I've only ever homebrewed....

[Soylentmatt]

In conversations with new players, it's becoming apparent that a LOT of this huge influx of new players into our hobby all have this collective shared experience. They've all done Out of the Abyss. They've all done Curse of Strahd. (and that's fine, I'm really excited that playing D&D is becoming so mainstream that I can do gameprep at the counter of a local coffeeshop and all I get is people excitedly asking me about D&D.)

Here is the thing, not only have I not done any of these predesigned game modules, I actually would have no idea HOW to use them. I've played for almost 20 yerars, since the release of 3.0. Every game I've ever played has been homebrew. When I DM now, I start by building a town, stuffing it with a couple dozen NPC's, give them all a list of goals and aspirations, and pepper the lot of them with hooks that can lead to the 10-20 adventures I've scattered around the town. That's usually more than enough time for me to work on building a few more towns, all with different themes, and just follow along with the players as they start building the world around themselves. by 5th level or so, they will have pulled at enough threads that I can build a larger nemesis for them to have to work out.

I would honestly have no idea how to read and implement a module built any other way. How do people usually structure their games? How do you give the players any agency if they're being expected to follow a linear plot?

I think I'm just having an existential crisis where I'm realizing that the way I'm playing might somehow be different than the way other people do it, and I need to figure out what the differences are.

[Yora]

You are simply too good. When you know how to run games well, it feels unnatural to run them in an inferior way.

[KorvinStarmast]

You are simply too good. When you know how to run games well, it feels unnatural to run them in an inferior way. *golf clap*
For the OP:
1. You have saved some money.
2. Your players can't "cheat" by reading the books ahead of time.

I'd say "keep doing what you are doing." :smallcool:

[Man_Over_Game]

So the main concern is that most people are used to modules, and you're worried that your homebrew-style campaigns won't be fun for them? I wouldn't worry about it. I've never actually played any module but Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and my DM for it kinda stunk.

What I can say is that the modules do a good job of making certain scenarios very dramatic, or rewarding a player's desire to explore.

They also have some very solid "random encounter" options for when players are travelling or when they decide to run off the beaten path. The important thing to learn about these "random encounters" is that they aren't always a generic fight. Sometimes, it's something like having Giant Spiders ambush your caravan in the night, dragging off several of your Horses into their lair. You COULD go rescue them....or a couple castings of Phantom Steed can get you where you need to go anyway to buy some new ones.

[Willie the Duck]

I would honestly have no idea how to read and implement a module built any other way. How do people usually structure their games? How do you give the players any agency if they're being expected to follow a linear plot?

I think I'm just having an existential crisis where I'm realizing that the way I'm playing might somehow be different than the way other people do it, and I need to figure out what the differences are.

Okay, well let us start by clarifying, despite what a bunch of the new influx of people might be used to, what you are doing is the standard, normal, majority position for the hobby in general. While adventure modules have been around most of the existence of D&D (although most of them were mostly what we'd now call simply a pre-made dungeon or set of dungeons), most people have traditionally done it the way you are describing (often referred to as 'sandbox gaming'). So no existential crises necessary, you're perfectly normal.

Now, on to entertaining those influxers. Quick question -- have any of them complained? Any of them noticed that things were different? Have they had trouble making decisions about what to do when you tight-lippedly refuse to tell them the right thing to do (since there is none)? If not, problem solved! For all the 'kids these days'-ing that has gone on in the industry since time immemorial, most people are actually pretty good about rolling with changes and differences and getting a feel for a different groups' nuances. Assuming everyone is having fun, I wouldn't overworry. If everyone is not, the only disinfectant is sunlight: talk to each other and get any problems out there in the open so that you can identify the problems and propose/hash-through some solutions.

Best of luck!

[Bellin878]

My experience was similar. Played for over a decade in the 3.5 space as an almost always GM, wandered away from D&D to other RPGs during 4.0's reign. When I came back to 5e, a few years after release, I found almost all the games around me were "modules" rather than homebrew, and I found it surprising.

