Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Treebore" data-source="post: 1474824" data-attributes="member: 10177">I think i may have figured out one reason for our differences in opinion, Ie I like 3e modules just as much as i liked anything that has come along in Old D&D, 1e and 2e. I like modules that offer up a basic plot line but leave plenty of opportunities/room for me to add in whatever other plot elements I want to.Let me try to illustrate this with an example. rappan Athuk has been called by many a dungeon that makes no sense. That is because no strong conhnection or reasoning is given for why a lot of the monster, etc... are there. However, when i read all the various monsters and NPC's in the module an idea of how/why all these creatures are here in this vast dungeon. I also integrated the little story ideas bill and clark put into the module and just ran with it. now i have a dungeon site with half a dozen main ideas/events going on inside of it and dozens more ideas waiting to be used depending on what PC's do when they go in.So now Rappan Athuk is MY module loosely based on what Bill and Clark originally wrote. Of course the dungeon itself is still constructed the same way, but the environment of the dungeon is mostly mine.Then there are other modules, such as Morrick  Mansion, which I am currently running. I like it the way it is written. It has changed from how it was written only to thte degree necessary to fit in what has come before for the PC's and as a reaction to what the PC's have done there could not possibly be accounted for by the author. Which is cool, this is what makes modules great.So it appears to me, based on this thread and others similiar, that there are a lot of people out there who want modules that take next to nothing to use it, want a plot-line that is totally original, yet fits seemlessly into your on-going campaign or home brew world. Plus the ecology and the politics of the module most be completely fleshed out and explained, and still fit into with what you have going in your on-going campaign or homebrew, or it must be perfectly written to whatever your tastes are, despite the fact the author doesn't know you and can't read your mind.I, on the other hand, am happy if it has good maps, good NPC's/monsters that are fully and correctly statted out, and a handful of good ideas that i can use for inspiration. I do everything else i need to do to make it fit my campaign. That is why I like Necromancer and the others i have mentioned. They say here, this is a neat setting I have come up with, here are a bunch of NPC's, locations, Magic item recomendations, treasure recommendations, and plot arc ideas, etc... Use what you will and add/modify to your hearts content. They literally ask you to add/modify to your hearts content. they tell you to make the module your own. That is what i do and that is the kind of module I like to see.So apparently, as far as i can figure it, these are the fine lines of why people like or dislike modules in general, let alone in what editon they were written.Anyone think i am missing the mark? Or can think of other reasons I am missing and haven't been mentioned here? I am honestly mystified why modules aren't the best sellers out there. I think they are the best way to build a campaign or a homebrew world. These source books are usually a big dissappointment. The only exceptions i have seen lately are the Arduin book, the Conan book, and the Wilderlands book. Unearthed Arcana just screams to me the same warnings that the optional books in 2e did. Anyway, that is my take.</blockquote>

Verification