Have you used someone else's homebrew setting for your games?

[The Lemon Merchant]

I do indeed use an online homebrew. Of course it isn't someone elses, entirely, TerraDave and myself developed it.

The link is in the .sig

 

[Infernal Teddy]

I love reading about other people's Homebrews, so I can "borrow" the best ideas for mine

 

[The Lost Muse]

I once ran games in the Mythosa setting, but have since switched over to Eberron.

 

[seskis281]

I chose the third option, but I must admit to a little confusion. What, really, is the difference between a 'homebrew' and a non-homebrew campaign setting? Are not Eberron and the Forgotten Realms the 'homebrew' of Keith Baker and Ed Greenwood, respectively? Indeed, if I recall my rpg history correctly then Greyhawk was created by Gygax and so could be considered his 'homebrew.' The only difference I can see between these 'homebrew' campaign settings and 'official' ones is that 'official' campaign settings often have more people working on them and are occationally re-created to better fit the current popular system rather than the prior system with its waning popularity. Are there really any other differences?

Production values and slickness of presentation - being able to unfold large well-done maps produced with a boxed set or setting book also will always entice....

One of the realities of giving out my own is that I can't share the two poster-board sized color maps I hand-drew, and while I can section them into a map folio, the translation to pdf doesn't do justice to the originals.

 

[Radovarl]

Homebrew

I chose the last option, that I would never run someone else's homebrew campaign. Being 30-something, I find that none of the DMs with whom I've played (I haven't checked out online homebrews) have the time to put all of their thoughts down in a coherent format (actual background history in a single book/file, world maps, etc.). This includes me; I doubt I'd ever run my own homebrew campaign, though I've worked on it off and on for about 20 years now. I'll never have the time to make myself completely happy with it.

I've been playing in someone's homebrew campaign for approximately 12 years, and I find that consistency is a big problem too (for me, may be a hangup). If this guy doesn't like something in the world, it changes overnight with no explanation. The newer players don't necessarily notice, but my worldview gets shattered every fortnight or so. Campaign elements that were givens a decade ago are constantly edited to meet with the DM's current whims. It bugs me.

At least with published campaign settings, some degree of consistency is preserved over time. Helps me tremendously in maintaining my temporary suspension of disbelief. Though there have been "historical" developments in the World of Greyhawk's Flanaess over the years, everything that has "gone before" is still valid. Same with the Realms to a lesser extent (though there seems to be some revisionist history going on at Wizards on some topics Faerunian, but nothing major). I just purchased Ptolus, which I suppose is "homebrew", but I doubt I'll run it; just couldn't pass it up, the book itself is so gorgeous (I don't even like Cook's previous work, haha .

So.....no.

 

[Nyaricus]

Personally, I wish this were mutliple choice.

I would run in another if I felt so inclined to (and my group liked it) and I would (and do ) steal elements from others campaign settings.

And some I found really crappy, and would never imangine playing in. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

 

[Voadam]

I took over running a homebrew campaign Kit bash (Ptolus in Post-apocalyptic GH) setting and the dwarven pantheon used is one a PC playing a dwarven cleric found on the net when writing up his background. The original DM went with it and I've kept all these homebrew elements going.