If you want to play in an established setting with a meta plot, or if you are just getting started GMing and don't have any previous experience. First game I GMd was a brief The Dark Eye module and it was really fun. That being said, I haven't ran a module ever since the second game I ran, which was shortly after.
FPBP Modules are for homosexualy morons who need someone to hold their dick for them when they pee.
If you want to play in an established setting with a meta plot, or if you are just getting started GMing and don't have any previous experience. First game I GMd was a brief The Dark Eye module and it was really fun. That being said, I haven't ran a module ever since the second game I ran, which was shortly after.
Majority of systems do not have metaplots and the majority of modules, campaign books, and pre-written adventures do an extremely poor job of teaching you how to write and run games of your own. Needing a module is a shortcoming of the system, not a benefit to new players.
>Majority of systems do not have metaplots
The Dark Eye does, though not every group adheres to it. We personally don't, but it's the reason Dark Eye modules tend to be quite high quality.
>the majority of modules, campaign books, and pre-written adventures do an extremely poor job of teaching you how to write and run games of your own
I mean, so does not GMing at all. I got my start running a few modules, but eventually started writing my own stuff quite naturally. My players say I'm the best GM they ever had, so I doubt starting with modules "ruins" you as a GM.
Though in general, a module should always be used as a sort of framework for your adventure. Because, in the end, things WILL go off script but most modules give you background information for the story so you can improvise.
However, modules also give you the benefit of already having maps and statblocks, meaning you don't have to come up with them yourself. Heck, I'm still using the Ghoul statblock they offered in one module for all my other adventures.
Playing without modules at all means you have to create everything from scratch.
yes
D&D fans buy modules
/tg/ no-gamers don't do anything but shitpost on /tg/ and pirate everything and wonder why the industry does not cater to them
D&D's core audience consists of people who run Curse of Strahd and other campaign books over and over like a video game. What the frick are you talking about?
I rip maps and some scenarios, but always retrofit them into my own game. Hardly need to reference it during the game, because following the pre-written material is never the point.
Oh yeah then why did D&D cancel their module shart program the Adventurer's League and leave 3rd party to pick it up (no new content since before dragonlance)? Paizo might be slaves to continual releases for their players but wotc actually "seems fine" with releasing only a bit of an adventure in every other book every 6 months. Very exciting stuff
I decided to run a module because I thought it would make GMing easier. Rather than being a shortcut, it's been a huge headache. They might work for some people though.
Modules are loose frameworks to use as inspiration and as a loose guideline, especially when getting started in a system. When used like that, there is nothing wrong with them. But they're to be expanded upon, to get started, and to see where things go.
When used as a full campaign map going A to B to C through 1-2-3 it is pathetic and laughable, and everyone that runs anything like that should be bullied into suicide.
most people who run modules run them like that
it's fricking atrocious
I can understand if you're a beginner or use them as a template for something else but there are people who actually enjoy GMing like this
one of the worst things is OSR is people running horrible shitty modules and pretending it's fun
I ran a lot of the classic D&D adventures in becmi, as well as a handful of other editions.
They're ok, but I had more fun with my own custom made adventures.
Here's a list of the memorable ones >Keep on the borderlands
quite good, but the real meat is the keep itself, the caves of chaos are ok. >Village of homlet: The moathouse
meh, didn't like the moathouse, but I like the npcs in homlet. >the Lost City
quite enjoyable, the 3 factions setup is fun. >hidden shrine of tamoa-chan
Quite good. >halls of the hill giant king
Kinda sucked. >The Sunless Citadel
Real bad. >The Forge of Fury
terrible. I stopped using premade modules for years after this one. Only started again with 4e. >Keep on the Shadowfell
awful. the worst module I run ever. And then I stopped running modules again for years. >Gardmore Abbey
actually great, stands up there with the classics. Made me look up modules again. >Waterdeep: Dragonheist
This one I didn't GM, I was a player. And honestly, it was fricking awful. I read the module myself afterwards and I don't see why it's so highly rated.
These are the ones I remember. I must have run more specially during the 3e and 4e era but they're forgettable.
These days I don't really play D&D anymore, so there aren't that many modules for me to try.
At the time I felt that the encounter design was really bad and the map design is essentially a line with some branches. Added to the fact that it has no interesting unique ideas, it just fails as a dungeon.
I played on release so the monster design wasn't good yet.
I can't give that many details since it's been what, over 12 years since I played it?
Every GM should run modules. Maybe not all the time, but sometimes. Even seeing aside the time savings, they give you new ideas. GMs often get stale (I say this as a forever GM).
Pretty much only run modules. Though, I'll always look up community DM guides, popular homebrew changes and additions, ect for each one and make changes as needed or to simply make things more interesting.
If I'm going to put up the time and effort in worldbuilding and creating my own adventure, I want to make it something I'm deeply interested in... Sadly, most people don't share my interest (fantasy worlds like Harn). So Im forever doomed to never run my dream campaign.
why not? if my friends insist on playing dnd i ain't gonna bother trying to come up with unique adventures in a game i dont particularly enjoy. i might as well spent my creative energies elsewhere.
