On Modules, Railroads, and Sandboxes

[Amphetryon]

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine on the nature and limitations of published adventures. I'd like to use this thread to continue that discussion with the forum at large, addressing some of the specific issues that have come up in my experience and yours when using prepackaged modules. I fully acknowledge that some of what I've perceived as problems may be entirely based on my unique experiences.

I've been gaming for a long time - since The Keep On The Borderlands and the Red Box Set. I've played and run several systems, and worked with friends on developing their own. In all that time, I've never seen a group have a positive experience with a published module. One or more of the following issues has inevitably come up, to varying degrees:

1. At least one player will want to go somewhere or do something the module didn't expect. Some bit of flavor text connected with the player through its presentation or the character's background, and the DM and group are left foundering until the DM either goes radically off-book or insists - gently or otherwise - that the adventure lies this way, not the way the player(s) wanted to go.
2. The attack of the MEGO. As the DM/Storyteller goes into the written descriptive text for a given set piece, players' eyes get a faraway cast as their minds wander, because the story is not connecting with their characters or is not compelling for some other reason. Players end up missing bits that the module's author made important because they couldn't engage with prepackaged information.
3. Characters get punished (for lack of a better word) for behaving in unexpected ways. This tangentially relates to the first point. If, for example, the module is written so that a roof collapses and deals 40 points damage to all characters in the room, it's been all too often the case that one character was tending to an animal in the area, or was in some way shielded from the effect, but the module doesn't make that exception. This particular issue is exacerbated in modules where "[X] happens, knocking all characters unconscious/back [x] feet", without regard to where characters are positioned.
4. Out-of-character talk devolves into metagame discussion of the plot. "C'mon, guys, we clearly have to go down the staircase. Can't you see the railroad tracks?" "Ooh, goodie! It's GM Story Hour!" etc.
5. One or more of the players has read through or played the module already. "Okay, so I ignore the first 3 statues and go pick up the 4th one. Is the Gem of Genua hidden underneath? Wow, what a surprise."

Thoughts?

[dsmiles]

Thoughts?

My friends and I use published modules fairly frequently. Not all the time, mind you, we do like to write our own stuff. Mostly when we've got a bout of writer's block.
Now, that being said, none of us have ever had a problem with published materials. Let me describe our group based on your bullets:

1. We generally end up off the rails. It happens, but it's not a big deal for us, we like to improvise. For instance:

Spoiler

Show

In the 3e adventure series (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, etc) we started off on the rails, but ended up enslaving the kobolds, wiping out the goblins/hobgoblins, killing the bad druid and all his little tree-washed minions. We took over the town, and established our world-domination scheme. Then we moved on to Forge of Fury.

2. We pretty much pay attention, as we don't mind a bit of railroading, and whomever happens to be in the DM seat that week will usually embellish the descriptive text more than a bit.
3. We improvise here, too. Maybe I should say that we apply a common sense factor when the module says something happens to everybody, and somebody happens to not be subject to the effect due to circumstances.
4. There isn't a whole lot of OoC talk at our table. Unless we're cracking jokes. Granted, we know where the rails are, and we follow them pretty well, but we usually don't discuss the rails. They're the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but we're comfortable with that particular gorilla.
5. We avoid metagaming. I can't count how many times I've played through some of these modules, but I still play the character as they would react in the module.

So, published modules aren't for everybody, that I agree with. My particular group hasn't had any issues with them, though.

[Z3ro]

To be honest, the groups I've been with have actually done better with published modules than with DM material. We're not great at sandbox games, and while we know the module is on rails, the DM generally does a good enough job of improvising that slight derailments don't kill the module.

Our most successful campaign was a combination of two modules that took us from level 4 to level 19.

[Yora]

My experience with published adventures is, that they work best when you use their stories, NPCs, locations, and encounters, but don't use them as a script for the game.
The way most adventures are written, they are very strong railroads, but you don't have to use them that way. If the player introduce new interesting ideas that the adventures didn't anticipate, you can still roll with it and possibly adjust later parts of the adventure. In that case you just have to really know the whole adventure very well beforehand, so you'll know what later parts will be affected by changes that take place now.
But many published adventures have very nice setups and plots, that can certainly used for rather open-ended campaigns.

