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.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I don't think I'd be comfortable playing at a table that was hostile to homebrew or 3pp.

My second 5e character was a minotaur in Dragonlance that was homebrewed by the DM. I'm always giving something a tweak when I DM.

I'd also say that homebrewing is hard to avoid in D&D. The nature of the game means that you're ALWAYS making DMing calls: If you've ever had to make a ruling on stealth, on the interaction of spells, if you've ever made your own adventure, if you've ever determined if something was possible...you're home-brewing. In a small, local way, but the difference between populating a dungeon and using a DMs Guild race (forex) is more one of degree than of kind.

House-ruling something and home-brewing are not the same thing. Making a ruling on how something works or adjusting a rule so that it better fits your group's playstyle is a house-rule. Creating your own world or race or class is home-brew.

 

[CapnZapp]

And obsession with balance is worse than ignoring it. Too much balance makes for blandness and uniformity. Balance is just one tool, not an end unto itself.

That gives me very little faith in anything ENW puts out.

If Morrus means 4E levels of balance, then yes, I completely agree: its uniformness and blandness was its undoing.

5th edition is, at its core, wonderfully designed. Most if not all bugbears of 3rd edition are actually fixed, and not too many babies were thrown out with that bathwater.

And still, there are a few shining examples of "imbalance" made out to be strengths of the edition and not weaknesses. Such as magic items that actually feel magical again.

Or let's pick Fireball the spell for instance. Its eight damage dice make it clearly unbalanced at 5th level.

If that spell didn't exist and you or I added it to, say, a DMs Guild product, we would be shut down instantly, and rightly so. Double standards? Perhaps. It is the game's designers I trust enough to "break the rules". (Whom am I kidding? They can't break the rules! If they add a Fireball spell then that becomes the rules!) That is why first-party support is so valuable for "player crunch", in particular class options and feats (the building bricks of a character).

What I would love is an alternate world where most 3PP was geared towards wonderful adventures, campaigns, and scenarios.

Your or my ideas for a story, a plot, or a dungeon are just as good as Mike Mearls' or Jeremy Crawford's. And the worst thing that could happen is the scenario leading the party into a fight they can't win (and even that might not be so bad); no systemic balance threatened.

I have had great use out of 3PP story and adventure material!

I just wish the customer base didn't crave 90% (99?) player options...

 

[CapnZapp]

I mean, a lot of people here started in 3e (or at the very least played in 3e) where the d20 boom produced some SPECTACULAR products (and a whole boatful of really, really bad ones ). These were products that entered the gaming zeitgheist to the same degree that some of the official books have. Things like Rappan Athuk or Freeport, or Ptolus were very, very popular and widely used.

Let me just note all three products you mention are chiefly campaign and adventure material. View attachment 77962

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the intent of the poll was to counter other people saying things like "most DMs don't allow 3PP", which apparently is not true.

Yeah... but at least to me, this feels so easy to counter it could just as well be a strawman.

I mean, of course most DMs homebrew or use 3PP. Duh, like.

To me, the interesting issue is whether DMs allow 3PP for my character.

That is why I voted "no" even though I use 3PP and homebrew material all the time, on my side of the DM screen.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think I'd be comfortable playing at a table that was hostile to homebrew or 3pp.

My second 5e character was a minotaur in Dragonlance that was homebrewed by the DM. I'm always giving something a tweak when I DM.

I'd also say that homebrewing is hard to avoid in D&D. The nature of the game means that you're ALWAYS making DMing calls: If you've ever had to make a ruling on stealth, on the interaction of spells, if you've ever made your own adventure, if you've ever determined if something was possible...you're home-brewing. In a small, local way, but the difference between populating a dungeon and using a DMs Guild race (forex) is more one of degree than of kind.

Yeah, this is a good example why it's so difficult to discuss when we aren't specific enough.

Banana begins with a statement including "hostile to homebrew". Does he by that mean he demands access to 3PP options for his character? Apparently he does. Personally, I find that completely unreasonable.

But.

