Worlds of Design: Why Buy Adventures?

Why do people buy commercial modules when early RPGs assumed the GM would make up the adventures?

How many adventure modules (including adventure paths) do you purchase a year on average?


Why do people buy commercial modules when early RPGs assumed the GM would make up the adventures?

cube-616738_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Why Bother?​

Of course, it’s much easier to use a module than to make up your own adventures. But there’s more to it than that.

Simply put, game mastering takes time and effort. Game masters who use multiple sources requires significant demands on their time, something that is increasingly challenged by the diversification of other forms of easy entertainment. I discussed this in two different articles: Worlds of Design: The Chain of Imagination and World of Design: The Lost Art of Making Things Up

But it’s also certainly because adventures make game companies money. In many ways, making a game world out of whole cloth can be daunting to new gamers. It's just easier (and more lucrative) to buy adventures set in an established game world. This has the added bonus of causing a lot more commonality among the customer base (who can share tips and tricks with each other on how to play an adventure), and also happens to make those same game masters repeat customers as their players advance in level.

It wasn’t always like this.

The Hoi Poloi​

In the early days of Dungeons & Dragons, lack of a single campaign setting (we had both Greyhawk and Blackmoor), ever changing rules and editions, and the general inability to share them (no Internet back then!) meant games were messy affairs. Game masters made things up as they went along, customized rules as they saw fit, and largely played what could only be interpreted as a variant of D&D. And for some time, this wasn’t just the norm, it was encouraged by then parent company TSR, who wasn’t in the business of publishing adventures.

But that all changed over time. D&D became more solidified as the rules went from Original D&D to Basic/Advanced, to just one version. Along with the codification of rules came established adventures, many of them now legendary in gamers’ experience who played through them (e.g., Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Ravenloft).

Of course, not all adventures were fully fleshed out either. Some had large gaps (both in the maps and text) where game masters were meant to customize to their liking, or roll randomly to determine what came next so players wouldn’t be able to metagame the adventure. Over time, this became much less common, to the point now that we get completely mini settings. For an example of how much has changed, see Beth’s review of Quests from the Infinite Staircase, which takes sandbox-style adventures from Basic and Advanced D&D and fleshes them out in detail.

The Art of the Module​

There’s also something to be said for the art of adventure creation. That is, there are definitely some adventures that are better than others, and those who figure out the magical mix are more likely to be bought by game masters who appreciate the effort. Or to put it another way, people who create published modules will, on average, likely be better at adventure writing than a novice, so you might choose to buy a few to learn from the best.

This trend is exemplified by Paizo, how pioneered the art of the Adventure Path. D&D’s level system ensures games take a lot of time and effort for player characters to level, which requires a lot of adventures strung together. A GM in the old days had to buy different modules and justify stitching their plots together, but with an Adventure Path the entire throughline seamlessly integrates from end to end, from the very first to the very last (usually 20th but not always) level. It's a lucrative model, as it requires significant investment from customers not just for one adventure, but for several.

A Question of Experience​

Whether or not you buy published adventures likely pivots on several factors: your prep time, your players’ interest in a campaign setting, and your experience. Game mastering is a significant investment, so if you don’t have the time, published adventures are the way to go. Your players might be deeply committed to a setting (like Greyhawk) and thus be only interested in playing in published adventures in that campaign world; conversely, they may like your homebrew so much they could be turned off playing anywhere else.

And finally, as you get more experienced, adventure writing becomes a lot easier. There’s nothing like playing a terrible adventure to motivate you to write your own. I doubt that there are many veteran GMs who have never used a commercial adventure module – I certainly have used them, for convenience (lack of time) or when one was especially useful or even famous (e.g. Against the Giants). I haven’t bought one for a long time, because I already have so many, and because there are so many free ones available. But it appears from Wizard’s catalog, and from the publications of many other publishers, that lots of people buy them.

Your Turn: Take the poll and let us know!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Theory of Games

Storied Gamist
I buy the modules to support the gaming companies, to have material I can run easily and to get a better understanding of how the rules work in certain situations. They are a great resource for GMs, especially new GMs who are just getting a hang of running adventures. Modules can be very linear but as others have posted above, they're modules because they're modular and experienced GMs can easily adjust them to better suit their group.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Cergorach

The Laughing One
These days I buy 0 physical adventures and easily 20+ via Humble Bundles, Bundle of Holdings, Kickstarter, and what I buy for Foundry VTT directly. But I generally don't run published adventures. Especially for Foundry VTT adventures, I buy them to see how they work, that can be technical 'under the hood' (FVTT) or how adventures are 'normally' run in system (version) xyz.

