As a player: prefer Homebrew or Published settings?

[Vymair]

My DMs are great homebrewers, so I prefer what they enjoy doing. They have run in published settings from time to time, but the most memorable campaigns have been the home brew campaigns. As long as the DM and the table are engaged with the setting, that's the most important thing.

 

[iserith]

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.

Yes, I've seen that behavior before in the past. It seems less common now than it was from my perspective.

For my part, I'll build that sand castle and happily invite the players to wreck it just to see what happens.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I share this reservation myself about homebrew settings.

I cannot answer the OP's question. Settings are nice in that they provided "knowns" for players. The play expectations are often somewhat clear. There are some settings that I enjoy and gladly play (e.g., Eberron), and there are others that I would not touch with a 5 meter pole (e.g., Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance). However, there are too many unknowns with homebrews. I have experienced way too many bad homebrew settings with GMs for the reasons that [MENTION=6785802]guachi[/MENTION] mentions. I generally have found greater enjoyment in homebrews where the GM is not selling the "homebrew" as a homebrew setting, but, rather, simply expressing a desire to play the game. But these latter homebrews, IME, typically follow the Greyhawk and 4E Points of Light model for settings.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

View attachment 97715

That map is wonderful. Bravo!

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

I voted "other" because published settings always change in their implementation. They are only so proscriptive. And being changed as they are used actually at a table, they become more Homebrew than textual.

 

[kbrakke]

I voted other because I want to play in a setting that the GM is passionate and knowledgable about, without being to obsessed. In my own experience I have played with a DM who had read a great deal of the FR books in a FR game, and it's great, he knows about the world and it feels rich and detailed, but I have never felt constricted by the lore. That same DM has recently started a new game in his own homebrew world, and it's great. Our intro adventure was our characters reliving the past of the world, and it was again rich and detailed, but never constrictive.
I would like to believe that I have done the same thing, first taking a long campaign through Eberron, and now developing a homebrew world.

 

[flametitan]

I voted other as well.

Whether the setting came from their imagination or a book of someone else's, all that really matters is that the DM makes it feel real.

 

[alienux]

I'm just as happy to play in either type of setting. As long as it's a good group and a good game, I don't care if it's published or homebrew at all.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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

Anything I run published or not tends to turn into this anyway.

 

[mrpopstar]

All things being equal, I prefer homebrew settings. It has been my experience that they provide for more engaging immersions overall.