that adventures don't sell. This is borne out by a great deal of sales data, and is pretty much agreed to by everyone in the business. Back in the 2e days, WoTC/TSR was making modules, with the best designers in the game doing work that today goes to the d20 companies.

Nowadays, the best designers are working on sourcebooks, both at WoTC and at the d20 companies. Adventures are secondary, because they aren't profitable enough to have the top designers making them, or spending the time they did in the 2e days (which were terribly inefficient).

That alone is reason enough for the quality shift you see, leaving aside issues of crunch vs. fluff.

This is my theory - though in interest of full disclosure, I almost always make up my own adventures, and am not a big buyer of modules.

Well, that sure doesn't help. Man, I miss the days when the equivalent of feats and prestige classes were in the appendix of a module that used it, rather than being all tossed into a single book with no context or suggestions for use.

-The Gneech

 

[rounser]

All too often, the good part of the module was indeed the fluff.

What do you mean by this, specifically? I take it it means one or more of the following:

Adventure background
NPC personality description
Likely NPC actions, reactions and interactions
Adventure region history
Adventure story progression or plotline

...that's all I can think of for the moment. Out of that, only "Adventure region history" could truly be called fluff that might never be used; everything else is game relevant. That's a limitation of the crunch/fluff mindset; adventures don't really fit it...to illustrate, if you remove all but crunch, you're left with just stat blocks, but the other parts of an adventure apart from the stat blocks cannot be purely classified under "fluff" either.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Man, I miss the days when the equivalent of feats and prestige classes were in the appendix of a module that used it, rather than being all tossed into a single book with no context or suggestions for use.

I think this is a pretty good point but I think that many adventures are trying to offer extras like this to get people who ordinarily would not buy an adventure to take a look.

What kind of cool tidbits make an adventure more useful than just being a module -- 2E, 3E, or 3.5E? I am looking to offer extras and want to gauge the bang for buck ratio.

 

[Snoweel]

What kind of cool tidbits make an adventure more useful than just being a module

Ooh ooh ooh I can answer this!

I wanna see how the adventure in question can fit into a campaign and how it ties in to its setting.

 

[fourthmensch]

I also don't buy many 3e modules. This is not a commentary on their quality, but rather an expression of personal taste. I like writing my own adventures, tailored to what my players will enjoy, testing my own creativity, and drawing an overarching plot out over years of real time. I love being a DM, and I think my enjoyment of the role would be considerably diminished if I relied on pre-written modules.

I do, however, subscribe to Dungeon and have many of their older issues, which I like to use as optional side-quests. This allows me to make a region very dense with side-plots and hooks to give to the characters without having to exhaustively prepare for every eventuality. So I can understand why modules might not sell so well; despite their utility for DMs, many of them will enjoy the creative exercise of writing their own modules.