I may be biased, I'll let you decide.

When I was a nipper, I couldn't afford too many game books. Modules were cheap, sure, but each module bought would have set me back weeks on the purchase of a new book. Weeks.

So I didn't buy them. I and my wee freinds would game entirely based on what was possible from my imagination and whatever rules we could find/not find to support our actions.

When I got older, I still didn't buy modules or predesigned adventures. Why should I? I had gamed for years without them!  I'd played a few, mainly at conventions, and found them boring and limited.

Now I am old and crotchety (ok... older and mean spirited) and finally clued into the world wide gaming scene. And what I realized is that I had more or less dodged a bullet.

For every Bargle story I hear, I find half a dozen 'Temple of Death' tales.  I hear about metaplots ruining games, and find that most of the metaplotting occured in those adventures that I never bought. Immortal Elves in Shadowrun? blame the modules.  

Then we get this entire 'Swine war' phenomenon. Is is not 'true' to suggest that a great number of forge darling games are nothing more than modules with built in rulesets?  My Life with Master seems to fit the bill, certainly.  I've commented that Burning Empires reads in many ways like a do it yourself campaign rather than an RPG book.  Now we have Poison'd, a game of much debate here, where the entire premise is 'You are pirates very near to being caught, what do you do in the meantime?'... again, a module with accompanying rules.

I've heard how people learned to play by the modules, learned what the game was about from the modules.

WTF man?  Doesn't the rulebook tell you how to play? Doesn't the core book tell ya what it's about? Is not the very beauty of this hobby that you can do any god damn thing you like with your RPG books? The explosion of imagination that comes from figuring it all out yourself? What happened to that?  

What about all those players that supposedly are bitter and disillusioned by the Temple of Death (or whatever the fuck it's called?) what about all those players who had the game 'destroyed' by the destruction of the Ravnos?

What about all those players who think Immortal Elves can go suck Jesus's cock for all they added to the game? For that matter, what about all those players in Chicago, who had set their games in Chicago and suddenly found themselves the center of Bug City/Neuclear strike!?

I'll tell ya what! Toss the god damn module/adventure model into the trash and burn the fucker.  The hobby doesn't need it. I don't need it. And I don't need players who think that the only way to play is reading some bad 'dialog' from a book. Gimmee back my limitless sandbox you damn dirty dogs!

Early D&D Modules are totally awesome.  B5: Horror on the Hill is the best D&D adventure ever. EVER!

:haw:

You need to look at the earlier exploration based modules, rather than the later narrative / "story" modules.

I think the Dungeon Crawl Classics from Goodman Games would be a good place to start if you don't want to find and use the old stuff.

Like any good rant, Spike's OP is a potent combination of personal bias, slipshod research, and undeniable truth.

What's wrong with Temple of Death?

My group had a grand old time with it as kids.

Indeed - I have quite a similar history to you. In the beginning, I didn't have the money to buy modules in addition to dice, basic rule books and so on, and later I was so skilled in adventure creation that I never needed them. There were a few that were included in zines and so on that I used when I ran low on prep time, but they never came close to my own adventures in regard of quality - let alone of interlock with the PCs, what can sometimes be easy to accomplish (generic dungeon with replaceable McGuffin and bad boy), sometimes a major pain in the ass (modules with intricate backstory that needs to be disassembled before you can make it your own).

Of course, when I get my hands on a adventure and I see an interesting NPC, dungeon, encounter, plot twist or something similar, I'm the first one to steal it and sneak it into my own adventures. However, I wouldn't run most pre-made adventures in their entirety.

Weird how some people see this as a binary phenomenon. I've never had a problem running someone elses material or coming up with my own. I have a cordial disdain for most incarnations of metaplot, although I've never found it to be a limiting factor when running with a setting. I usually personalise the shit out of anything I buy, anyway.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it.

I like modules provided they don't railroad. Sadly, too many adventure modules have been "Railroad City".

I'm now cool with the Railroad... (!)

So long as the entrances and exits to the stations are clearly marked, so I know when it's time to go wandering around.

Also, if the train ride is too long, or too boring, and doesn't give me enough time to stretch my legs -- I won't enjoy the trip.

I'm not cool with thinking I'm someplace else, when in fact I'm on the railroad.  That is bad.

I too couldn't afford modules growing up, but I had a larcenous soul. As such, it sounds like my experiences may be the opposite of yours, as much of my gaming has come from adventures.