I tried running HotDQ for my home group, which had been playing together for a long time. They enjoyed it, but I felt frustrated, handcuffed, and quickly went off the rails. We ended up retiring the game before making significant progress. I went back to running homebrew campaigns in 5e, and have been totally cool with it. I read the modules, sometimes steal ideas, snippets, items, or monsters.

However, I got the chance to be a player with a totally new group, and the GM was running Princes of the Apocalypse. I could immediately see how beneficial it was to him, as a brand new GM, to have this available. It gave him a rock solid foundation to build upon, balanced encounters for him, let him not worry about over- or under-indulging on magic items and losing the balance game because of that. With a few very experienced players in the mix, and a few rowdy folk as well, he was able to maintain the reins on his game. With time, he learned - a few sessions ago he ran his first bit of homebrew and inserted it into the campaign, and did a great job, integrating parts of characters' stories that the main campaign didn't really have room for. So while it's not for me, I'm glad to have it in the mix for people who want it. I still think there's totally room for homebrew with groups, and in my experience, most players are happy to have a game to play in.

In regards to your specific questions:
I would honestly have no idea how to read and implement a module built any other way. How do people usually structure their games? How do you give the players any agency if they're being expected to follow a linear plot?

I usually run semi-linear, story based campaigns. I create major plot points I want to hit in a rough order, and then fill in the gaps week to week with whatever my players want to do. Pretty much each session ends with me asking, very openly "What are y'all planning to do next", to get a good idea where to focus my prep.

In terms of running these actual modules, players just lose some freedom. It's an innate part of the design, and that's okay. Many of them but pressure on the players - the end of the world is coming if you don't progress. I know PotA has a built in mechanism where (Mid-Campaign Spoiler) the cultists start setting of elemental bombs in towns if you spend too long away from confronting and attacking them. It's something we innately add to story driven campaigns anyway. So far I can't think of any modules that are more sandbox/freeform. Mostly because balancing becomes more of a pain if you do that I guess. Many of them do have side quests you can pepper in, or non-linear story elements you can mix up to meet the need of your campaign.

tl;dr, since I got verbose: Homebrew is great. Modules are great, and great for new DMs to cut their teeth with, especially. If you like running homebrew, do it. If you've run Homebrew for a long time, you might not like running modules - but who knows unless you try?

[Unoriginal]

I've never tried to DM a full module before 2017, although I did use a pre-written scenario or two as introduction to RPGs. I wanted to try out by curiosity.

Frankly, I liked it a lot. You just have to start with the idea that the module is nothing but some setting notes and a big suggestion box and that you can change anything you want.

But never do it if you don't want to. Play the game you want to play, and run the game you want to run. What matters is having fun.



You are simply too good. When you know how to run games well, it feels unnatural to run them in an inferior way.

Yeah, go ahead, hundreds of people, including myself, and an entire way of playing inferior. That's totally not insulting.

If being "too good" means being like that, then I sure as hell am glad to not be "too good."

[SirGraystone]

I don't think it's so much homebrew vs paid module, as that with 5e they started publishing not adventure whole campaing in one book. In the past your would have your homebrew campaign buy a module and integrate it in your world. Now you buy a campaign and everything is in it.

Now wizards did get better at it Tiamat story was much more railroad then more recent ones, in which they tried a more sandbox approach, with plenty of land to explore.

But in the end each DM have is own style, there's nothing wrong in either way.

[darkrose50]

I grew up playing D&D and homebrewing just about everything. Now I play with folks who do not homebrew much, if anything. It is still fun, but it takes a lot of the excitement out of it when "it can't be an X, because we are level Y." Re-skin some things! The monster manual should be suggestions!

[Dark.Revenant]

Some "premade campaigns" are primarily intended for experienced DMs who know what they're doing and can handle changes to the story and the setting. A well-written adventure is not a whole lot different than a homebrew campaign, since you're likely to be prepping the same kinds of encounters and maps that a good campaign would be offering you. Likewise, in a homebrew campaign, you're doing the same task of trying to get the players to generally follow the story beats of the story you've come up with, with wiggle room to account for stupid things they might attempt.

Not every adventure is written equal, and that goes for homebrew as well. I'd take a decent published adventure over a mediocre homebrew campaign any day.