Then he significantly nuances that statement. By homebrew he might just mean something as innocous as making stealth rulings? Then I'd have to completely retract my opinion. After all, who doesn't need to make rulings on the clusterfrack that is the stealth rules?

So what is it, Banana? Are you completely unreasonable or not?

PS. For those having a bad reception, the point I've been advocating now for a number of posts is that unless we specify more what we mean, any discussion risks becoming pointless

 

[CapnZapp]

Can you explain to me how the phrase "DMs allow" implies only player options while it is a fact that any 3rd party content entering game-play a particular table is also doing so only if the DM allows it - i.e. the players can't just sit down with their player options from wherever and declare them okay without the DM allowing them to do so, but neither can the players hand the DM monsters or adventures from wherever and declare them okay without the DM allowing them to do so.

Or, to phrase that different in case I'm not being clear above: Can you show me how to see the line that separates "DMs allow the players to use" from "DMs allow their self to use" even when only the words "DMs allow" are present?

Just chiming in to say I don't think anyone is interested in the semantics.

I just want to avoid answering "do you homebrew/3PP" with a yes to be interpreted as allowing 3PP for charbuilds.

That is all.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Just chiming in to say I don't think anyone is interested in the semantics.

I don't think that is accurate, since someone - not me, by the way - began a discussion of the semantics. That's what @Corpsetaker's claim of things "not counting" despite his own words not explicitly limiting what counts, and @Shiroiken's suggestion that "DMs allow" implied one but not both sides of the screen are - semantics.

I just want to avoid answering "do you homebrew/3PP" with a yes to be interpreted as allowing 3PP for charbuilds.

That is all.

It is fine that you wanted it to be clear that you allow 3rd party material in your campaigns more selectively. Of course, that answers a different question than was actually asked by the poll, and shows us that at least 1 of the "no" results recorded above is actually a "yes" - because the claim being tested by the poll was not worded appropriately to mean what we've later been told that it was intended to mean.

Much like how if I say "I don't eat fish." and then later inform you that I don't consider canned tuna to count as fish, and I do eat canned tuna, it is accurate to say that my initial statement is incorrect.

Also, I find the other poll to be interesting since the answers on it, despite being much fewer in quantity (I guess many of the folks that answered this poll found some reason not to answer the other), still show the majority of answers given being contrary to the statement starting this whole "poll dance" as written, and as was stated to be intended to mean "most DMs don't allow 3rd party player materials in their games".

 

[Morrus]

This is why I found your comments of playing with official rule only as “being beyond me” not very constructive. Basically, you are just saying my way of playing RPG is better than yours which is obviously not true.

For clarity, those are your words, not mine. What I'm saying is exactly what I typed.

 

[JeffB]

Unsure how to answer.

I have house rules. I have stole some things from other systems. I use homebrew adventures. I use 3p adventures or campaign material. This is for any game really..

For 5e in particular- No 3p classes, races, spells, etc on the player side of things. Pretty much only use the Basic Rules and additional spells from the PHB on the player side. 3p player crunch never comes up except one time I whipped up a quick pf gunslinger conversion for a one shot. If it did come up, I would take it on a case by case basis. My players are not really invested in the (any) system, financially (at all) or emotionally. Its very casual. Like playing a boardgame a couple times a month.

 

[Shiroiken]

Can you explain to me how the phrase "DMs allow" implies only player options while it is a fact that any 3rd party content entering game-play a particular table is also doing so only if the DM allows it - i.e. the players can't just sit down with their player options from wherever and declare them okay without the DM allowing them to do so, but neither can the players hand the DM monsters or adventures from wherever and declare them okay without the DM allowing them to do so.

Or, to phrase that different in case I'm not being clear above: Can you show me how to see the line that separates "DMs allow the players to use" from "DMs allow their self to use" even when only the words "DMs allow" are present?

Allowing something implies permission to someone else, and I've never heard of a player asking the DM permission for the DM use something. Very few people would use the work "allow" when referencing themselves (dieting is the only example I can think of). When referring to oneself, most people would use the phrase "DMs use."

Now semantics can be argued endlessly (because that's what forums are for ), but as I said, this poll isn't going to show the whole story.