Homebrew settings and player appeal

[wolframrkw]

from my player's perspective

Well,
My players are going to rely on me for any world info either way. Out of 5 players, only one will buy a Published setting (mostly to twink his characters) the others are going to rely on me to tell them about the world. So, in my situation, there is no difference so it is my preference as a DM which way to go.
In theory (since I never get to play) as long as the DM can give me detail enough to come up with a good character, I would be happy in a homebrew, esp if he has a twist or situation that is all his own.

wolfram

 

[Storm Raven]

That's all good, but my question was, why would a player want to play in a homebrew? I understand all the benefits to the DM.

Actually, you brought up more than one issue. One thing you said was:

I think homebrew is just for the DM to make it up as he goes and as an excuse not to buy or learn a formal setting.

In my case, and in the case of several other DMs I know, you are quite simply dead wrong. Most DMs that I know own several published settings, and know a lot about all of them. In my experience, those who DM are the primary consumers of published setting products, even those Dms who never, ever, intend to run a game set in a published setting.

As to why a player would want to play in a homebrew campaign, I'd say the biggest selling point would likely be this: if the DM is enjoying running the campaign, he's likely to keep at it, and be more involved in making sure it is successful. I've seen a fair number of campaigns that start like this: "let's get a game going! I don't want to spend a lot of prep time, so let's just jump to the playing part and use a published setting." In most of these cases, the game falls apart within a few sessions, primarily because neither the players nor the DM were invested in the campaign to begin with.

 

[Kularian]

That's all good, but my question was, why would a player want to play in a homebrew? I understand all the benefits to the DM.

Eh, so it was. Darn me and my getting off track. Anyway,

To sort of repeat what others have said in an organized fashion:

The player characters are the heroes of the world, and they determine the setting's metaplot. Simply put, a homebrew allows them more flexibility and influence over the world than a published setting can offer.

This is probably the biggest one. As a player in a home brewn setting, you determine the future fate of the world you live in. The world is mostly complete, sure, but without you to guide it, it's just a flat world. You have the ability, through RP, cunning, and combat, to have a hand in shaping the world.

From a player's perspective I am extremely grateful to have a DM who is willing to invest all that time and creative energy by developing a unique world for me to play in. I do expect my character to have knowledge of the common facts of the world, such as geography, politics, and deitys, but expect (and hope) that there will be secret knowledge left to uncover.

The mystery is another big factor that I enjoy, which was well put here. In a standardized setting, you pretty much know the layout of the world, and everything about it. That, to me, takes away some of the 'adventure' in adventuring. When you don't know everything, and you come across some strange cult dedicated to a god/dess you've never heard of, you really don't know how to react, and you feel the same confusion that your character would. That, to me, is far superior than recognizing a cult's symbol, as you know the setting, and how to react to them.

The same effect can be achieved IC through good RPing, but you, as the player, know things, and I find it much more entertaining to learn along with my character about the strange world I've been thrust into.

 

[Crothian]

Well, I don't know yet as I am searching for a new group. Typical responses are "I run a 3.5 game set in my homebrew world. I don't want to go into it, as it would require a long type to type out the details. Let me know if you're interested!"

I've had three of these so far...

Well, you have to talk to the DMs. It would be no different if they were running a published campaign setting that you know nothing about.

 

[Mallus]

That's all good, but my question was, why would a player want to play in a homebrew?

1) Because playing the game beats posting about the game on a messageboard

2) Because you might discover that the specific homebrewed world is cool.

3) Because discovering the world in play is more interesting that reading about in published materials.

4) Because a homebrew might offer the player a great sense of ownership of, and intimacy with, the setting.

I'm sure more will come to me.

When I started my current homebrew campaign, I handed my players... well, not much. On faith, we proceded from there. They learned about the World of CITY by playing, by asking questions, often in-game and in-character, by long email exchanges, etc.

I'm not sure better/more thorough handouts at the start would have made any difference. Most of CITY is tone. They seem to like it well enough. It's like nothing you'll get in a published setting, for better or for worse. And maybe that's the biggest draw of a homebrew.