[Khatoblepas]

I recently ran The Keep on the Borderlands, and I tell you, the modules are basically the groundwork you have to lay down, the foundations. They are not the thing you need to be running. It was the best campaign I ever ran.

Sure, I had to embellish the villain's motives, add a few NPCs (Like a whole Lizardfolk tribe, an incredibly beurocratic troll, and Geweg the Undoer, who the party chased to the adventure via a short starter adventure, which was simply "Go into temple, beat up guys"). The party was playing monsters (A Yuan-ti Abomination, Thri-Kreen, Kobold), enlisted the help of a Modron, a Slaadi, the aforementioned troll, a blind Medusa oracle, a demon, and eventually befriended a young white dragon that was hanging out in some of the more sparse caves in the adventure and had gotten sick because of the heat the profane rituals going on in further into the cave were giving off.

Geweg the Undoer enlisted the help of a party of adventurers, one a "Paladin" who sold his soul for unearthly beauty, but all human. The players loved fighting him, and smashed his pretty face into a mirror!

The base, of course, WAS Keep on the Borderlands. I didn't draw a single map or change any location whatsoever. I used common sense to plot out new locations on the world map, and made every encounter make sense with one or two lines of dialogue.

The trick is to engage the party on their level, rather than the module's. If they want quirky NPCs and the module doesn't have them, add them. If they want treasure and the module doesn't have it, add it! Don't be afraid to go off the rails yourself to throw them for a loop.

Engage the player with the goal or villain, throw the villain into the center of the adventure and the players will jump on it like rabid dogs. When the action is dulling a little, add another twist. It'll all work out in the end.

[Kalirren]

Agree with the above poster.

Nothing says we have to play it the way it was written. A healthy dose of improvisation always makes it better.

[Amphetryon]

Agree with the above poster.

Nothing says we have to play it the way it was written. A healthy dose of improvisation always makes it better.

At that point, though, are you even playing the module? I playtested a module that a friend of mine wanted to get published a few years back, and he was incensed for a long time over the fact that the group's adventure went so far off-script that "that's not the adventure I wrote, gosh darn it!"

[Jarawara]

I've never seen a group have a positive experience with a published module.

Wow. I've never heard such a claim before. I've heard of some crash and burns with modules before, (and experienced quite a few myself), but I've never heard of someone who's not had at least one good experience with a published adventure before.

Of course, my claim is just the opposite. I've been playing for over 30 years now, and in all that time I've not once seen a sandbox-style game worth a hill of beans. I've long been a supporter of the mild railroad, because without it, there's simply no direction to a game. Waiting for the players to provide direction is... folly.

So, with that in mind, I'll respond to each item in your list.

1. I'll get back to that.

2. Hmmm... seems like the players are not attentive. If the module is not woven into the storyline of the campaign, I could see that happening. If it's a one-shot, the players should have committed to the adventure, or not, all ahead of time. But that gets back to my response to #1, which I haven't posted yet. :P

3. That sounds like a DMing error. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and no module survives contact with the players. If the room calls for 'X event' to occur, but the players have done something unexpected, then improvise, adapt, consider the alternatives that the module left blank.

Jump to #5. That sounds like a player error. I understand that sometimes a module has been read by a player, it's unavoidable sometimes. Heck, they buy modules too, sometimes they run them for their games. But a player can 'play dumb' with not too much effort. (With my bad memory, I'm a natural at 'playing dumb'!) It's just a matter of common curteousy. If John has been through the module before, then he should let Amy and Rick decide on the direction of the party, and he follows their lead.

Back to #4. Seriously? "See the railroad tracks?" "It's GM story hour." That's not player error - it's player abusiveness. If your players are mocking you openly like that, you should dump them. No wonder you feel pre-printed adventures are never good, if your players are treating you like that.

Of course, if you just dropped them into a preprinted module without any real connection to your campaign, and without discussing it with them in the first place, then perhaps they have proper grievences, which brings me back to...