[Unoriginal]

It is still fun, but it takes a lot of the excitement out of it when "it can't be an X, because we are level Y."

The 5e adventures I've read don't really care about which level you are when they throw stuff at you.

[Trustypeaches]

The 5e adventures I’ve played and run are excellent (Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd) but I never stuck 100% to the text.

I would treat the modules less like an instruction manual and more like a foundation for an adventure and setting that you build off of or adapt. Use as much or as little of the pre-written material as possible.

[Hail Tempus]

Okay, well let us start by clarifying, despite what a bunch of the new influx of people might be used to, what you are doing is the standard, normal, majority position for the hobby in general. While adventure modules have been around most of the existence of D&D (although most of them were mostly what we'd now call simply a pre-made dungeon or set of dungeons), most people have traditionally done it the way you are describing (often referred to as 'sandbox gaming'). So no existential crises necessary, you're perfectly normal.
Do you have anything that backs up your position that sandbox gaming is how the majority of people play D&D? Because my experience playing D&D since sometime in the early '90's has been the exact opposite. The default has been DMs running modules, rather than designing their own campaigns from the ground up.

[Willie the Duck]

Do you have anything that backs up your position that sandbox gaming is how the majority of people play D&D? Because my experience playing D&D since sometime in the early '90's has been the exact opposite. The default has been DMs running modules, rather than designing their own campaigns from the ground up.

No one has that information to a level of certainty sufficient to satisfy someone in disagreement, in either direction. 'In the norm' would probably have been a less contention-courting statement, I suppose, as I was mostly trying to explain to the OP that they were perfectly normal, rather than any particular claim to where on some line something switches over to majority. You are creating, it seems, a dichotomy where there is probably multiple categories. You don't need to either run modules or design your own campaign from the ground up-- you can also play in TSR-, WotC-, or 3rd party campaigns, but make your own adventures. Out of curiousity, what did you do during the early 2000s/3e era? I recall that edition having a lot of campaign sourcebooks, but not a huge amount of modules.

[Grog Logs]

You are simply too good. When you know how to run games well, it feels unnatural to run them in an inferior way.

I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread yet, but the Angry GM posted an article (https://theangrygm.com/homebrew-an-adventure/)very recently on the differences between a homebrewed adventure vs. published adventures.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've never tried to DM a full module before 2017, although I did use a pre-written scenario or two as introduction to RPGs. I wanted to try out by curiosity.

Frankly, I liked it a lot. You just have to start with the idea that the module is nothing but some setting notes and a big suggestion box and that you can change anything you want.
Same here. I was surprised by how fun it was. It felt... not exactly less stressful, but...at least for me, when I'm running own campaign, my own setting, there's a constant sort of narrative pressure. The sense that everything is happening because of me, that the plots and towns and villains are only as real as I can make them. That I'm the one doing the lion's share of imagination-work holding everything together. I'm not railroading or anything, but everything the players can do ultimately comes from me.

Running a pre-made module feels a lot more equitable, somehow. Like we're all in this together, exploring the adventure more as equals than as master-and-players. Like we're all on the same side, almost, us against the module. The setting exists without me having to constantly prop it up, the plots and characters exist independently of me, capable of surprising me as well as the players. (The fact that I'm to lazy to read very far ahead probably has something to do with that, admittedly)


How do you give the players any agency if they're being expected to follow a linear plot?
The same way you do if you want to run a more plot-oriented homebrew campaign. You make the direction of the main questline clear, you make it compelling enough that the players are interested in pursuing it, and you give them freedom to approach the challenges in different ways. Players are usually pretty good at picking up plot hooks.

(Some of the modules are also a lot more open-ended than others. I just finished Curse of Strahd, which was excellent, and there really isn't anything like a linear plot there-- "you're stuck in Ravenloft, you can't get out without killing Strahd, here are some cryptic clues about where you might find help with that." And as far as I can tell, Tomb of Annihilation is just a hex crawl with some big dungeons.)

[GlenSmash!]

I am super lazy DM. I like to run pre-mades as much as possible and put all my cognitive effort into adjudication the crazy approaches my players take to the game.

However, I totally see the appeal from the creative side of things.