As a player: prefer Homebrew or Published settings?

[Doc_Klueless]

This thread I started over here after being sleep deprived from being on Call had some interesting replies that got me thinking. We've seen polls many times that ask GM/DMs if they prefer to run homebrew or published settings, but seldom have we asked players: When all other variables are equal (DM/GM and player involvement, enthusiasm, etc.), which do you prefer to play in?

Myself, with all other things being equal, I prefer playing in published worlds as I think, right or wrong, that it offloads some of the burden from the GM/DM and gives players from different backgrounds and expertise a shared block of knowledge to start from. But that's just me.

Does that mean that I would only play in published worlds? Absolutely not. Some homebrews rock the socks off me. But sometimes. Just sometimes. The DM falls in love with his creation and resists changes to it. I find anecdotally that that happens less with DMs running published settings.

How about you?

 

[LordEntrails]

I prefer a good DM. It is absolutely irrelevant to me if the setting is published or homebrew. Either type can be run excellently or horribly. A DM can take a published setting and run it for the players to have a blast, or it can be a painful chore. Same thing with homebrew.

As a player, it's irrelevant to me. I just want a fun setting, and a group of thoughtful, cooperative, and enjoyable people to play with.

 

[Draegn]

I prefer a home brew setting over a published one. Regardless any GM or player can ruin the game. I find it more indicative of other games where the problem of ruining a published setting exists.

 

[iserith]

I prefer a published setting when everyone at the table is familiar with that setting.

Otherwise, I prefer a homebrew setting that is generated during play via player and DM input.

 

[GlassJaw]

I voted other like the heathen that I am! I prefer a "mashup".

Given an infinite amount of time, I would probably go full-on homebrew. But since that isn't realistic, I like to published settings, ignore what I don't like, and add-in what I do like. I also tend to ignore much of a settings timeline or important NPCs and just use maps, locations, etc. as a starting point.

I also like taking published modules and mashing them together and creating a "pseudo"-homebrew setting. In my old age, I've come to realize how unimportant having a hyper-detailed world is. What the players are doing next session is vastly more important than any high-level world-building.

Now before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying that it's not important at all, I'm just saying that it's far down the list of things that makes a session fun.

 

[Ed Laprade]

I prefer a good DM. It is absolutely irrelevant to me if the setting is published or homebrew. Either type can be run excellently or horribly. A DM can take a published setting and run it for the players to have a blast, or it can be a painful chore. Same thing with homebrew.

As a player, it's irrelevant to me. I just want a fun setting, and a group of thoughtful, cooperative, and enjoyable people to play with.

That's just what I was going to say. Only better!

 

[Shiroiken]

First Preference: a published setting run by a DM who both knows and loves it. They can take the information and bring it alive, while the players can use the information available to them to better interact with the world. It's a great feeling when the DM talks about people, places, or events and you have a frame of reference. Ideally they provide information on which books are valid sources, in case they plan on deviating from canon.

Second Preference: a homebrew setting run by a DM who takes the time to make a campaign document available to the players. While usually not as detailed as published materials, it should be more useful, since it will directly relate to the campaign (no one cares about Mazteca while playing in Kara-Tur).

 

[Tallifer]

As a player it can be fun to explore someone's uniquely created world. As long as that world is interesting and unique.

However, published worlds tend to accommodate different playstyles better. In the case of published worlds, I prefer a dungeon master who edits certain things to suit the tone of the campaign, and spices up the bland things.

Of course, as already mentioned, a good dungeon master makes all the difference.

 

[cbwjm]

Either or, really. I like many of the published settings but I've also had fun playing in a homebrew setting. If the DM is good and the other player's are fun to play with then setting hardly matters.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't care good DM and group dynamics matter more.