DIY, Campaign Settings, Modules - Authenticity vs. Awesomeness?

[BenShums]

I've got a buddy who says "You're not a Real DM if you use a campaign setting." Do you agree?

DM's, what percent of you run sessions from scratch, and what percent of you utilize pre-made campaign settings or modules?

Finally, do you feel a sense of loss when you learn your session is being run as a module or campaign setting? Is it really the cheap way to go?

[Rhynn]

Your buddy is a moron.

I mix and match, impossible to say how much I use my own stuff and other stuff. It'd be pretty hard for anyone to claim that my Glorantha is the same as someone else's Glorantha, though, or my Realms is the same as someone else's realms, etc.

[Flickerdart]

No true Scotsman DM would ever run a module.

[dascarletm]

I rarely use a module, but only because I enjoy writing my own adventure. I have used a few (when I just don't have the time). There is nothing wrong with using a module, though if you haven't written your own I suggest you try it at least once. It's satisfying when you invoke emotions in your players all by yourself.:smallbiggrin:

also, Flickerdart, my thoughts exactly

[BWR]

What they said.
You can ask your buddy if running a Star Wars game is not being a true DM.
You can ask him if ballet dancers are not real dancers for dancing other people's dances, or opera singers are not real singers for singing other people's songs.
There are lots of really cool ideas out there and intentionally staying away from them just because you haven't made them is not only silly but it brings into the question just how much your stuff is original. My bet is just about any original setting or adventure can be found to be pretty damn similar to any number of books, movies, tv shows, whatever. Nothing new under the sun, and all that.

Personally, I generally run established settings. It means I have less work to do world building. I can be inspired by the awesomeness there and add what I feel like amd subtract what I feel like, and my players can read up on the setting on their own to get a better feel than I can give in a few short sessions.

When it comes to finished modules, I generally haven't done that. Partially because of the lack of them in the settings I started seriously DMing with (Dragonstar and Rokugan), partially because they didn't do what I wanted to.
In my current Mystara campaign I have been throwing all the old modules at my players. Unlike the more serious campaigns I've run up until now (successfully or not), this is pure, old school D&D. Character development is a bonus, but you could easily play a cardboard cut-out here. Travel around, hear strange rumors about abandoned mines and dungeons, go there, kill monsters, take their stuff. No worries about the morality of wiping out goblin tribes; they are evil, problem solved.
Adventures are run almost as scripted, though some minor changes have to be made for balance or in the case of sheer idiocy.
Considering the wealth of BECMI modules to draw on, I can run another couple of campaigns on them alone, not to mention the story seeds found in the gazetteers, which I have also run.

Of course, like any story that starts simply, it's getting more invovled and morality gets a bit more gray as time moves on.

Do I feel cheated if I've been subjected to a module? Not necessarily. Mostly because I'm hard pressed to think of a game I've played where the GM hasn't made the story him/herself. There were a couple at a convention that were kind of sucky, so I suppose that counts as module. And the official Gehenna story we played for VtM was crap compared to the homemade prequel campaign.
So, based on experience, I have been disappointed by modules compared to GM-original, but I have read lots of modules that are quite excellent, ones I would love to play or run.

[BenShums]

No true Scotsman DM would ever run a module.

So what's the difference between being DM, and True DM? :smalltongue:

[Emperor Tippy]

Run whatever.

I run my own settings but that's largely because I can't stand alot of FR and I prefer my own take on the Eberron idea.

[Amnestic]

Nothing wrong with running pre-made settings or modules. I quite enjoy Eberron and I'm having a fair bit of fun DMing a Red Hand of Doom PbP campaign thus far, but doing original stuff is plenty fun too. Creating an entire, fleshed out campaign setting is a lot of work however, if you want it to be believable, interesting and 'different' to other ones that already exist.

[BenShums]

What they said.
You can ask your buddy if running a Star Wars game is not being a true DM.
You can ask him if ballet dancers are not real dancers for dancing other people's dances, or opera singers are not real singers for singing other people's songs.
There are lots of really cool ideas out there and intentionally staying away from them just because you haven't made them is not only silly but it brings into the question just how much your stuff is original. My bet is just about any original setting or adventure can be found to be pretty damn similar to any number of books, movies, tv shows, whatever. Nothing new under the sun, and all that.

Personally, I generally run established settings. It means I have less work to do world building. I can be inspired by the awesomeness there and add what I feel like amd subtract what I feel like, and my players can read up on the setting on their own to get a better feel than I can give in a few short sessions.

When it comes to finished modules, I generally haven't done that. Partially because of the lack of them in the settings I started seriously DMing with (Dragonstar and Rokugan), partially because they didn't do what I wanted to.
In my current Mystara campaign I have been throwing all the old modules at my players. Unlike the more serious campaigns I've run up until now (successfully or not), this is pure, old school D&D. Character development is a bonus, but you could easily play a cardboard cut-out here. Travel around, hear strange rumors about abandoned mines and dungeons, go there, kill monsters, take their stuff. No worries about the morality of wiping out goblin tribes; they are evil, problem solved.
Adventures are run almost as scripted, though some minor changes have to be made for balance or in the case of sheer idiocy.
Considering the wealth of BECMI modules to draw on, I can run another couple of campaigns on them alone, not to mention the story seeds found in the gazetteers, which I have also run.

