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: 1356406" data-attributes="member: 10177">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.</blockquote>

Verification