Question for Players: Commercial or Homebrew?

[rounser]

In my experience, homebrew worlds are a mastubatory exercise in PC railroading. Most are an excuse for some schmuck DM to impose his personal aesthetics on players, while hiding behind the smoke screen of "Sorry...Paladins don't fit my world"

Is this the continuation of a new trend that was started in that other thread? Because this....objection, concern, whatever you want to call it...is just about unheard of previously, so far as I know.

And is that trend just a way of saying "you're wrong to ban dragonborn!", and therefore just a continuation of whether or not WOTC got the implied setting right? Because I'm siding with the banning homebrewers who don't care that you like dragonborn.

Good on them, I say. Ban away. Gate the darn things off on an eternal Contiki Tour of the 666th layer of the abyss...or at least to a supplement, where they belong, and can be more easily ignored as the optional race that they should be. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they weren't core, and IMO they shouldn't be core.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I've just thought of another question for Gizmoduck5000:
What about published settings which are possibly obscure or are in some other way difficult and/or expensive for the players to get ahold of meaning that the group only has one copy which the DM would have to hand around and so it takes a while (and becomes impossible if you have a paper document and play online)? (And what do you do if the document is a PDF that's hard to print?)

Is this better than writing up your own simple homebrew?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Assume that homebrew settings are well-done and executed by a decent GM.

In my experience, homebrew worlds are a mastubatory exercise in PC railroading. Most are an excuse for some schmuck DM to impose his personal aesthetics on players

So, you basically feel that most internet posts are a masturbatory exercising in voicing whatever viewpoint you personally have, an excuse for somebody to impose his personal feelings when they explicitly aren't responses to the OP...

Interesting...

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I prefer good home brew, then well done commercial, then bad commercial, then bad home brew.

The worst home brew is the worst of the worst, and I'd stake it against a bad, horrible Elminster saves the day again FR campaign...

Of course, if you changed enough FR so it was almost unrecognizable and maybe made it have Elminster/Drizzt slashfic influence... *shudder*

 

[Woas]

Sort of neither actually. When I first started out I was one of those horrible GMs that spent more time with my imaginary world and couldn't handle players messing it all up.

But you grow and change and most importantly learn. And what I learned are settings, regardless if the GM made it (home made) or purchased it, they all suck. All I want to know is that the adventure is going to be fun and the group is going to have fun.

 

[Byronic]

As a player I don't mind much, I prefer to give a few suggestions either way to build a "niche" for myself.

As a DM I prefer homebrewed, I find the published ones rather tame. I make my homebrewed ones based on what I know about the players personality, playing style etc and even a good published setting wouldn't be able to do that. Also with a published one I'd end up changing so much it would end up custom made anyway.

 

[Hussar]

Is this the continuation of a new trend that was started in that other thread? Because this....objection, concern, whatever you want to call it...is just about unheard of previously, so far as I know.

/snip

Rounser - what?

I know for a fact you participated in that rather lengthy thread about world building. That was what? A year ago? More? I expressed almost word for word exactly what Gizmoduck said then. And it wasn't a new thing then either.

Back to the OP.

Both in my opinion. I've had tons of fun in both. A well made campaign is a great thing, regardless of setting. But, having just played in a great Eberron campaign, I can honestly say that it helped being set in Eberron. The DM leavened the game with just the right amount of setting goodies to make it interesting without blowing anyone's mind.

I've also played in people's homebrews where it's been almost the same experience.

I don't think I really have a preference truth be told. So long as you got an interesting campaign, I'm good to go.

 

[Dykstrav]

Depends on the DM and the nature of the game in my opinion.

I've played in homebrews and commerical settings both where the DM has gotten a hair up their ass about changing the setting over the course of play. Fidelity to prepared material is a bigger problem than choice of settings, in my opinion. But I base this on my own preferences, I like a setting where my character can make a difference, for good or ill--I hate being told that I can't do something because I'd "trash the setting" or that the setting doesn't support certain character types or whatever. It can all be railroading, whether or not the DM is trying to be creative.

If a DM tells you that your cleric is required to undertake a quest to slay undead because his faith demands it, I don't really care if he's "required" to do it because he worships Pelor, Lathander, the Silver Flame, or Generic Sun Deity From A Homebrew #14,598. It's still ham-fisted railroading, whether it takes place in a published setting or a homebrew.

That being said, it does seem like more homebrewers tend to be bad about railroading than those who use puiblished settings. I don't really know why.

Given a choice, as a player, I'd rather have a published setting. I like to be a bit informed about the sort of world I'll be playing in, and I'd rather not be limited to a single player as a source of information for the setting. A homebrew with an actual document that I can read before playing is just as satisfying.

As a DM, I'm willing to play in pubished settings if they support the campaign type I'm going for. I also like for my players to come in informed, so I'll typically reserve my homebrew with its eccentricities for players I know well.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

Is this the continuation of a new trend that was started in that other thread? Because this....objection, concern, whatever you want to call it...is just about unheard of previously, so far as I know.

And is that trend just a way of saying "you're wrong to ban dragonborn!", and therefore just a continuation of whether or not WOTC got the implied setting right? Because I'm siding with the banning homebrewers who don't care that you like dragonborn.

Good on them, I say. Ban away. Gate the darn things off on an eternal Contiki Tour of the 666th layer of the abyss...or at least to a supplement, where they belong, and can be more easily ignored as the optional race that they should be. We wouldn't be having this discussion if they weren't core, and IMO they shouldn't be core.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't played a Dragonborn yet. So far my favorite race in 4th Edition has been Dwarves.

You know what race I absolutely can't stand though? Shadar-Kai. I hate everything about them...the look, the fluff, the shameless pandering to moody teenagers. They're even worse than Drow.

But if one of my Players decides they want to play a Shadar Kai Paladin of the Raven Queen (*gag*) then I'm going to let them, because a Dm's most important job is facilitating fun for the players, no matter what hideously trite character concepts they throw at you.

And when a DM imposes his/her fun over that of the players over a simple matter of personal aesthetics, then that DM needs their head removed from their ass.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

So, you basically feel that most internet posts are a masturbatory exercising in voicing whatever viewpoint you personally have, an excuse for somebody to impose his personal feelings when they explicitly aren't responses to the OP...

Interesting...

The OP asked whether we prefer homebrewed or commercial settings, and our reasons why.

I did just that.

I fail to see how I skewed from the topic at hand, other than voicing an unpopular opinion.