I simply drop them in a starting town/region with a kitchesink of modules, give hooks for them and let them choose which path to go for. If they derail the module whatever. Let them have their fun.
Yes, Modules allow me to fill time between large main story beats with a premade slice of self-contained content for my players to enjoy. I often use them as 'intermission' material between large player arcs. It's not like I paid for them, anyway
Nah, I cannibalize material from them for my own games. They’re barely good for that though. Most of the stuff 5e modules have is so uninspired. Curse of Strahd is pretty good as is though.
Look, I have this thing that takes up a lot of my time called a job. You may have heard of it. So I'll do as I damn well please and use them and just change things as I see fit and you can eat a bag of dicks.
Entirely justified with certain games. For example, D&D 5e is one of the most DM-unfriendly games I have ever seen, and setting up balanced encounters in it takes 3 to 4 times longer than in better-designed more DM-facing systems. So yeah, if I can just run encounters out of a module to save myself the asspain of having to deal 5e's broken CR system and awful encounter-building systems, I will.
I run modules when learning new games because its one less thing to worry about when reading through a core rulebook. Also i only run modules when running CoC because they probably better and more researched by lovecraft autists than i ever could.
Speaking of modules, what's a good D&D one-shot to get a bunch of BG3 normie friends' feet in the door to tabletops before I ween them off into a real system?
frick no
modules are gay and I don't understand why anyone would use them
If you want to play in an established setting with a meta plot, or if you are just getting started GMing and don't have any previous experience. First game I GMd was a brief The Dark Eye module and it was really fun. That being said, I haven't ran a module ever since the second game I ran, which was shortly after.
FPBP Modules are for homosexualy morons who need someone to hold their dick for them when they pee.
Majority of systems do not have metaplots and the majority of modules, campaign books, and pre-written adventures do an extremely poor job of teaching you how to write and run games of your own. Needing a module is a shortcoming of the system, not a benefit to new players.
>Majority of systems do not have metaplots
The Dark Eye does, though not every group adheres to it. We personally don't, but it's the reason Dark Eye modules tend to be quite high quality.
>the majority of modules, campaign books, and pre-written adventures do an extremely poor job of teaching you how to write and run games of your own
I mean, so does not GMing at all. I got my start running a few modules, but eventually started writing my own stuff quite naturally. My players say I'm the best GM they ever had, so I doubt starting with modules "ruins" you as a GM.
Word. Dark Eye modules are great.
Though in general, a module should always be used as a sort of framework for your adventure. Because, in the end, things WILL go off script but most modules give you background information for the story so you can improvise.
However, modules also give you the benefit of already having maps and statblocks, meaning you don't have to come up with them yourself. Heck, I'm still using the Ghoul statblock they offered in one module for all my other adventures.
Playing without modules at all means you have to create everything from scratch.
Brainlet D&Drone thinking. Go talk with your fathers, if you even have one.
D&D and pathfinder current business policy is to sell a ton of modules tho.
Refusing to use any and all the tools available to you due to trying to pass an imagined test of moral righteousness is peak D&Drone and you know it.
I think it's more a peak /tg/ no-gamer to be honest
There's a difference?
yes
D&D fans buy modules
/tg/ no-gamers don't do anything but shitpost on /tg/ and pirate everything and wonder why the industry does not cater to them
tools? the only "tools" i need are the red box i bought in 1980
D&D's core audience consists of people who run Curse of Strahd and other campaign books over and over like a video game. What the frick are you talking about?
is someone not capable of adjusting on the fly, creating their own settings/plotlines and characters?
I rip maps and some scenarios, but always retrofit them into my own game. Hardly need to reference it during the game, because following the pre-written material is never the point.
Oh yeah then why did D&D cancel their module shart program the Adventurer's League and leave 3rd party to pick it up (no new content since before dragonlance)? Paizo might be slaves to continual releases for their players but wotc actually "seems fine" with releasing only a bit of an adventure in every other book every 6 months. Very exciting stuff
Why do you think I give even the slightest frick about this? Do you think I'm a shareholder, or something?
I decided to run a module because I thought it would make GMing easier. Rather than being a shortcut, it's been a huge headache. They might work for some people though.
If people are stupid enough to pay for me to run a game of pretend for them, sure, I'm gonna minimize my workload.
No, i just read them and pretend i have a game and run that adventure with imaginary friends
too dark man
DMing for your tulpa is a new level of loneliness.
Yes, but in reality no.
Modules are loose frameworks to use as inspiration and as a loose guideline, especially when getting started in a system. When used like that, there is nothing wrong with them. But they're to be expanded upon, to get started, and to see where things go.
When used as a full campaign map going A to B to C through 1-2-3 it is pathetic and laughable, and everyone that runs anything like that should be bullied into suicide.
most people who run modules run them like that
it's fricking atrocious
I can understand if you're a beginner or use them as a template for something else but there are people who actually enjoy GMing like this
one of the worst things is OSR is people running horrible shitty modules and pretending it's fun
I fricking hate modules so fricking much
I ran a lot of the classic D&D adventures in becmi, as well as a handful of other editions.