The important part of using any module is the same as the important part of using a setting or a rule book: keep what you like and trash the rest.

I tended to look at them in the store and I bought a few but I never used them straight.  I thought some people would have been better served to get a book of interesting NPCs, plot hooks, or something like that.  Something to get the imagination going without being spoon-fed.

I was against modules, a real die hard. Shadowrun modules especially soured me to the whole "module" thing-but then I started talking with some people. Online and off. Some people want to game, but their time is at a premium: kids, job, other commitments, you name it. So for them modules is an easy way to keep in the game, while not having to bust their ass making stuff from scratch each game.

I'd like to think I'll never run a module-I just have too many of my own ideas I want to run first, but I'm not as down on cats who run them anymore.

Good or bad modules are meant to be timesavers.

In my experience there people who don't buy adventures do one of two things.

1) They essentially write their own adventures. How complete that writing is depends on how much real-life time they have. But generally there some type of shorthand notation going so that if you look at a given DM adventure much of it will be gibberish or in his head.

2) They have stock NPCs/monsters, main NPCs/monsters, stock Locations, main location all in a pile and just make it up as they go. This is what some people call sandbox play. Watching a DM do this you will see much of the action take place in towns, villages, and wildernesses with perhaps a small cave complex or dungeon with a half dozen rooms.

The problem with #1) is time, the problem with #2 is that there certain elements, like Dungeons, of D&D style world that work better with a prepared adventure of a store bought module or a module of #1.

My personal style is very much #2. However I adapted it by buying adventures for areas that I want the detail. I learned how to break down an adventure and adapt for it for GURPS and my Majestic Wilderlands with a minimum of fess.

For example I am currently using DCC #12 The Blackguard's Revenge. http://www.goodmangames.com/5011preview.php

Basically the module location is an abbey overrun by a bunch of wights. I made into a Abbey of the Goddess Mitra and replaced some of the NPCs with some of my own that fit better with the Majestic Wilderlands. Now at this point I blew the $8 I spent on the PDF. Because I could do this myself.

The value of the money spent comes in all the little "bits" that are in the module. For example one part of the original backstory is that the Abbey guards the place where the Church of Mitra store dangerous artifact. Another part is the backstory of the BlackGuard. So by taking the various local bits and explaining them in terms of my own Majestic Wilderlands suddenly I get some that is cooler for the Majestic Wilderlands than the original module and something I just whipped up on the fly. And get my $8 worth and save a bunch of time.

My recent stint writing Badabaskor, and helping with Citadel of Fire, and Dark Tower just drives home how time consuming WRITING complete adventures is. And I am talking just the writing not the stat blocks, not the layout, or art. but putting words to paper.

Quote from: Serious PaulI was against modules, a real die hard. Shadowrun modules especially soured me to the whole "module" thing-but then I started talking with

I want to point out that when I adapt modules for use not just any module will do. The more generic a module is the better of adaptation it will be. By generic I mean the line the modules is part of not the contents. For example most of Dungeon Crawl Classics are supremely adaptable. While anything for Eberron I haven't been able to do jack with. Not to say Eberron sucks but it so tied to the world.

Alderac had a series of modules that I loved collection as well as Atlas Games. The initial run of 3.0 modules (Sunless, Forge, etc) were very adaptable. I have a series of 1st Edition Forgotten Realm modules I never been able to adapt successfully.

So you have to be "smart" in which module you use. My current favorite for adaptation are Expeditious Retreat's 1 on 1, and DCCs.

Thinking on it more I suppose I see the usage/non-usage of modules as something akin to acting.

There are some guys who only shine when they improvise. They need to feel their own creative juices flowing in order to be convincing. Give them a script and they come across as fumbling or wooden, largely because they don't have any personal investment in it.

Then there are actors who can breathe life and perspective into a centuries old manuscript, turning the tired and familiar into something stunningly new and inventive. They can even define a character for a generation. Ask them to do anything even remotely off the cuff and they fall flat on their arses.

So who would I consider better? More creative? The guy who can convincingly do both.

That's why I don't have a problem with modules. I think they can be just as creatively involving as scenarios designed whole cloth. They only differ from self-penned efforts in that they require us to access a different aspect of our imagination, one that comprehends and enlivens parameters.


And that's my analogy quota filled for the next year or so. Moduulz r gud.

In the end my rules is if you're having fun, you're doing it right.