Playing D&D: Homebrew or Published Setting? Why?

[Charlaquin]

My table uses a homebrew setting as far as the map went. But we still play in the implied setting.

Like, you could say that in 3e we played in a Greyhawk with a different landscape, and in 4e we played in a different region than Nentir Vale. But the gods, the flavor, the feel, the races, etc, were taken from the Players Handbooks.

That makes more sense in 3e and 4e, where there was definitely an implied setting, but now that 5e doesn't actually use any one setting throughout the core books, I guess the answer is definitely Homebrew.

. . . I'm not actually sure what Pantheon we're using - other than to say "all of them, or none of them, just drawing in whatever gods get mentioned in play. "

I think 5e does have an implied setting, actually. They take a very light touch with it, but there’s a lot of loose bits of lore sprinkled throughout. For example, we can gather from the player’s handbook that drow exist, and were exiled to the underdark (which also exists) at some point in history. And I think they’ve been gradually ratcheting up how much of this assumed setting they’ve been revealing in the books, with Mordenkainen’s Tome now revealing that the Blood War happened, more details on the history of the Elves and their cultural divides, presumably some info about the Gith/Illithid war, etc. It’s mostly realms lore, but the fact that it’s compiled by a Greyhawk character seems to indicate that the 5e assumed setting is probably an updated Planescape.

 

[Azzy]

Traditionally, I've almost always homebrewed as a DM, and played in homebrewed settings as well. Recently, I DMed and am now playing in Greyhawk. The next time I run a D&D game, I'll probably homebrew it, though.

 

[Jester David]

I've done both. I've run campaigns in Ravenloft, Dragonlance, the Forgotten Realms, and Golarion. But I've also made 2-3 homebrew campaign settings.

 

[dave2008]

Homebrew. I have always played in my own campaign. When I started playing in the 80's I didn't even realize there were established settings so it never occurred to me to play any other way.

 

[Wiseblood]

Homebrew, my players have no idea about d&d settings and are not motivated to learn. I can steal what I like but I don't need to research any specific setting. I can set the tone and the politics and geography. Lore is an emergent feature.

 

[Nevvur]

Pure homebrew. I strongly dislike the cosmology of 'standard' D&D (gods/planes/alignment/etc), and this prompted me to begin work on a universe that better suited my tastes. I've been building and revising my world for several years now, so familiarity and ease of running stories in it weighs heavily against the odds of me ever running something else.

I frequently use maps I find online for grid based combat, and some of those have been from official APs, but I populate them according to my setting and the story in which they feature, not whatever adventure they were originally made for.

 

[Lanefan]

When you play or run a game of D&D, do you homebrew up your campaign setting or use a published setting?

Homebrew, if it's to be anything more than a one-off game. That way I can make it what I want and somewhat cohesively build in things like history, climate, politics, pantheons, astronomy etc. as I go along. Trying to kitbash a canned setting to these ends is IME much more work than doing it all from scratch; and even after doing the kitbash work there's the ever-present risk of ending up with a canon lawyer as a player at some point...nope, not for me, thanks.

However, when I play, I like playing in published games as I can read up on the lore and feel more immersed in the world.

It's just the opposite for me: I don't want to know anything about the game world going in, so I can immerse myself in exploring and discovering it as play goes on. Knowing stuff about the setting ahead of time kinda ruins that.

Lan-"I'll make a map, and then where the map is blank I'll go"-efan

 

[redrick]

Settings books are some of the deadliest to read for me, so my attempts to use published settings generally run aground when I get bored of learning about the published setting. Easier to start with a concept for a homebrew and fill in the details on places as I need them. When my current player group started, there was also a lot of disdain for published material in general from the other players, so the DM was sort of expected to homebrew. That said, our current DM is running a campaign set on Faerun. My knowledge of Faerun is limited to vague memories of the Baldur's Gate video game, so it might as well be homebrew from where I'm sitting.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Always homebrew. I have played published settings, but I've no interest in them now.

I'd rather have a weird, clumsy idiosyncratic setting which is totally unique to a single gaming group than run through a pre-fab adventure path that thousands of other people have done. Lots of people have defeated Strahd. I'm one of four that have defeated Corpulent Vashtoo, King of the Nightcity.

And when I run games, it's far easier for me to create than to read and remember. Hundreds of pages of world material and adventure background? Nope, do not what. In that time I can work up something far more fitting for myself and my group.

 

[billd91]

I generally use published settings. Not only is a lot of work done for me by someone else (saving me time), they also spark my imagination. I like working off frameworks that are already there, so published but not overly detailed settings are among my favorites.