#1. Preprinted adventures are called "modules". What that means is, they can be inserted into any (or most any) existing campaign. But that doesn't make them a plug-and-play, all sizes fits all kind of thing. You have to flesh it in, prepare ahead of time and consider how it will fit into the whole of your campaign. Or... don't. But if you don't, then you have to admit that it's really not part of your campaign, it doesn't fit, and then (most importantly), EXPLAIN THAT TO YOUR PLAYERS.

I've done both options. In my recently finished Tiatia campaign, I used the venerable 'Night of the Walking Dead' adventure. For those of you who haven't seen it, well, the title kinda explains it all. But it starts out with a bang, as the party enters the town they see the villagers taking a casket to the cemetary for burial... and you can hear the poor guy inside the casket thrashing around, trying to get out. Yep, they got a zombie problem in town.

And the players, presented with yet another town that just happens to have all hell breaking loose *just as they were arriving*, becomes jaded and begins to lose faith in the storyline. Just another DM created crises to occupy their characters for another day of railroad. Boring.

But I didn't use it that way. In my game, as the players came into town, they saw... well, a town. And they went in, and found... people. Regular people, kindly, god-fearing villagers. Helpful too, with the current issues the party was dealing with. They met people in the town, befriended them, studied with one, conducted a trade negotiation with another, heck they went on an adventure with a third. One of the PC's even began dating one of the NPC's. And this went on for awhile, as they crisscrossed back and forth across the countryside, stopping back into town on several occasions, resting and restocking supplies, checking up on old friends.

So when you come into town, and the townsfolks are carrying that casket to the cemetery... they don't have a 'zombie problem' -- they instead are FREAKING BURYING YOUR FRIEND JEREMIAH ALIVE! And oh gods!, your boyfriend has become a lost soul, totally mindblanked! The guy you adventured with is now become the undead, and the guy you studied with last year... is the one who is creating the undead! Your whole freaking town, YOUR TOWN, has gone to hell and a handbasket!

The adventure was a rousing, outstanding success.

If you spend time with the adventure idea, if you plan well ahead of running the adventure, it can be made to fit seemlessly into your campaign world as it it were your own. Sometimes, the players won't even recognize the similarities to the original adventure. Other times they will... which will actually enhance their enjoyment of it, as they recognize the name of the town, and the name of a particular, eccentric individual, and they realize that they are witnessing the beginning of the end for him, and the beginning of the 'adventure' for themselves.

*~*

But as I said, there are two ways to run a store-bought adventure. One is to weave it into the the game, long before you intend to use it, so as to make it appear part of the world they live in. The other is to... not. Don't weave it in, don't slapshot it in at the last minute... DON'T ADD IT TO YOUR WORLD AT ALL. Just run it as a one-shot, for the enjoyment of it.

But to do that, you have to have your player's agreement beforehand. Tell them you have a cool adventure you'd like to use on them. Give them a bit of a preview. Tell them it's not part of the 'campaign'. Let their PC's earn XP for it, of course.... or, alternatively, make up new characters for the adventure, maybe using the preprinted characters from the module that are often included. And then, play the module, have fun.

If the players complain about the 'railroad' of the module, if they want to go explore the city (which is in no way described in the module, as it was only supposed to be a backdrop), explain to them the limitations of the module. But of course, you explained that up front, didn't you? It's part of the process of saying "I have a cool module I'd like to run" speech. It's a pre-printed adventure - It's a RailRoad. There is no way around it. Either your players accept that fact, or they say no thank you, I'd rather stick to the regular campaign.

(And in case the obvious needs to be stated: If the players do prefer to stick to the regular campaign, then you don't run the module. A 'railroad' only works if all parties agree to it ahead of time.

*~*

As an example of this concept in action, I am preparing to use the old AD&D module series, Scourge of the Slavers. I have already established the existance of the slave trade. I've allowed interactions with several NPCs who are or will soon be part of the slaver organization. The players have met escaped slaves. They have even had the option to buy slaves. They have liberated a few from wealthy slaveowners (and are still dealing with the legal reprecussions about that). They are beginning to establish in their minds the pros and cons of slavery, and I think they are beginning to view it as an unexceptable evil.

And if that's not incentive enough, I have full plans to kidnap a key NPC friend of theirs (or even a PC?), and haul them off to the slavepits. That NPC/PC will be the one who escapes and brings back critical info on the location of the slaver stronghold and the secret entrance in the back of the place. That info, plus the natural reaction of the PC's and their countrymen in general to slaver raids along the coastline, will probably inspire the players to want to go crush the slavers once and for all.

