As a player: prefer Homebrew or Published settings?

[iserith]

Once again I'm your opposite, my friend; as I prefer a published setting only when no-one is familiar with it (except perhaps - perhaps - the DM), thus to avoid canon lawyers, unmet expectations, and a DM who may not be willing to change the canon to make a better game.

But, as there pretty much isn't any such setting out there these days, I'm homebrew all the way.

Canon lawyering is a personality issue as is the DM unwilling to change the canon. Don't play with those sorts of people. I don't.

I think a lot of the reasons you're "opposite" me is, so far as I can tell from this and other posts, gaming in a way that tries to address people's various personality issues. I just don't play with people who have issues.

As a player, I'd rather explore something completely new to me, which can't happen if I've helped build it in the first place.

Lanefan

You could just not offer up anything in such a game. Everything the DM and other players build will be new to you.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It is not just that. Look at the range in quality in WotC's own 5E adventures. The first few were farmed out to other companies to produce, so they are second party products, and their overall quality was not as good as the subsequent ones produced in-house by WotC. But those early adventures are still better in quality than probably 80% of third party adventures.

Yep. Although to be fair, those were also written during the time the rules had yet to be finalized. I'm sure they tweaked things as the rules were finished, but it must have been tough to be writing an adventure for a new system.

I don't pretend that my homebrew version of the Realms is necessarily better than what's published, although I'd probably argue it's better than a lot of things that have been published over the years. Having said that, the reason I like a combination of the two is that I can take the best of what's been published and tailor it to our group. And that's really what it comes down to for me, homebrew stuff can be custom fit for the specific group, but published material can leverage many more minds as input. So take the best of both worlds.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is not just that. Look at the range in quality in WotC's own 5E adventures. The first few were farmed out to other companies to produce, so they are second party products, and their overall quality was not as good as the subsequent ones produced in-house by WotC. But those early adventures are still better in quality than probably 80% of third party adventures.

Not 80% of the good 3pp (Kobolds, Goodman, Frog God, Paizo) probably better than 80% of the DMGuild stuff.

Assuming of course you take away the uber production values and look at the adventure. Full colour art is nice but B/W looks good and if the adventure is cheap/good the art doesn't matter to much and B/W is nicer on the printer. 80% of Questsof Doom is better than 80% of the early WoTC stuff and the worst ones are still better than the worst WoTC ones.

WoTC is batting just a bit over 60% maybe 70% hits vs average/meh adventures. Probably slightly better than Paizo these days, worse than them if you look at the equivalent amount of time. 50% hits is a good ratio IMHO better than what TSR pulled off (they made some gems and some dud).

Adventure deign is more an art form IMHO. The best adventure designers do not work for WoTC (Kobolds, Frog Gods, Paizo, maybe Green Ronin).

 

[Lanefan]

Canon lawyering is a personality issue as is the DM unwilling to change the canon. Don't play with those sorts of people. I don't.

I think a lot of the reasons you're "opposite" me is, so far as I can tell from this and other posts, gaming in a way that tries to address people's various personality issues. I just don't play with people who have issues.

I play with friends, who I take as they are.

You could just not offer up anything in such a game. Everything the DM and other players build will be new to you.

True, but I'd also then feel like a second-string player once the game got started as everyone else would know things I don't; and it'd be a forebearance on their patience while things they already knew were explained/narrated to me as if they were brand new to all.

No. DMs build worlds, players play in them and learn about them as equals.

 

[Bitbrain]

More than anything, I want a good DM.

One whose world (published or homebrew) possesses multiple factions, many of which want to hire the adventurers to perform quests for them. I'd also like almost all of said factions to be violently at odds with each other.

I want the DM to involve my PC's background into the game. Tell me that my character has known these particular NPCs all his life, and have them be like his family. Have these NPCs involved in the handing out of quests just as often as everyone else.

 

[Tallifer]

Homebrew worlds inspire me and other players to draw about the cool stuff that has no images anywhere on the intenet.

 

[Imaculata]

Homebrew all the way. In my experience homebrew settings just tend to be far more compelling to me than the default settings.

 

[mrrockitt]

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.

I agree with Glassjaw, if I was a player I would not mind homebrew, published or a mix of both if the DM is good and the story fun and absorbing (although I'm cheating a bit because this is how I currently DM).
As a 'player' on a Saturday night in games of official 5e WOTC adventures I have to avoid using those adventures when I 'DM' on a Tuesday, (my Saturday DM plans for us to play every WOTC campaign over the months and years to come so I must avoid those at all costs on a Tuesday night!).

I DM for a group of brand new, young D&D players who care nothing for D&D history and canon so I can pretty much make it up as I go along. I blend official bits with third-party stuff which allows a great deal of imagination and freedom. So, 'mashup' every time for me!

 

[guachi]

The reticence I have for homebrew is that the DM will be too in love with his setting. Players should absolutely engage with the fictional world presented to them but DMs need to be able to take a step back from their setting.

 

[iserith]

I play with friends, who I take as they are.

I play with people who are good at playing D&D (by my standards). Those who aren't so good, but who are also my friends, are people with whom I do other things instead.

True, but I'd also then feel like a second-string player once the game got started as everyone else would know things I don't; and it'd be a forebearance on their patience while things they already knew were explained/narrated to me as if they were brand new to all.

No. DMs build worlds, players play in them and learn about them as equals.

Your objection to what I said doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems more likely this is an objection to your belief that players should have no say in the world-building process than a care for anyone else's patience.