So I've been thinking about this for a little while now, and thought I'd throw it out there since I'm curious about how everyone on the board feels. Basically, I'm curious about where y'all draw the lines between a personalized setting and a homebrewed setting.
I would hope that everyone would personalize their settings. I mean, no two settings should be absolutely identical. That would be tragic! But at the same time, there has to be a line somewhere between a setting that has been personalized for a particular campaign and a setting that has deviated enough from the source material that it has essentially become a homebrew setting, with perhaps only the names or maps from the original source material remaining intact.
Now obviously, this is a spectrum. And equally obviously, we'll fall on different points of the spectrum. So this is more just for conversation. Please no one think this is about proving a point "right."
Hopefully you guys get what I'm saying, but just in case I've been unclear, I'll give a brief example. Namely, my own campaign.
The campaign I'm designing is based in the world of Greyhawk (drop dead Greenwood!
). BUT - and this is a big but - it's set 100 years after the end of the Greyhawk Wars. Further, the Greyhawk Wars didn't end in the canonical way. There was no Treaty of Greyhawk. Rather, the large scale war so depleted the nations that it just kind of stopped via attrition of resources and soldiery. So while large scale warfare ceased, brush wars have continued on throughout the nations. This has led to the rise of a number of mud baronies and self-designated city-states. As a result of this, the larger nations of the Greyhawk world are intact, but there is ample room for a plethora of smaller kingdoms/states. Further, in the 100 years since the canonical end of the Greyhawk Wars, much of the leadership has changed and the Circle of Eight has pretty much ceased to exist.
I think it is safe to say that the setting is - despite using the Greyhawk maps and retaining a number of the countries - essentially a homebrew setting. Almost every major setting character is my own creation (though there are some of the old favorites intact. Iuz is still kicking around, and Rary has since become a lich.). The century disconnect from canon has led to a free range of creation, and I've ported in many of the parts of the Points of Light that I liked. But different people would have different perspectives on when exactly my campaign went from mere personalization to overt homebrew. Was it as soon as I changed the ending to the Wars? Or when I lichified Rary? When I added the first mud duchy? Different people would have different answers.
So, for you personally, at what point do changes to a setting go from "mere" personalization to hombrewing? Your response can include examples from your own setting, ideas based solely on theory, or whatever else. We're just chatting here!
I would hope that everyone would personalize their settings. I mean, no two settings should be absolutely identical. That would be tragic! But at the same time, there has to be a line somewhere between a setting that has been personalized for a particular campaign and a setting that has deviated enough from the source material that it has essentially become a homebrew setting, with perhaps only the names or maps from the original source material remaining intact.
Now obviously, this is a spectrum. And equally obviously, we'll fall on different points of the spectrum. So this is more just for conversation. Please no one think this is about proving a point "right."
Hopefully you guys get what I'm saying, but just in case I've been unclear, I'll give a brief example. Namely, my own campaign.
The campaign I'm designing is based in the world of Greyhawk (drop dead Greenwood!
). BUT - and this is a big but - it's set 100 years after the end of the Greyhawk Wars. Further, the Greyhawk Wars didn't end in the canonical way. There was no Treaty of Greyhawk. Rather, the large scale war so depleted the nations that it just kind of stopped via attrition of resources and soldiery. So while large scale warfare ceased, brush wars have continued on throughout the nations. This has led to the rise of a number of mud baronies and self-designated city-states. As a result of this, the larger nations of the Greyhawk world are intact, but there is ample room for a plethora of smaller kingdoms/states. Further, in the 100 years since the canonical end of the Greyhawk Wars, much of the leadership has changed and the Circle of Eight has pretty much ceased to exist. I think it is safe to say that the setting is - despite using the Greyhawk maps and retaining a number of the countries - essentially a homebrew setting. Almost every major setting character is my own creation (though there are some of the old favorites intact. Iuz is still kicking around, and Rary has since become a lich.). The century disconnect from canon has led to a free range of creation, and I've ported in many of the parts of the Points of Light that I liked. But different people would have different perspectives on when exactly my campaign went from mere personalization to overt homebrew. Was it as soon as I changed the ending to the Wars? Or when I lichified Rary? When I added the first mud duchy? Different people would have different answers.
So, for you personally, at what point do changes to a setting go from "mere" personalization to hombrewing? Your response can include examples from your own setting, ideas based solely on theory, or whatever else. We're just chatting here!
)