When they do, I have the adventure modules ready and waiting for them. But I also have the undefined areas prepared too. After all, they might want to explore the city first, or the countryside area. They might want to find more info. They might approach the stronghold from a different direction, scaling the walls, flying in, digging in, or trying to bluff their way in as potential buyers. I will be ready... or I will improvise as best I can.

I will have had years to blend the modules into the story of my campaign world, and adjust the details of the adventure to better fit with our usual playing style. And it will be glorious...

...

... or, the players will simply choose not to go. Maybe instead, they will decide that the path to riches is to join the slavers, or form their own rival company, or maybe they just don't care either way. In which case, the Scourge of the Slave Lords will never be run in my campaign. That's when I break out option #2.

I tell my players: "Hey, I had a cool adventure prepared for if/when you went after the slavers. Now that the campaign is over, you want to see what would have happened?" If they say yes... and *only* if they say yes... I give them pre-printed characters (or let them use theirs), describe the limits of the playing area (they start at the back of the fortress - there is nothing in existance around them *but* the fortress. Go in, or... well, go in. It's the whole point of the game session, to go in and play).

And then, with the whistle of the railroad playing happily in our ears, we will all have a fun afternoon testing our playing skill against the tournament version of the module.

*~*

I've played modules using either method, and I've had fun both ways. There has been a few absolute stinkers out there, but most of them can be quite fun when you either accept the limitations... or work ahead to overcome them, fully integrating them into your campaign.

Just tossing them in haphazardly is simply not going to work.


And as usual... my longwindedness has left me basically Ninja'd.

[Kalirren]

At that point, though, are you even playing the module? I playtested a module that a friend of mine wanted to get published a few years back, and he was incensed for a long time over the fact that the group's adventure went so far off-script that "that's not the adventure I wrote, gosh darn it!"

^^ Yeah, what the above poster said. In my experience, GMs who are good at running modules don't -modify- modules so much as -recontextualize- them and adapt to the players' actions. After all, the GM's first responsibility is to the group, not to the module they're running.

Modules contain elements. That's what modules are: collections of elements in closer story-proximity to each other than a splatbook. If your friend is writing modules, publishing them with the expectation that other GMs will follow his script, then maybe he shouldn't publish them.

[Nero24200]

At least one player will want to go somewhere or do something the module didn't expect. Some bit of flavor text connected with the player through its presentation or the character's background, and the DM and group are left foundering until the DM either goes radically off-book or insists - gently or otherwise - that the adventure lies this way, not the way the player(s) wanted to go.

I have to agree here. Even "sandbox" modules seem to have firm rails in place. I would say this applies a little more to adventures made as part of a series.

The attack of the MEGO. As the DM/Storyteller goes into the written descriptive text for a given set piece, players' eyes get a faraway cast as their minds wander, because the story is not connecting with their characters or is not compelling for some other reason. Players end up missing bits that the module's author made important because they couldn't engage with prepackaged information.

I have to agree firmly here as well. I generally find that as my group nears the end of an adventure we stop referring to NPC's by name and instead just call them "That noble we saved from X scenario" or "the guard captain's sister" or other names based on what they are - Something which was alot rarer when we didn't use pre-written adventures.

Characters get punished (for lack of a better word) for behaving in unexpected ways. This tangentially relates to the first point. If, for example, the module is written so that a roof collapses and deals 40 points damage to all characters in the room, it's been all too often the case that one character was tending to an animal in the area, or was in some way shielded from the effect, but the module doesn't make that exception. This particular issue is exacerbated in modules where "[X] happens, knocking all characters unconscious/back [x] feet", without regard to where characters are positioned..

While I do see this happen sometimes, I would say that better written modules tend to avoid this. Though I mean that they tend to avoid "they take X damage just for being there" or "pushed back 10ft, no save"-esc scenarios. However, I have seen some issues which stems from the "Must have one warrior, one skill-monkey, one divine mage and one arcane mage" idea which I would say fall into this catagory (and happens to be my bggest pet peeve with regards to modules.