If all you want of the D&D experience is fully represented by a published setting, then a homebrew might not offer you anything.

If you'd like a taste of my world, check the link in my sig. It's a fairly accurate picture.

 

[Emirikol]

I dont know what I find more annoying as a player:

a) A DM who doesn't know jack about a published world he's running

or

b) A DM who spends so much time dinking around with the extremities of his home world that he doesn't focus on the ONLY TWO THINGS THAT MATTER: plot adventures and issues necessary to character development.


Examples:
LIVING GREYHAWK. Half the writers and the majority of DMs running the RPGA's Living Greyhawk don't know ANYTHING about the world, history, politics, groups or religions.

HOMEBREW. Got a friend with a 600 page world sourcebook, yet, the details are so useless (or worse, voluminous) that nobody can use them.

I can tell you from years of experience of starting new gaming groups that YOU GET MORE NEW PLAYER BITES FROM ADVERTISEMENTS REGARDING PUBLISHED WORLDS AND POPULAR GAME SYSTEMS. It only makes sense that people are drawn to what they know..what they feel comfortable with.

From my experience as a gamer, I've had just as much fun in homebrews as in published worlds..I just get disgusted when the players know more about the worlds than the DM..as is the reason why I dumped the FR back in the 90's and moved to greyhawk..only to dump that and move to Hyboria (nevermind the shoddy ConanRPG).


jh
..

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Well, I don't know yet as I am searching for a new group. Typical responses are "I run a 3.5 game set in my homebrew world. I don't want to go into it, as it would require a long type to type out the details. Let me know if you're interested!"

I'd be more worried if they said it was a homebrew they could explain fully in a short paragraph


Why players should want to play homebrew:

As a general rule, I think happy GM = better gaming. If the GM enjoys and wants to homebrew, I'd rather play it over a published setting. They'll be having more fun and will likely put more effort into the game.

If the homebrew keeps 'punishing' me for not knowing things a local should know, then I'll likely get annoyed. But that's likely a sign of a bad GM. As long as pertinent information about the setting is transmitted then I'll be happy.

 

[Mercule]

There are quite a few reasons, but I can sum it up pretty quickly.

In pretty much every homebrew in which I've played/GMed, there are one or more nations created, destroyed, saved, or shaped by the PCs. I've never seen that duplicated with a published setting.

Past or present, the players leave a huge mark on any homebrew.

 

[Umbran]

I think homebrew is just for the DM to make it up as he goes and as an excuse not to buy or learn a formal setting.

Thoughts?

I homebrew for a number of reasons:

1)As Storm Raven said, the act of creation is fulfilling, in and of itself.

2)I find it more difficult to remember setting details when I read them, as compared to when I've created them. With my homebrew, I hardly ever have to refer to a document, but I'd have to be constantly looking things up in a published setting. So, yes, I'm avoiding learning a formal setting, mostly because I get better results if I don't. That's a feature, not a failing on my part.

3)I have absolute control over my setting documents, so I am sure that my secrets stay secret. Not that this is really an issue, because none of my players would buy a setting book - so if I used one, I would have to duplicate every last bit of the book that I needed them to have, so the book isn't going to save me the work of communicating.

4)Most importantly - My homebrew is far more flexible to the needs of my group than a published setting would be. I created it for the group. I included lots of elements that they like, and left out the sort of stuff they don't care for. I built my major themes around them, rather than around the needs of a broad market. I can create new details at the drop of a hat, without having to worry so much about it being inconsistent with other published material. Again, that's a feature, where you suggest that "making it up as you go along" is somehow a failing.

 

[radferth]

If the GM is good, you get the thrill of discovery as you learn things about the world. Obviously this doesn't apply if homebrew = I'm just making stuff up as a go along (although that can be good, too, with the right group). I prefer to run homebrew, but if I am trying to drum up players online or in a store, I do go with a published setting.