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.

 

[Remathilis]

I use some DMs Guild and homebrew, mostly for monsters or class options, to augment (rather than replace) WotCs stuff.

 

[MiraMels]

I think there's a weird generational thing, where the way folks are introduced to RPGs is different. Back then, the very rulebooks told you to home-brew the crap out of it. Now there's this weird cult of "officialdom". Literally, a label is all that matters - I guess branding works. It's very contrary to the spirit of RPGs as I grew up with them, and I feel it is damaging them immeasurably. RPGs have gone from punk rock to Disneyland.

That IS strange. I don't even allow all the official stuff. SCAG is taken for granted at most 5th edition tables I've seen outside AL, but I don't play with it.

I own it; I use the setting details when running games in Faerun, and I'll sometimes suggest a background out of it when it suits a player's character concept. But the races and subclasses? Not a chance. They're haphazardly built, and they don't suit the philosophy of 5th edition at ALL.

 

[epithet]

I think there's a weird generational thing, where the way folks are introduced to RPGs is different. Back then, the very rulebooks told you to home-brew the crap out of it. Now there's this weird cult of "officialdom". Literally, a label is all that matters - I guess branding works. It's very contrary to the spirit of RPGs as I grew up with them, and I feel it is damaging them immeasurably. RPGs have gone from punk rock to Disneyland.

Thanks for making me feel like an old man.

I can't imagine a D&D group that was unwilling to consider homebrewed rules, or a DM who wouldn't even consider indulging a player who wanted to use a 3rd party class or spell. I doubt there are many DMs who would refuse to build a custom npc or monster, or to use one from an "unofficial" source, including posts from random people on the web. Any responsible, capable DM will look at any content and evaluate it for the campaign and the party, making changes where appropriate. The published rules are just a starting point, the framework upon which your game is built, and not a shell within which your campaign is forced to fit.

I can see the value in agreeing to stick to the basic rules and a module as written for a new group, or for an established group trying out a new game system. Beyond that, if you don't take ownership of the game and make it your own, you're doing it wrong. I know that sounds pompous in the extreme, but I honestly believe it. Sure, you can have a fun time playing the game without deviating from the published rules, using only the published adventures and even the published pre-gen characters. That's a pale shadow of the thrill you can get from the collaborative creation of a "homebrewed" game.

There is risk involved, to be sure. There's no "play-testing" and there's no one else to blame. Some of what you create will, inevitably, suck. That's ok, in fact some of the worst homebrew content winds up inspiring some of the best stuff later on. The important thing is to own it, to collaborate, to indulge your creativity and let your friends indulge theirs, too.

When a player says "I want to play a halfling barbarian," the correct answer is never "I don't think that's optimal, it won't be balanced with the other characters." As long as your campaign has halflings and barbarians, the correct answer is "We can totally make that work."

 

[Inchoroi]

I've always been of the opinion that 3pp or homebrew is usually allowed--however, it is the sole province of the DM to decide whether or not the homebrew or 3pp product is balanced. Sometimes, they aren't, and I'll fix them if I can, or ban them outright if they can't be fixed. There will always be that one point where what a player wants to do isn't out of theme for the setting but also isn't covered by the existing mechanics.

On the contrary, though, I've had DMs that refused to allow any 3pp or homebrew of any kind. I found this limiting as a player, because I've simply been playing these games too long and have done the "basics" before.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't know what other thread that is, but I think there's a risk you're not representing that claim correctly.

Here are a couple of quotes that show why I am representing that claim in the way that I am, with bold added by me for emphsis:

"No. I see it as a place that WoTc feels can take some of the heat off them to create more content. I don't think they are dumb to think that magically fan crafted material suddenly becomes accepted. If they allowed the stuff in AL then I would agree, but even they should know by now that most DM's still do not allow fan created material."

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-options-so-please-stop/page13#ixzz4OVVprYxI
​

"There's been quality stuff out there for years now through various editions of D&D. Doesn't change the fact that lots of DMs still do not allow things outside of what comes from Wizards. 5th edition hasn't changed that attitude"

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-options-so-please-stop/page24#ixzz4OVWClAUS
​

Between those two statements, it is very reasonable for someone to think that "fan created material" meant literally all fan-created material, regardless of who the fan is or what kind of material it happened to be since there were no conditional stipulations provided or implied in any way. Similarly, it is very reasonable for someone to think that "things outside of what comes from Wizards" meant literally all things outside of what come from Wizards since, again, there were no conditional stipulations provided or implied in any way.

After all, you cut Shiroiken off before he could say this:

The part I omitted doesn't actually change the part I kept in the quote and addressed because...

So, again, what are we really discussing here?

What I was discussing with Shiroiken before you interjected your assumptive accusations that I was doing something wrong is why this poll was phrased in the way that was being called problematic. Because the poll isn't problematic, it's just specifically testing a claim that was made (and quoted above - it's the second bolded portion of the first quote presented) rather than seeking to figure out which sort of non-official material it is that people are using or which side of the DM screen that non-official material gets used on.

 

[Jester David]

I do not remember what it was like back in the days of the RPGA, but in recent years, with Pathfinder Society and Adventurer's League only allowing their company's material, and many players maybe only getting to play through these organizations, that kind of mindset can stick with these players and DMs when they get to finally have a non-Organized Play game.

That's possibly part of the issue. But OP was always a thing, and always was official only. We're more aware of it, but I'm not certain *that* many more people are playing organized play.

I think three things had the strongest impact on homebrew:
1) The rise of official 3rd Party stuff during 3e
2) The wealth of official options during 3e
3 The rise of "balance"

Balance was the big one. Suddenly, things were either balanced or unbalanced and it was much more obvious what was good homebrew vs bad. Prior to 3e there was some element of "balance" but it was much more fluid. Designing good homebrew was harder.
This is paired with all the 3PP, which really introduced many people to bad products. The idea that there wasn't some minimum standard of quality and you couldn't necessarily trust a product to be good.
Added into this drama was the myriad of options which made it less necessary to homebrew. If you wanted to play certain things in 2e you simply had to homebrew. You didn't in 3e: you just needed to find the right book. And it was a simple matter to find options you wanted to play: it was easier to base a character around the options available than find options that fit the character.

The internet and even piracy likely made a difference as well. If you wanted an option in 1e or 2e and didn't have the book, finding out where that option would be could be tricky, and getting a copy of that exact book was hard. Then it was a Google search or eBay/Amazon purchase away. You were more aware of what options were out there.
And even if you didn't want to buy the book, it was possible to get the options through a PDF. Not having an unlimited gaming budget was less of an obstacle. It was easily to track down an illegal copy of a warrior prestige class than it was to design your own...

Spinning out of that, I think a lot of DMs pushed back against the options. Because there was so much power creep in the game, it became desirable to get "back to basics" and focus on just the core rulebooks. I saw several DMs doing a PHB only campaign, with even official material requiring a stamp of approval.

 

[Azzy]

I homebrew, I house rule, I'll allow 3PP/DM-created/Player-created material on an individual basis, and I'll work with players that want something the books don't exactly over (assuming it fits with the campaign and the setting). However, even "official" material is subject to scrutiny.

 

[Grimjack99]

Yes, I allow outside material, with my approval. The same goes for most of the DM's I know. Often, this is the only way to try out new outside material to see how it fits in with the other rules. Sure, the first step is for us to read and say hmmmm, sounds good. Second comes the test drive to just see how it shaggs out. I think Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter is an excellent example of an outside product that should be cannon, and AL legal.

I also run Adventure League. While the rules are defined, and closed; DM's do have a lot of freedom to make the material their own. The AL DM's Guide v2.0 SKT p.4 states: "You can also adjust the adventure on the fly, beyond the guidelines given in the adventure, or make other changes as you see fit in order to insure your players have a good time." While I do not take this as card blanche to bring in outside material; if its a dedicated table of set players, I do a lot of tweaking of the material to add story elements for each character, and to enhance the game play.

As in a Shakespearean play, an actor's delivery of a line can change its entire meaning. The same can be said for a DM, and their game session. DM's should feel empowered to make whatever changes they feel comfortable with to deliver a fantastic session to their players.

Finally, props to Jester David for his insightful comments (see a few postings above). The game has changed a lot over the years, as has the point of view in both the gaming community and industry.

 

[Blue]

I always run homebrew settings, and both independently and with my players work up homebrew classes/items/races/etc. to match. I'll also grab ideas from forums and blogs. I don't do any 3PP - which is a shame, there's a lot of good stuff out there. It's more of I have so many setting ideas and campaign ideas that if I'm not using those i don't know where I'd find a body or work that'd be useful. I don't run adventures for the same reason.

 

[pdzoch]

We stick with the official WoTC materials, but that isn't because the 3rd party materials are not any good. Instead, it is more a function of my group still exploring the possibilities the base materials provide. I only recently got them to try new character classes and races recently. However, as one of my group has finally decided to dabble in the DM workload, he has taken an interest in any material, official or not, for his game. In a way, it does help me enjoy his game as there are many new things in it that I do not typically use in my campaign.