Out-of-character talk devolves into metagame discussion of the plot. "C'mon, guys, we clearly have to go down the staircase. Can't you see the railroad tracks?" "Ooh, goodie! It's GM Story Hour!" etc.

This one I have to agree with as well (though I wouldn't say it's as opaque as "It's GM story hour"). It may just be PF specific, but I hear alot of discussion regarding the Golarian setting - Many of their adventure paths use that setting but tie alot of the plots to events/significant figures within the setting, which can be a little off-putting if you don't know/don't care much for the setting. Though I would say that problem lies more with groups of modules made into an adventure rather than single, stand-alone modules.

One or more of the players has read through or played the module already. "Okay, so I ignore the first 3 statues and go pick up the 4th one. Is the Gem of Genua hidden underneath? Wow, what a surprise."

This, however, is one of the few points with which I'll disagree. If a player meta-games then they're at fault. If a DM worries that players may be tempted to metagame because they've read the module then the only real solution is to not use the module.

In the 3e adventure series (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, etc) we started off on the rails, but ended up [snip]

While I would say it's all well and good to continue even if players deviate from the module, I would say there are limits. If a module requires the players to say...go into a cavern to find the main part of the adventure, but the players refuse to go in, you can't really say "It doesn't matter if we go off the rails" because then you end up with 3/4's of the module going to waste. Buying a module is not worth it in my opinion if all they essentially are is a introductary synopsis - Especially since you can gain the same thing by just going to the RP section of the forums and starting a thread entiltied "Need help with adventure ideas" or somthing like that.

This can become less of an issue with non-prewritten adventures since the plot hooks driving the players forward can more easily be DM tailered to lure the PC's specifally over others and the DM is more likely to know which plot-hooks those particular players are likely to avoid or embrace.

I recently ran The Keep on the Borderlands, and I tell you, the modules are basically the groundwork you have to lay down, the foundations. They are not the thing you need to be running. It was the best campaign I ever ran.

I would say this varies alot. Certainly the best written modules are more of the "lay the groundwork" type adventures in my opinion, though not all (or even most in my opinion) are like that.

[Savannah]

Thoughts?

It's the players (and DM), not the module. I've never had a problem with modules, as everyone in the group agrees not to be a jerk. This means that the players understand that the DM has only the module's material to work with, and don't randomly decide to go east and see what they find instead of dealing with what the DM has prepared. Likewise, the DM understands that the module writers couldn't have anticipated everything, and is prepared to adapt the module to the players' plans. Sure, the players know that they're on a bit of a railroad. But they're there to have fun for everyone, so they work within the constraints and don't try to mess with the DM (and they certainly aren't blatantly disrespectful by talking about "GM story hour"* or metagaming if they've played the module before).

*Funny story about that: We'd had a DM who was mostly paraphrasing the descriptions (which, in my opinion, is the best way for the DM to do it, as it sounds like the way they'd talk and it blends together what the DM reads and what they describe outside of the module's text), but in one module, it was important that he read the descriptions, as there were clues in them. He actually said "Now I'm going to read the little description" and did so. We all (players and DM) had a great laugh at how the descriptions were written, and we got the necessary clues. After that adventure, he went back to paraphrasing. So even if you're reading the poorly-written text descriptions, that doesn't mean that the players won't work with you and listen. If they don't, they're not holding up their end of the player-DM relationship.

[Ozreth]

All those years of gaming and you've NEVER seen a group have a positive experience with one? Some of them are fantastic. Just being able to appreciate the artwork, stroytelling, plots, locations that these authors come up with is an enjoyment within itself. Expedition to Greyhawk is the most fun I've had in my gaming career.

If the DM knows the module well enough there dosent have to be any railroading at all. As somebody else said, they are just used as the foundation.

[Solaris]

^^ Yeah, what the above poster said. In my experience, GMs who are good at running modules don't -modify- modules so much as -recontextualize- them and adapt to the players' actions. After all, the GM's first responsibility is to the group, not to the module they're running.

Wait, there are people who don't do that? Then why even bother having a GM?

