Some people complain about using published
adventures/settings instead of using homemade materials. Now, I could go into
the other reasons of why I feel it’s ok to use such products, but today I’m
going to give you only one good reason and I think it is one often overlooked.
Variation
I find that when I am writing up an area for my world
setting or writing adventure #56 for my campaign I tend to do the same thing
again…and again. Sure, I try to keep things varied but there is only so much I
can do with one brain. Even if I can come up with something unique, I still use
much the same words and writing style as I have for every other thing I’ve
written.
Using someone else’s product means my campaign/adventure
is using someone else’s words and style of using those words. Their
descriptions of areas include things I normally would not. Their NPCs react and
say things differently than the ones I write up. This keeps things fresh for my
players, both in content and context.
As an example, I tend to have a formula when writing
adventures. I happen to think my formula works well, which is why I use it.
Basically, for every combat encounter I throw at the characters I will endeavor
to include one puzzle in the adventure and then I add in one role-playing
situation to the overall adventure. While I try to keep the encounters
interesting and new, the overall expectations are often the same. However, if I
use a published adventure they will take different approaches. Maybe they use
no puzzles in the adventure; maybe they focus more on role-playing. By utilizing
such an adventure I will have strayed from my formula and given the players something
unique, something separate from myself. In a way, it’s like having a guest DM for the night.
Totally agree with your thesis here - although you can get a similar effect by working with a fellow GM that's not in your group.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you get content that isn't as polished, or as compatible with your group, but other times minds it totally works.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete