opinion, give me the pros and cons of...

[rathor]

running a game from a sourcebook or running it from your own world.

In my mind, i like sourcebooks because i don't want to do too much work when i don't have the time. however, i like the flexibility and freedom of my world. I like mixing them. I am running a FR game now and I am brainstorming a way to get the characters teleported to a remote island nation... prehaps a different plane all together... and run my game there... since then i would have flexibility of storyline but have all the hard crap done for me since characters are from toril.

I was under the impression most dms run their own world, but i see a lot of sourcebook questions posted.

 

[Crothian]

Running from a published world:

1) It has a greater sense of depth and history
2) Players are more familiar with the world
3) Less work
4) you can talk about it easier with other people

Running your own world
1) You can design it to fit exactly what you want
2) you can change things easier and players won't complain as much when you do
3) players can read mor esupllements then you

Not all the reasons hold true for all circumstances. PErsonally, I do a little of both. If it is mostly my world I will steal from the published products. Or if I run a published world, I'l;l change enough to make it feel like my own.

 

[rathor]

PErsonally, I do a little of both. If it is mostly my world I will steal from the published products. Or if I run a published world, I'l;l change enough to make it feel like my own. [/B]

most dms i know do this. i have problems with guys who have read ALL the fr books and get mad if I change anything. Also, had players run into Artimes Entreri once this summer and they managed to kill him. I actually had a player never come back because he was so in love with Entreri.

 

[the Jester]

I like my homebrew campaign world better than running from sourcebooks by a long shot.

Actually, by the time I was done with Greyhawk (back when I ran it), it was pretty much a homebrew world too. The standard GH gods were almost all dead or vastly changed; the nations were changed; more or less only the geography was (largely) the same. Of course, this was some 2000 years after the 1e boxed set... (many campaign timeline advances).

The main advantage to a homebrew setting is creativity. It's all you, baby. Also, there's the fact that nobody will ever be able to outknowledge you about your campaign world or tell you that such-and-such should be more so-and-so than the way you run it. Also, you'll never buy a supplement that messes with your planning, never feel like you're obligated to follow a metaplot inserted into a lame book or whatever. I know, I know, you NEVER have to follow the metaplot or let a supplement invalidate your views; but lemme ask you this, are there any FR dms on the boards here who assume the Time of Troubles didn't happen? And if so, how much of all the 3e and 2e supplements do you have to tweak to make 'em fit your vision?

The main advantage to running a canned setting is that you have a lot less prep work to do. Maps? Came in the book. Canned modules are out there, with no "fitting" required. Prestige classes, organizations, etc- all already done up for you. Of course, if you don't have the supplement that has the prc your player wants to play, you might have to eventually homebrew it up or shell out the $$ (or make the player shell out the $ for it).

The thing is, you still have tons of prep to do for a good campaign in a canned setting, it's just a different type of prep work. Instead of mapping the kingdom, you have to read about it. Instead of making up the government system you have to stat out the baron the party is going to attack.

I personally find that being able to cannibalize things from any setting into my own vision of fun adventure is easiest when I'm creating the setting. I guess that what it boils down to is, are you comfortable and happy with adapting someone else's vision into yours? Or would you rather do the extra work to start from scratch?

 

[rathor]

.

obviously good points. your world of greyhawk sounds interesting. i like the idea of a homebrew world, but i have to do a little stealing. do you think the idea of "teleporting" characters from fr to another world that is homebrew is corney? i bet it has been done before.

 

[the Jester]

Re: .

obviously good points. your world of greyhawk sounds interesting. i like the idea of a homebrew world, but i have to do a little stealing. do you think the idea of "teleporting" characters from fr to another world that is homebrew is corney? i bet it has been done before.

Well, my WoG was fun, but eventually Tharizdun woke up and ate nature. B'bye. Of course, this is all part of the background of my current campaign world, so it's all good.

As to teleporting pcs from FR to a homebrew: well, I'd use the term plane shift instead. Seriously, it shouldn't be too big of a problem, but be ready for pcs to try to get "home" and be prepared with a good reason why they can't (or else make it a multiplanar campaign, or else give them a good reason to stay in the brave new world you create).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The advantage of published settings is that it easier to change the DM - we take turns at it in our group, and thus everyone can get an understanding of the "base setting".

The advantage of a homebrew is that you can tweak it exactly as you like, and throw in all your cool ideas. But it is also a lot of work, as I am currently discovering...

 

[rounser]

I'd also add that you don't need a whole world. In fact, the sheer scale of a world can distract you from the nitty gritty of the campaign itself.

An island tens or hundreds of square miles in size, or a single city (and surroundings) are often more than enough to keep the PCs up to their necks in trouble for an entire campaign....especially if you stick with the default rate of level gain.

 

[Psion]

Pros of Homebrewing:

FREEDOM! - This is the biggie as far as I am concerned. There is no need to follow a line of supplements to understand what is going on. There are no wrinkled noses from purists about the content of the world, and no frustration of knowing if you deviate from the party line, the more you will be cutting across the grain.

Cons:

Less support, more work for you - Someone said that world details detract from the game. That sounds like utter crap to me. Details about a world are the pieces you put your game together with. If the nation is going to war, you need someone to go to war with. If the ancient history of the world dictates current events, you need that history.

Producing these sorts of details in a consistent, beleivable fashion takes time and skill. Sure, you can run a game without these sort of background details, but it produces a more vapid gaming experience IMHO.

That said, this is not such a big problem these days. Many d20 publishers are producing world-independent supplements like Bluffside and Urban Blight, and more WotC stuff is being produced with an eye towards portability.


As a side note, if you are looking to make a homebrew, scrounge up a copy of the AD&D 2e World Builder's Guide. It has a lot of useful elements and ideas to help you fill in the blanks about a homebrew world.

 

[Buttercup]

Players are more familiar with the world

This is exactly why I would never run FR. Two of my players know way more about FR than I do, and I don't want to hear it, you know? Having your players know a bit about the world would be convenient at times, since everyone would know the same basics, such as geography and cosmology, but IMO the costs outweigh the benefits.