[Murphy80]

It's the players (and DM), not the module. I've never had a problem with modules, as everyone in the group agrees not to be a jerk. This means that the players understand that the DM has only the module's material to work with, and don't randomly decide to go east and see what they find instead of dealing with what the DM has prepared. Likewise, the DM understands that the module writers couldn't have anticipated everything, and is prepared to adapt the module to the players' plans. Sure, the players know that they're on a bit of a railroad. But they're there to have fun for everyone, so they work within the constraints and don't try to mess with the DM (and they certainly aren't blatantly disrespectful by talking about "GM story hour"* or metagaming if they've played the module before).

+1
I couldn't have said it better myself.

[The Big Dice]

I'm another Keep on the Borderlands guy. Anyone else remember dice chits?

Anyway, sure I've had some negative experiences with modules, but in every case that was because of my own failings, and not that of the module. Some, like the Keep, I've run multiple times with different groups and even in different systems. And more often than not, my players are quite happy to go along with the assumption that the hooks thrown out will lead to Adventure and Experience Points.

But, I also have some pretty weird ideas about railroading. In particular, the way railroading isn't always a negative and more often than not it's a positive force on roleplaying games. That's because I think everything that is planned in advance is a form of railroading. The parameters are set and the encounter ending is usually a desired result on the part of the GM. Be that desired result a win, lose or draw for the Players, the GM knows in advance how he wants things to more or less end up.

People often argue against this idea, but if you've got a Big Bad that can only be stopped in a particular way, if you've got Black Knight challenging all who try to pass the only bridge over the river or whatever other encounters you have lined up, it's railroading.

It might be positive railroading. But that doesn't change what it is, just the way it's perceived.

[Amphetryon]

A follow-up question, alluded to above:

If the proposed solution to the stated issues with modules is to rewrite parts of it, ignore other parts, and improvise on all those aspects that the module doesn't cover... what do you use the module for?

Maps? Maps are easy to draw out on the spot, and for those that haven't the inclination or the knack for them, they are available in huge quantities for free on the 'net.

Treasure? The treasure drops in preprinted modules will all but invariably need to be altered to suit the party to a large enough extent that precious little time or effort is saved, if any, in not choosing the items yourself whole-cloth. This doesn't account for those games where a working Magic Mart equivalent means the players will be trading out the loot provided with what they wanted to begin with.

Story hooks? Well, either you're discarding large swaths of the prepackaged stories to fit into the group's backstories and engage the players, or you're choosing the particular tropes published there, which are replicated in all but the particulars at, well, a fairly oft-cited collection of tropes.

NPCs? Most games that aren't module-based will already have NPCs aplenty to choose from for interactions with the party, and I'd be surprised if the GM didn't enjoy the creative process enough to have several other NPC "skeleton concepts" lying around in a notebook, a file folder in the computer or the Web, or rolling around in her head.

So, what's left?

[Eldan]

My problem is generally that I can come up with locations and NPCs, but have problems making them into a connected and working plot. So I take a published adventure, scavenge the basic plot, some background and the presented NPCs and start building my own from there. It works reasonably well.

Modules should be treated as the bare bones. Add some plots. Currently, I'm running a Skype game that, at it's basis, is just "hunt down bad guys, find they have evil artefact, find out where artefact came from, defeat second bad guy", essentially. There's mention of a few NPCs other than that, and I've built them all into full side quest. My players have been engaged in gang warfare for about five sessions now and are now determined to take down a beholder mafia boss who only had about half a paragraph of description as a background character.

[nedz]

I've been DMing slightly longer than the OP and I've run modules precisely three times. Once was a module from a Con which I ran as a one off: the game never finished. Another was a kobald temple from Tortured Souls which I ran twice, once for a low level party, and once for a mid level party. This was a mini-module which I quite liked, and so used.
I haven't even bothered looking at any modules since the days of 1E. I found that I have no shortage of ideas which actually fit my games, and it doesn't take much more effort to create something, than it does to learn someone else's material.
I have played quite a few, but again not for a very long time I suspect.

