Why don't you buy modules?

[Treebore]

I do buy adventures. Large adventures are what I like - Return to Temple (as a DM), Banewarrens (as a player) were excellent experiences. Now I'm looking into the City of the Spider Queen.

CotSQ looks problematic, though. I think they really dropped the ball in setting the adventure in the Underdark. You have FR, with fantastic locales aboveground, and they chose to do an adventure in the most generic area. I would've preferred a "grand tour of the realms" style adventure. Something like the Enemy Within campaign for WFRP. Traveling the realms while adventuring. FR has high potential for cloak and dagger type of stuff, why not utilize it for a grand plot for a grand adventure? Instead, we got hack'n'slash in the underdark.

Such a cloak and dagger adventure module would have to be campaign specific to be a really good product. It would be very hard to pull off a generic one that can fit into any campaign world. Flavor is so important to such an adventure. I don't see how you could do it without being campaign specific.

 

[DragonLancer]

I like modules because sometimes as a DM I don't have the time to sit down for several hours in a week and plan things out. A pre-published module I can grab from the shelf, make a few changes and its ready to go and be slotted in.

Give me a good softcover module like those that Necromancer Games put out. So long as it looks nice, has decent artwork and print, plus an interesting story and I'll buy it.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

See, to me it seems reading through a module a few times to make sure you've "got everything" and then adapting it to your current campaign is much more time consuming than just winging something on my own...

Reminds me of the free module I downloaded and ran for my group. Only after they wanted to get into the temple did I realize that the maps didn't show the main entrance anywhere. I read through the module twice before running it, but it never occurred to me to check the map for the front doors!

BTW, smaller modules are fairly easy to read through and adapt, which is one reason I use so many adventures from Dungeon and the WOTC website. The larger the module, the more difficult it is for the GM to catch everything. Add in that most modules are badly organized, and you can see why many people don't like the mega-dungeon type.

Unfortunately, the really small modules that a couple companies put out a while back were generally mediocre, with little to get excited about. I ended up using them for playtesting new rules and such.

 

[Numion]

Such a cloak and dagger adventure module would have to be campaign specific to be a really good product. It would be very hard to pull off a generic one that can fit into any campaign world. Flavor is so important to such an adventure. I don't see how you could do it without being campaign specific.

That would be the point of it. I don't see why FR adventure shouldn't be FR specific. WotC took the easy way out, and generalized CotSQ by setting it in the Underdark. Thats what I'm ranting about.

They should've done a real FR adventure. FR politics, FR locales, FR organizations, FR everything.

 

[D+1]

I haven't bought a module since the end of the WotC Adventure Path series. Largely because my campaign was brought to an end not long after finishing the series and I haven't started another to take it's place. But then I also haven't seen ANY modules that just said "Buy Me!".

That said I chose two contradictory responses - modules should be small and softbound and they should be hardbound and contain several adventures. I could give a rip about the binding. But one thing is certain, modules in 3E need to either be shorter - at least short enough that the PC's aren't going to level 2 or 3 times during the course of it. Either that or the modules need to contain a short series of connected adventures.

Another thing is certain though - those Mega Modules are utterly useless as "modules" to plug into a campaign. They are settings masquerading as modules. I bought RttToEE and after the first skim of reading it realized I'd NEVER EVER run the bloody thing because I would never run a campaign that consists of a single, endless, DULL dungeon crawl. By the time the PC's reached the end of the module they'd be at the end of their non-epic careers at or near 20th level. That's not a module, it's a CAMPAIGN, and a mightily tedious one it would be.

 

[Treebore]

Bump, because I am sure not everyone has had their say.

 

[nikolai]

Another thing is certain though - those Mega Modules are utterly useless as "modules" to plug into a campaign.

I agree. Small modules are great, mega-modules should be a series of connected small adventures.

Is anyone else sick of the 1st edition retro-style? It seems to me a lot of modules are trying to ape a style that doesn't have much going for it, rather than try and do something new and original. I don't think there are many modules with original and interesting settings either...

 

[Arnwyn]

See, to me it seems reading through a module a few times to make sure you've "got everything" and then adapting it to your current campaign is much more time consuming than just winging something on my own.

And vice-versa for me.

Is anyone else sick of the 1st edition retro-style?

Hell, no.

Edit: format.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Is anyone else sick of the 1st edition retro-style? It seems to me a lot of modules are trying to ape a style that doesn't have much going for it, rather than try and do something new and original. I don't think there are many modules with original and interesting settings either...

Absolutely not! Thats what I look for in an adventure. The best adventures that I have read have been those that are able to take the 1st edition feel, give it an interesting and original twist, and be easily inserted into an ongoing campaign. Others that try to intentionally go out in a different direction end up being useless unless you design a campaign around them, not fit them into an already existing game.

But what do I know. I started playing with Basic D&D, switched to 1st edition, then dropped out when 2ed edition started going in a completly different direction that I didn't like at all. Somehow, i don't think I'm the only one that has these same feelings.

 

[Treebore]

There are many thinngs about peoples attitudes about modules that mystify/confuse me, when they don't like modules.

I agree that there are lousy modules out there. There are a lot more good one's, though. But I see a lot of modules I think are goood to great being called bad or useless, and I have to wonder why. Why do I see these modules differently? Why do many see them as being good like I do? Why the difference in opinions?

Is it DM style? IS it just tastes are different? Are those knocking the modules I like actually being fair? In other words, did they really look/read the whole module? Are they just so unrealistic as to expect a module to be dumped into their, or anyone's, camapign without alteration. What do they see as being wrong that I don't get?

Let me use an example. I just recently bought Aberations by Necromancer and have been reading it. I like this module. Why? IT has creatures altered by some nearby items of malevolent power, including NPC's, and PC's if they aren't carefu. lt has a nice family to interact with, it has investigation, roleplaying, and combat. It has a nice Aberration template and some ineteresting magic items that support the story.

Will i alter this module? I sure will, I just don't know how much yet. Does this bug me? No, because I got what I wanted out of it, an idea taken in a direction I wouldn't have taken it. Plus the maps and NPC's all decided upon and drawn up for me. I just have to decide what stays the same and what gets changed. That means names, plot, sequence of events, etc...

I do not see that as a lot of work or in any way a headache. It is a lot less work than i would do with source books.

I also get a lot more bang for my buck with modules. I get a setting and series of events that I can put right into my campaign at any time, whether it is a manorial estate, a city, a mine complex, a dungeon complex, a tavern, or what have you. I use 80 to 90% of most modules. With source books I rarely use more than 30% and it is often more like 20% and less.

Even when I ran FR for all those use, the more advanced and detailed my campaign became the less useful published resources became. This was because so much of the history clashed with mine. It came to the point where I would only buy something for the maps and the story ideas.

Another difference I have noted between myself and many others. Even modules I considered crappy, I got lots of use out of them just for the NPC's and maps. Even if the module story sucked the idea of it was usually very good, it was just the execution was lacking, so I changed it to what I consider to be good.

I find altering modules to my tastes to be much easier than altering/mining a sourcebook or making homebrew from scratch to fit my needs.

To me, modules are the best resource for building/adding to campaigns. Not sourcebooks or other campaign material. If I had a tight budget I would buy modules before anything else. Fortunately, i don't, so I own anythig I want, but modules are what I pull out and use the most often. Almost as often as the core books and monster manuals I use.

So this is why I am so confused by anyone who doesn't like modules, at least like them better than sourcebooks. I guess it just comes down to a difference in tastes and approaches to running games.