Does Your Group Allow Homebrew or 3PP Material for D&D Games?

Mine does, although so far we haven't actually used any, other than a couple of minor tweaks to the core material for flavor's sake. A few items were brought up and discussed and we said we'd try them out, but then they were never followed up on.

So although right now everything in our game is from the core material, we're totally open to the possibility of 3rd party or homebrew material.

 

[CapnZapp]

Inspired by some of the threads going around. Pretty simple question. In your gaming group (not a pick up game with people you don't know, and AL is excluded for obvious reasons), do you allow any sort of 3PP material or homebrew material? Or does your group stick with official RAW published by WoTC only?

Sorry but in your understandable drive to make essentially a yes/no question you made the poll too simple.

My answer is: no homebrew or 3PP under the control of the players

That does not mean I as DM can't or won't make stuff up. I may even make new stuff (like magic items) available to the PCs.

But no character build options from any source that isn't official WotC. If it is 3PP or homebrew it is never anything the players can count on without direct and overt DM intervention.

A strategy borne out of necessity in the 3E era. And still way too much DMs Guild material is hopelessly generous. Most official add-on content is outright stingy with powercreep, and unless a 3PP makes itself well known* to adhere to this policy I won't have it.

*) So well known, in fact, that it transcends the guild and starts to permeate these very forums. I'm never at DMsG, so I wouldn't know unless "Book X from Y" stands out from the crowd so much so people start referecing it here. And even then, I need to hear specific evaluations of the "Book X is really up to par".

So far, about the only 3PP caught on my radar has been the C7 middle-earth book. And it promptly fell on its face with a couple of extremely ill advised last second additions (after the initial pdf; just before print with no time to react to the collective "Noooooo....")

TL;DR: I had to answer no. Just don't assume a no means the monsters can't have homebrew abilities or homebrew loot.

 

[Morrus]

Yup. That's how I started getting into D&D years ago, how I've always played it, and to me it's almost the point of the game. Tweaking and adding to RPGs is as much fun for me as playing them; that they have that functionality (unlike, say, a video game) is their biggest strength.

In fact, I dare say that if that factor had not existed, I'd probably not be playing them today.

I even fill the rulebooks I write for my own game with guidelines on creating content for it; I feel that is a central pillar of the thing.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, by the time we finished playing D&D / AD&D in the early 90's we were using about 75% homebrew (i founf my 20 pages of house rules a few years ago). When I got back into D&D with 4e I started by giving my players a custom player race list that included just about every intelligent, non-unique, monster from the monster manual. For 5e we converted our 4e characters so we have a group of: 1 halfling, 2 elves, a lizard-folk, a dragon, and a yaun-ti. So yes, we homebrew.

 

[ccs]

A very long time ago, in the opening pages of my Basic D&D boxed set & then in my 1e DMG I was outright TOLD to modify the game as I saw fit.

I've been doing that ever since.
I think the very 1st thing we ever changed (about a year in) was to combine the Thief & 1/2ling classes. Because, you know, Hobbit....
The 2nd was how Clerics memorized thier spells.

As the DM I'll alter/change/fabricate/borrow anything I deem neccecary for the game. Either as a whole or just for the current campaign/moment.

If your a player in my game & have a cool idea, find something, or think some tweak will help you make a better* character?
Run it by me. Maybe we'll implement it. Maybe we wont.
If you don't run it by me though I'll reject it outright.

*Better =/= just #s or combat capability. It's got to make things more interesting.

 

[Morrus]

I honestly think I'd have zero interest in RPGs if they didn't have that inbuilt customizability. To me, someone who only uses official material feels so constrained as to defeat the point of the game for me. I know folks like that exist, but it's a mindset that is utterly beyond me.

 

[Ezequielramone]

Mostly yes. I allow this kind of stuff:
1) homebrew (mostly "this is perfect for my concept but this ability does not, so I change it that bonus from X to Y in order to have a better representation in the game of the character), and some stuffs I like on the internet, mostly to complement some core rule I want to expand, like poison use.
2) The not so complete tome of spells https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3541tx/the_not_really_complete_tome_of_spells_updated/
3) En World en5ider
4) Tome of beast (for me as a DM)


Still I don't allow some "official material", like UA (only a few stuffs) or some races depending on the game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My table uses content created by me and approved of by my players, are currently in the middle of campaigns using Rappan Athuk and Carrion Crown converted by me to 5th edition, are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Scarred Lands Player's Guide we kickstarted, use monsters from both Fifth Edition Foes and the Tome of Beasts, and we have other home-brew options (such as a player coming up with an idea and me working with them to make it happen) and 3rd-party materials (like Southland Heroes, Midgard Heroes, classes Matt Mercer did up for 5th edition, and some-but-not-all-of the Book of Lost Spells) that have been approved for use but haven't actually been used yet.

So yeah, we are good with content from any source - so long as it A) interests us, and B) fits within the style of game we want to be playing (which ability draining spells don't, and that's the primary reason there are any disallowed spells from the Book of Lost Spells).

Though there was once a time when I declared as DM that no content should ever be assumed allowed in the game, and that all things no matter where they came from had to be approved by me - but that wasn't an arbitrary "get into play free" card for WotC material; it was me being fed up with the flaws in the core system of the game being exacerbated by numerous rules elements both 1st- and 3rd-party in origin. The result was actually closer to "Sword & Sorcery imprint only" than it was to "WotC only".

 

[KahlessNestor]

I honestly think I'd have zero interest in RPGs if they didn't have that inbuilt customizability. To me, someone who only uses official material feels so constrained as to defeat the point of the game for me. I know folks like that exist, but it's a mindset that is utterly beyond me.

Maybe because as a newish DM I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know better than a team of professional game designers? There are plenty of options that have been thoroughly tested in the official sources.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Morrus]

Maybe because as a newish DM I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know better than a team of professional game designers? There are plenty of options that have been thoroughly tested in the official sources.

It's nothing to do with arrogance or knowing better. It's about using a medium the way it was conceptualised from the beginning. Making it your own. Tabletop RPGs are the quintessential homebrew entertainment medium, unlike movies or video games.

Like decorating your house, y'know? You personalise it. You cook your own meals, right? You don't just restrict yourself to "official" restaurant meals? Making a sandwich isn't arrogance or assuming you're better than a chef.

Well, I do. You don't, clearly. Which is OK, but it's very different to the way I view an RPG.

 

[TwoSix]

Since I hate neither creativity nor joy, my answer is of course yes. Allowing rolled stats is far more imbalanced than 90% of the homebrew material out there, especially the stuff that's been vetted by communities like GiantITP or Reddit's r/unearthedarcana. And En5ider, of course.