[Kerrin]

It's the players (and DM), not the module. I've never had a problem with modules, as everyone in the group agrees not to be a jerk. This means that the players understand that the DM has only the module's material to work with, and don't randomly decide to go east and see what they find instead of dealing with what the DM has prepared. Likewise, the DM understands that the module writers couldn't have anticipated everything, and is prepared to adapt the module to the players' plans. Sure, the players know that they're on a bit of a railroad. But they're there to have fun for everyone, so they work within the constraints and don't try to mess with the DM (and they certainly aren't blatantly disrespectful by talking about "GM story hour"* or metagaming if they've played the module before).

Savannah, you nailed it for me regarding modules.

I use modules when I GM games because I don't have any more time that it takes to familiarize myself with a module. But, I do try to give the characters reasons for wanting to get involved with the module's plot/story.

Likewise, our group does our best to treat modules in the same way as described by above by Savannah.

And we enjoy the fun and adventure the modules provide. Good times all around!

[Shade Kerrin]

text

Must always do this when I see it, sorry.

I'm not a particularly big fan of running modules, but they can be made enjoyable. Typically, I run it as written, making minor adjustments as necessary when players do something unexpected. They never even know the difference.
Occasionally, though, the module just isn't good enough to run in such a manner. In these cases, I take a completely different approach: I rename all important NPCs to Firstname von Plotdevice, describe things as happening in 'a burst of Deus ex Machina', and start making train noises when the PCs suggest doing something that's off the rails. We enjoy it, in the same manner that you enjoy a bad movie.

[nedz]

stuff

Reminds me of this, which is a must read.

[rayne_dragon]

I agree with Savannah that it has more to do with DMs and players than the modules themselves. The difference between a published module and a scenario you wrote yourself is most likely that you wrote yours specifically for your game. Generally, I'll go through a module before I run it and switch around things here and there to cater things to my (and hopefully my player's) tastes and to keep anyone whose read the module before on their toes. It takes me an hour or so to rework an established module, while writing a new one from scratch can take a whole afternoon/evening or more. Plus sometimes I don't feel creative enough to make something good from scratch, so modules can be handy to have around - including for when someone decides to go off the planned path and into an area that hasn't been really been fleshed out yet (because it doesn't just happen in published scenarios that players go "off the rails" and head somewhere you never expected them to explore).

I like to think the people I play with won't metagame. I know when I play a module that I've been through before (and still remember) I generally decide to hang back and let other players figure out the puzzles and traps. At the same time I think it is really fun to be surprised by events during a session, so I like to tweak things enough that someone who has the module memorized would still be able to be shocked and puzzled by it.

I also think that it can be quite different with different games. I rarely like any D&D modules enough to use them at all, only taking the occassional encounter, room, or map from them for my own use. On the other hand, for Call of Cthulhu, I could easily see myself using many of the scenarios for games with minimal retweaking.

[Kalirren]

A follow-up question, alluded to above:

If the proposed solution to the stated issues with modules are to rewrite parts of it, ignore other parts, and improvise on all those aspects that the module doesn't cover... what do you use the module for?

Maps? ...
Treasure? ...
Story hooks? ...
NPCs? ...
So, what's left?

As a DM I struggle with thinking of adventures out of whole cloth. I'm good at downtime and bad at uptime. I'm bad at stringing plots together. Modules often give me something to run, situations that emerge in the group's face and that they get to deal with, which keeps the momentum running.

I use modules modularly; I don't run them in isolation, but connect elements they have to the fabric of whatever gameworld I have. Modules give the PCs something to do, adventures for the adventurers to go on between the times I have them deal with their other connections and build their agency.

[Savannah]

So, what's left?

Depends on the module. I'm currently in the process of reworking two modules.

For one, I'm keeping the plot, because it's awesome and creepy and I would never had come up with it myself. I'm also keeping the maps, geography, and encounters because they all work. I'm redoing the NPCs because the module writer couldn't even build a 2nd level human warrior correctly (*facepalm*) and adding in some more possible clues because I don't think the module writer had enough ways for the PCs to figure out what's going on.

For the other, I like the dungeon crawl (with one or two really minor tweaks), but I'm adding a lot to the beginning and end to give the PCs more reasons to go to the dungeon (and to add a midwinter festival, because I like having more connections to the year in my game and it's fun).

[Shade Kerrin]

Reminds me of this, which is a must read.

Thanks for the read, sounds like the sort of things I wind up doing.