Of course, like any story that starts simply, it's getting more invovled and morality gets a bit more gray as time moves on.

Do I feel cheated if I've been subjected to a module? Not necessarily. Mostly because I'm hard pressed to think of a game I've played where the GM hasn't made the story him/herself. There were a couple at a convention that were kind of sucky, so I suppose that counts as module. And the official Gehenna story we played for VtM was crap compared to the homemade prequel campaign.
So, based on experience, I have been disappointed by modules compared to GM-original, but I have read lots of modules that are quite excellent, ones I would love to play or run.

Well put, BWR.

[Flickerdart]

So what's the difference between being DM, and True DM? :smalltongue:
Kilts and haggis.

[AmberVael]

I've got a buddy who says "You're not a Real DM if you use a campaign setting." Do you agree?
Not at all.

I want to point out something specific here, actually- Exalted. Exalted is a pretty popular game, and it is extremely difficult to separate its mechanics and fluff. They're pretty inextricable. There are books and books of just setting for it.

This is just one example, but I think it is a very indicative one. There are clearly a LOT of people who are completely fine with using a campaign setting made by someone else. And honestly, a lot of my best and most interesting ideas have been within someone else's setting. Complete creative freedom and a blank canvas is not necessarily the most conducive to creativity. Restraints and limitations can actually really help inspire and form ideas.


DM's, what percent of you run sessions from scratch, and what percent of you utilize pre-made campaign settings or modules?

Finally, do you feel a sense of loss when you learn your session is being run as a module or campaign setting? Is it really the cheap way to go?
I've used and played in settings developed by other people before, and I'm fine with that. Eberron, Exalted, Faerun, Star Wars, all kinds of places. I've also developed my own. Both are really fun, and I can enjoy either.

However, I have never used a module, and the only modules I've played in were one shot throwaway games that didn't even last a day and I didn't take seriously. As a DM, I have no interest in running a module- the draw of that position is being able to create worlds and stories, and a module takes all that from me. As a player... I dunno. Might just be irrational, but I don't like it. I would probably be disgruntled if I realized I was playing in a module.

That said, I wouldn't accuse anyone of not being a real GM or and players of playing a lame game. Any lack of enjoyment from a module is really just my own issue to deal with. :smalltongue:

(Edit: When I stop and think about it, what's really the difference between playing in a module and playing a video game RPG, like Baldur's Gate? I had fun with Baldur's Gate. Guess I'm just crazy.)

[Nymrod]

Run whatever.

I run my own settings but that's largely because I can't stand alot of FR and I prefer my own take on the Eberron idea.

By the Sovereigns, I cannot imagine how Khorvaire looks under the rule of Tippy . . .

I have run FR and Planescape back in AD&D, my homebrew, Eberron and City of the Spider Queen (with extended material) during 3.5 and my homebrew after 3.5 (since I now use a heavily homebrewed D&D that is not recognizable as any edition tbh).

I can say that if the module you are running is solid you can have an exceptional campaign; AD&D Planescape had several such, the first three adventures for Eberron were fairly decent and CotSQ is awesome!

Still I will say this. You are not a real DM if you do not experiment. Someone who is drawn to DMing wants to create stories and worlds and that lends itself to creating homebrews and own material. The guy only running modules? he is the guy who has to DM cause noone else in his group wants to or he simply doesn't have the time to be a DM.

[thethird]

I run my own setting for two main reasons. The first of this is that me, and my gaming table, have a slightly different background to the one marketed by the normal modules, at least in 3.5 (we feel quite comfortable in Ravenloft, but it doesn't have an official campaign setting in 3.5). The second is that I, and by extension my gaming table, has played several games in that certainly have influenced the campaign setting. For example, several NPCs were PCs in ages past, and the actions of those (N)PCs reshaped the campaign setting, so if at some point there was something similar to a module it has evolved over time.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Run whatever.

I run my own settings but that's largely because I can't stand alot of FR and I prefer my own take on the Eberron idea.

You also turn optimization up to 11 as a matter of course; something those worlds just aren't designed to handle.

A non-epic wizard from Tippyverse could crush all of Abier-Toril under his boot over a long weekend.

[Emperor Tippy]

You also turn optimization up to 11 as a matter of course; something those worlds just aren't designed to handle.

Kinda my point.

I run my own take on Eberron largely because that setting isn't structured to handle the types of games that I feel like running. I love the idea behind the setting and I've actually ported Sharn (and the Dragonmarked Houses) pretty much whole cloth into a number of my own creations but its really not a setting built to handle high level play and its even harder to justify the lack of things like TC networks than it is in FR (where the god/epic wizard/ whatever of your choice can fairly arbitrarily just prevent if if they want).

And I just dislike FR.