Worlds of Design: Why Buy 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
I run published adventures for the "shared experience" - so that my players can say that they have played it.
There's something to be said about the shared experience. If you and I have both played the video game Fallout 4, we can ask each other about specific experiences in the game. "Hey, how did you handle that jerk who tried to rob you when you first arrived at Good Neighbor?" That's difficult to achieve when someone is talking to you about an adventure their DM came up with.

I agree to an extent, but I think how the game is "supposed" to be played is subjective, but I understand your point. Although there are some pretty bad published adventures. I haven't found any Youtube influencers or whatever you wish to call them that I can tolerate for more than a few minutes, and the "how to's and walkthroughs" sometimes aren't all that great, but then again, I don't watch any regularly and only look for pretty specific stuff when I do, so maybe I just happen to click on the wrong ones. If they help other people, then who am I to judge, just my experiences with them.
In all my years of playing D&D, I don't think I've ever run into a situation where I sat down to play with a bunch of strangers and we were all at odds over how the game was supposed to be played. Oh, don't get me wrong, we weren't always on the same page on some of the finer points of the game, but so far as the basic structure for a scenario, yeah, no problems. Especially in the past 24 years when D&D has been more standardized than it was in the past.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The last WotC adventures I bought were Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Journeys Beyond the Radiant Citadel. Since then, I've also picked up Barkeep on the Borderlands for 5E and ... I think that's it.

I do buy adventures for other systems (I just backed the new Pirate Borg adventure anthology), but I don't run a game that has people meeting often enough to run a big WotC campaign adventure. (My group hasn't even done our second Radiant Citadel adventure yet.) And I can whip up one shots easily and find that, most of the time, WotC one shots make me want to rewrite them to such an extent that they don't save me any time at all. (I'm looking at you, everything but the first adventure in Candlekeep Mysteries.)
 


I selected 1-5, although it's close to the upper end because I bought a WotC adventure bundle for Fantasy Grounds when it was on sale a few years back. I only have four of the adventure/campaign books in hardcover. Been playing 5e for about five years now.

Like most here, I use published adventures to mine content for my homebrew campaigns. I adapted three adventures from Ghosts of Saltmarsh for my island archipelago campaign, I dropped the stone giant canyon from Storm King's Thunder into my high-level campaign (boosting the difficulty since they were 12th level at the time), and I am planning on running my in-person gaming group through Forge of Fury from the Yawning Portal book in the coming weeks. I have never run a full published campaign as-is from the book.
 


“It’s not that I don’t like published adventures, it’s that I don’t like bad writing.” -Quickleaf

For me the #1 thing that either turns me off to an adventure - or gets me excited about it - is how it addresses the fuzzy edges or intangibles. How are the players engaged/hooked and what cool choices can they make? What’s an obvious potential pitfall of this adventure and how does it creatively overcome/sidestep/transform that? How is its organization and layout design optimized to make it easy for the GM to find information? What does it offer in terms of flexibility to be adapted to different settings or party compositions? Is it artfully pulling my headspace into the tone/theme that the adventure designer was in thus allowing me to make rulings consistent with that tone/theme? Does the adventure “know what type of adventure it is” and have design to support that?

All that intangible interface stuff between the book and the GM & players.
 

"Of course, it’s much easier to use a module than to make up your own adventures."

Oh god, this thesis statement is so wrong I worry that anything built on it as a foundation will fall apart.

To be more specific, it is entirely overwide in it's assumptions. This may be true for you as a DM, but there are many whom this is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Let's tear it apart some. This aren't just true for me, these are HECK YEAH true for me.

1. It is easier for me to use, revise, and grow my plots and subplots then someone else's.
2. It is easier for me to remember what I created than someone else, be it plot, NPC, clue, connection, whatever.
3. It is far easier to be consistent when filling in any gaps either between sessions, or improving them during a session, with my own material.
4. It is immeasurably easier to work in character arcs during planning then to retrofit them into a completed work.
5. It is easier to remove things that aren't working or the players show little interest in and know they aren't load bearing if I put them in.
6. It is much easier to create and steer later acts to what the players actually did than to rework an existing module. No module would have been able to deal with the splitting of the Fellowship without drastic rework.
7. It is easier to run my own stuff because it's more fun for me. (Creativity is a major ADHD motivator.)

The amount of work I need to put in over 6 months to a year for a published module exceeds what I need to do to run my own adventures by quite a bit. And, because the fun level is down, I am a lot less likely to keep it up, which leads to anxiety, feelings of failing the group, and a downward spiral where it repeats.

On the other hand, the last four campaigns I've run have been homebrew from setting, adventure, lots of the monsters and items, completed successfully, and ran from 3 to 7 years each.

I am not putting down modules - they definitely have a place. But trying to make an all-encompasing statement like "they are easier" is all sorts of false.
 


"Of course, it’s much easier to use a module than to make up your own adventures."

Oh god, this thesis statement is so wrong I worry that anything built on it as a foundation will fall apart.

To be more specific, it is entirely overwide in it's assumptions. This may be true for you as a DM, but there are many whom this is 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Let's tear it apart some. This aren't just true for me, these are HECK YEAH true for me.

1. It is easier for me to use, revise, and grow my plots and subplots then someone else's.
2. It is easier for me to remember what I created than someone else, be it plot, NPC, clue, connection, whatever.
3. It is far easier to be consistent when filling in any gaps either between sessions, or improving them during a session, with my own material.
4. It is immeasurably easier to work in character arcs during planning then to retrofit them into a completed work.
5. It is easier to remove things that aren't working or the players show little interest in and know they aren't load bearing if I put them in.
6. It is much easier to create and steer later acts to what the players actually did than to rework an existing module. No module would have been able to deal with the splitting of the Fellowship without drastic rework.
7. It is easier to run my own stuff because it's more fun for me. (Creativity is a major ADHD motivator.)

The amount of work I need to put in over 6 months to a year for a published module exceeds what I need to do to run my own adventures by quite a bit. And, because the fun level is down, I am a lot less likely to keep it up, which leads to anxiety, feelings of failing the group, and a downward spiral where it repeats.

On the other hand, the last four campaigns I've run have been homebrew from setting, adventure, lots of the monsters and items, completed successfully, and ran from 3 to 7 years each.

I am not putting down modules - they definitely have a place. But trying to make an all-encompasing statement like "they are easier" is all sorts of false.
Amen. Like I said above, I run published adventures for the shared experience of it, but like you, it is MUCH more work. I can run really good (and I am not bragging) adventures on my own with next to zero prep - I can't do that with a published adventure. They are much more work.
 

More to their personal liking?

There can be all sorts of ways a published adventure might not work for a given DM. And equally, the way DMs write their own adventures -- which have to only work for themselves and their groups -- can be incredibly idiosyncratic.
And this is why the OGL was pretty much invented. Financially, a company has to make adventures of several types to even entice a GM who does buy adventures. One GM's dream module is another's trash. It creates a lot of product that sells slowly for the individual SKUs.

WotC hoped lots of little companies would make 3e adventures and take ion the risk and inventory. Those little companies, some of them former WotC employees, quickly figured that out the same thing themselves and the rest is history.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top