They're ok, but I had more fun with my own custom made adventures.
Here's a list of the memorable ones
>Keep on the borderlands
quite good, but the real meat is the keep itself, the caves of chaos are ok.
>Village of homlet: The moathouse
meh, didn't like the moathouse, but I like the npcs in homlet.
>the Lost City
quite enjoyable, the 3 factions setup is fun.
>hidden shrine of tamoa-chan
Quite good.
>halls of the hill giant king
Kinda sucked.
>The Sunless Citadel
Real bad.
>The Forge of Fury
terrible. I stopped using premade modules for years after this one. Only started again with 4e.
>Keep on the Shadowfell
awful. the worst module I run ever. And then I stopped running modules again for years.
>Gardmore Abbey
actually great, stands up there with the classics. Made me look up modules again.
>Waterdeep: Dragonheist
This one I didn't GM, I was a player. And honestly, it was fricking awful. I read the module myself afterwards and I don't see why it's so highly rated.
These are the ones I remember. I must have run more specially during the 3e and 4e era but they're forgettable.
These days I don't really play D&D anymore, so there aren't that many modules for me to try.
My players liked Keep on the Shadowfell. What did you find so bad about it?
At the time I felt that the encounter design was really bad and the map design is essentially a line with some branches. Added to the fact that it has no interesting unique ideas, it just fails as a dungeon.
I played on release so the monster design wasn't good yet.
I can't give that many details since it's been what, over 12 years since I played it?
Never, the closest thing to that was using a module as a rough inspiration for my game.
. Nothing wrong with a module, it's a tool and this is probably a thread made by some no games homosexual
i run two games.......on the other hand modulegays dont actually run games, they are just reading off a script.
prove me wrong, oh wait you cant
I can guarantee that you've never even read a module.
I've got a module for you to run that mouth on
*unzips dick*
Every GM should run modules. Maybe not all the time, but sometimes. Even seeing aside the time savings, they give you new ideas. GMs often get stale (I say this as a forever GM).
My players don't pay attention so I don't see the point of making effort. Maybe if I was better at writing them but I'm not...
maybe they dont pay attention because you are a shit gm?
Pretty much only run modules. Though, I'll always look up community DM guides, popular homebrew changes and additions, ect for each one and make changes as needed or to simply make things more interesting.
If I'm going to put up the time and effort in worldbuilding and creating my own adventure, I want to make it something I'm deeply interested in... Sadly, most people don't share my interest (fantasy worlds like Harn). So Im forever doomed to never run my dream campaign.
why not? if my friends insist on playing dnd i ain't gonna bother trying to come up with unique adventures in a game i dont particularly enjoy. i might as well spent my creative energies elsewhere.
I simply drop them in a starting town/region with a kitchesink of modules, give hooks for them and let them choose which path to go for. If they derail the module whatever. Let them have their fun.
Yes, Modules allow me to fill time between large main story beats with a premade slice of self-contained content for my players to enjoy. I often use them as 'intermission' material between large player arcs.
It's not like I paid for them, anyway
>anime gay poster you actually lay games?
You don't. I know.
Nah, I cannibalize material from them for my own games. They’re barely good for that though. Most of the stuff 5e modules have is so uninspired. Curse of Strahd is pretty good as is though.
Look, I have this thing that takes up a lot of my time called a job. You may have heard of it. So I'll do as I damn well please and use them and just change things as I see fit and you can eat a bag of dicks.
For one-shots, yes. My campaigns are always way too long.
Yes. For the most part, it's faster to prep a module than make an adventure. I don't really have as much time as I did in high school.
Absolutely. A decent module can give me 1-2 sessions of content, plus another 3-4 dealing with the consequences of the first two.
And there is nothing you can do about it.
Entirely justified with certain games. For example, D&D 5e is one of the most DM-unfriendly games I have ever seen, and setting up balanced encounters in it takes 3 to 4 times longer than in better-designed more DM-facing systems. So yeah, if I can just run encounters out of a module to save myself the asspain of having to deal 5e's broken CR system and awful encounter-building systems, I will.
I run modules when learning new games because its one less thing to worry about when reading through a core rulebook. Also i only run modules when running CoC because they probably better and more researched by lovecraft autists than i ever could.
Short ones for when we're getting into a system we know nothing about and is different from what we usually play
Nothing wrong with running a megadungeon or sandbox module as a framework, anon. The problem is railroad modules. I hate those
Speaking of modules, what's a good D&D one-shot to get a bunch of BG3 normie friends' feet in the door to tabletops before I ween them off into a real system?
B1 in search of the unknown, great tutorial dungeon, teaches gms dungeon design, and teaches players mapping.
exclusively yes, I like those premade campaigns for D&D
they got me a lived in world they designed, I would be a fool not to run sessions with them.