An example I'm currently working on is Undermountain, using of course Dungeon of the Mad Mage, but also the 2e Undermountain I&II boxed sets, as well as stuff from 3e/4e... And still giving it my own spin. Why? I wanted to make my own mega dungeon eventually, but we've been playing in Forgotten Realms for decades, it's tradition, so why not use the iconic megadungeon Undermountain? Everyone knows that one. Why create it anew when there's so much potential left untapped/unused...

On the other hand, published adventures can be a huge time saver, especially when they are made for a VTT specifically. I might run something out of the box in the future, it depends when next I'm DMing again and how much time I've had to prepare (redoing the entire UM maps in the Crosshead Studio artstyle is going to take some work!)...

I personally find building an adventure fun and rewarding, as long as it's fun and rewarding. Driving yourself like a taskmaster to get your (bi)weekly gaming session prepared doesn't stay fun and rewarding for long...
 

Zarithar

Adventurer
I buy them because I have too much going on in my life and not enough time to craft my own. That being said, I do embellish them - often times very heavily to the point where sometimes they are no longer recognizable.
 

D&D’s level system ensures games take a lot of time and effort for player characters to level, which requires a lot of adventures strung together. A GM in the old days had to buy different modules and justify stitching their plots together,
You say that likes it's a bad thing. ;-). I actually very much prefer that model to the full campaign adventure model for a couple of reasons.

The first is that full campaigns lock you into a theme. Whether its based around a type of monsters, or an environment, or a thematic genre, the whole campaign is mostly about that. But a lot of the times that isn't want I want to do. I might just want to play "Sim Adventurer" where the theme is just "D&D Tropes" rather than undead, or giants, or horror. And it seems like many new players want to make their first character be their ideal fantasy character concept, which may not be a good match at all for that particular campaign theme. Usually its a much better match for a less specific "Sim Adventurer" campaign.

The second reason is the positive to the first's negative. Mixing and matching whatever short to long (but not campaign length) adventures you want allows a great deal of ongoing flexibility. You don't necessarily know where the party will be and what they'll be doing in a few levels. You can use published modules. You can create your own. You can mix and match them in reaction to the PCs actions and the players' interests. And there is room for plenty of unstructured time between adventures. You can actually spend a month, year, or decade of downtime, because there isn't a ticking campaign adventure clock.

For me, that was my formative experience with D&D, and the current emphasis on campaign length adventures irritates me not because I find anything wrong with enjoying a campaign length adventure (I've had fun with them) but because it means the "Sim Adventurer" campaign is virtually unknown to many new players who might find they quite enjoyed it if they knew such a thing existed.
 


R_J_K75

Legend
I actually very much prefer that model to the full campaign adventure model for a couple of reasons.
Honestly this is the type of game I prefer myself. Even though I write my own adventures, I still don't necessarily have any ongoing story thread or theme, just a bunch of adventures strung together. In the 80s, 90s and 2000s when we had multiple DMs, running games in different settings, we could all run shorter adventures, try out different PCs and switch off between all of us, which was more fun than a single DM running the same game all the time.
 

Oofta

Legend
Personally I don't like using modules, even if once in a blue moon I buy them for ideas ( I voted 0 because it averages less than 1 a year). Then I glance through them once and put them on the shelf. :cautious: In general using a module takes far more prep time than I want to deal with. I think part of that is structure, too often I just want an appendix with who's who and what's important about the locations. At least a thumbnail version of each, perhaps with a link to where there's more info. Yet all that information seems to typically scattered throughout the book.

But, I also happen to be good at improv, enjoy the creative aspects of building a world and NPCs. But there are people I respect and admire that always use published modules and I don't think any less of them. I've had a lot of fun with people that are running a module, I've had some bad experiences with people that ran homebrew.

Often it has little to do with how well the person DMs, it's just that different people have different strengths and weaknesses. I like running a very open campaign with multiple possible branches, but I also have no issue with playing a linear module as long as I know what I'm getting into.
 


R_J_K75

Legend
I think part of that is structure, too often I just want an appendix with who's who and what's important about the locations. At least a thumbnail version of each, perhaps with a link to where there's more info. Yet all that information seems to typically scattered throughout the book.
There's a lot to be said for how modules are structure and presented. In the 70s, 80s and 90s, its understandable that they followed a particular format for the most part, but now almost 25 years later there has been little to no innovation in adventure module design that I've seen. Its just information scattered throughout walls of texts and stat blocks in appendixes of new spells, monsters, equipment and magic items. Just not very easy to find at times. Admittedly, compared to some here my experience with various game systems outside of TSR/WotC D&D is limited so I may not be as well informed as others.
 


Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top