As a player: prefer Homebrew or Published settings?

[oreofox]

I prefer homebrew settings. I have been working on my own since 2003 (15 years come this October) and has gone through many revisions (from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder to 5e; and don't get me started on the world map...), though sadly I haven't been able to have any games done in it (maybe a total of... 25 or so sessions in those 15 years).

There are some premade published settings I have no problem with playing in. Eberron, Greyhawk, and Golarion. I would rather never touch Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun has 0 interest for me, and I am no fan of the horror junk of Ravenloft. Dragonlance is amazing for the stories, and I would like to do a playthrough of the modules that led into the War of the Lance novels, but I wouldn't want to play in it otherwise. Planescape sounds intriguing as I love planar and elemental stuff, but I have never gotten a chance with that. Birthright, Al'Qadim, Kara Tur (because FR), Maztica (because FR), Savage Coast, and Spelljammer don't interest me. Mystara I have no feelings about either way. Oh, and Rokugan from 3rd's Oriental Adventures wasn't bad if you took out the Shadowlands corruption stuff.

I have no problems yoinking things from other settings and placing them into my own, and have done it many times. But I prefer to run games in my own homebrew setting, as I know about it the most. I have attempted to run other settings, but I just couldn't get into it. It really depends on the group, as the DM's passion for the setting and abilities are a crucial factor. Unfortunately, I feel like I am just a barely mediocre DM.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Imaculata]

A friend of mine once ran a campaign in a homebrew setting, where he basically first let us play out our childhood. We had our first adventure together as childhood friends, at level 0. He then would skip several years, play out some more, and then skip towards adulthood. I thought it worked pretty well.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Other

I prefer not to be railroaded. Both homebrew and published settings can be utterly ruined by a railroad-DM, although published campaigns (with published settings) will ultimately limit the freedom of the DM, so may be more prone to railroading.

 

[Greg K]

For myself, as a player, it is not an issue of homebrew or published. It always comes down to the individual setting and/or the options being included.

 

[Ancalagon]

I have to say that I am very fond of how the Yoon-Suin setting guide works: It's a campaign building guide. The GM is actively encouraged to build their own Yoon Suin.

It's the best campaign setting I have ever seen.

Edit: I must admit that this was a gm answer, not player... hmmm

 

[Caliburn101]

Other

I prefer not to be railroaded. Both homebrew and published settings can be utterly ruined by a railroad-DM, although published campaigns (with published settings) will ultimately limit the freedom of the DM, so may be more prone to railroading.

I have seen a number of people on related threads say something related to this on the homebrew side - that homebrew campaigns are a pain because the kind of GM how makes them is too 'precious and railroady' about the players keeping to the presumption and norms of the gameworld. Likewise a similar argument could conceivably be forwarded on the basis of a GM being too strict about 'canon' in a published setting.

This puts the cart before the horse though, and I would argue this is true of your statement about both types of campaign. A railroad GM can make either bad, and either good.

The OP's question was about which campaign type is preferred, not what type of GM do you like.

I would strongly argue that conflating the two is confusing, and of no relevance to this poll.

Furthermore - if you do vote 'something else' then please explain to us how a game can exist in a 'something else' without feeling like it's floating in a void, or that the game is made up as it goes along on player whims... in which case what is the point of the GM beyond narrator and 'rule of cool' facilitator?

Setting is important, even if it only covers the immediate area in which the PCs will adventure - and is the necessary backdrop and 'extra character' of any good story you care to name ever written in this or related genres.

Good games tend to have good campaign worlds, regardless of GM style. There are exceptions of course, but these tend not to turn into medium-long term games in my experience.

 

[DM Howard]

Overall, I'd echo what others have said and say that I prefer a good DM above all else. That being said, I would say that I prefer playing (and DMing) in an emergent homebrew setting.