[Kerrin]

On the other hand, for Call of Cthulhu, I could easily see myself using many of the scenarios for games with minimal retweaking.

Oh my, yes. We have quite a collection of Cthulhu modules and module compilations from years ago and I've always enjoyed reading them almost as stories or choose-your-own-adventure type books.

[AslanCross]

My group is fairly new, having completed two campaigns. We started with 3.5.

Before I begin, I'd like to note that I don't associate the presence of a plot (that is, a direction the story is taking) with the negative connotation of a railroad (that is, a story where the PCs have either no choices, or their choices and actions have no significant impact on the course of the story). Perhaps an unconventional position, since on these forums and on the Internet in general, I see that most people tend to associate "plot" with "railroad."

The first campaign I had was a very railroady and stereotypical FR campaign. As it moved along, I began relaxing and adding more options for them, so that while yes, there was a plot, they were not fixed on it and could choose for themselves where they wanted to go. They never reacted negatively to having obvious choices, and in fact, when I ask them "So, where do you want to go?" without having any clear options, they kind of sit there in stunned silence for a bit. (After which the default answer is usually "let's go shopping for items!")

My second campaign was a modified RHOD. I had already set the players' expectations beforehand, so they didn't react negatively to there being a distinct plot and situations where there wasn't much choice. Of course, in the major situations where they did need to make a choice, it was clear that they weren't forced to take one option that is clearly superior over another that clearly lead to their doom.

My group is composed of college-age students (We started playing when they were in 3rd year high school; note that college-age here in the Philippines means 16-21 due to non-standard schooling years) who are mostly fiction writers. As such, they tend to think of our campaigns in terms of a clear plot and parallel character development. They never complain that they don't have enough freedom, although I do encourage that they do things that neither I nor the writers of the module expect. Doing so tends to lead to CMoAs.

As a group we don't really care much for sandbox. The more reserved members of the group are highly uncomfortable with the idea, as they feel it will end up with much random acts of silliness, which, while possibly fun at the outset, is what we do when we're NOT gaming anyway, and so ruins the point of spending hours upon hours preparing, blocking off gaming days, and devoting time to each session.

...my apologies for that lengthy complex sentence.

In any case, I think the following are safe generalizations to make about railroading and sandboxes:

1. It depends on the group's preferences. Some groups are comfortable with sandbox, some aren't. Some groups find too much freedom daunting and want clear options. What I know for sure is that no one likes a bad story, and having no options tends to lead quickly in that direction.

2. Expectations have to be set. If players come into the campaign expecting lots of choice and the meet a railroad, they're definitely going to be disappointed.

3. Many modules are very railroady. I think RHOD has the distinction of having a lot of predicted outcomes ("If they plan to stand and fight..."/"If they plan on assassinating Kharn..."/etc), so it's really good in that aspect. However, a great deal of the others I've read assume that players only stick to one path through a dungeon that possibly presents more than one overt alternative and several more hidden ones. (This is why I care very little for dungeon crawls.)

[valadil]

My module experience is limited to LFR. I've had a good time with it, but agree that it's inhibited by the things the OP describes.

Some GMs are willing to go off rails. Some are willing to make minor changes. These GMs are usually able to make the module fun. The ones who stick to the mod make it boring. In most of these cases I've played written games by those same GMs. Oddly enough the ones willing to go off rails or riff around someones character are the GMs I consider good, even outside of published games.

[Weezer]

As a DM I'm best at improvisation and really, really bad at planning out a whole coherent story/campaign/adventure. Because of this most of my sessions are off the cuff quasi-sandbox games where the prep I do is to stat out some interesting level appropriate monsters/NPCs and maybe draw out a map or two to work in as I go. This results in games that are fun but devoid of any strong plot. So when I or my group gets a hankering for an actual story, I've found that using a module as the skeleton of the story works best for us. I'm good enough at improv to make whatever the players try to do work with the module and the module provides a frame for me to do my improv within.
Though saying that my players sometimes have a hard time adjusting to a campaign where they are expected to actually follow plot hooks and occasionally buck at the rails.

[Jay R]

In all that time, I've never seen a group have a positive experience with a published module.

People who don't know how to drive never have a positive experience with a car.