Homebrew settings and player appeal

[sniffles]

As I'm looking for a new group to play in, I'm finding a lot of homebrew settings instead of the WotC settings I'm familiar with.

What is the appeal, for a player, to want to play in a homebrew setting?

I ask this because I feel that there is great appeal for a published setting for a player, largely in that a player will know what to expect, lots of tangibles like deities, regions, politics, lots of things. Going into a homebrew, especially one that is not written up very completely, I just feel a little at the DM's mercy and obligated to acquire as much fuzzy information as possible. 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 agree with you that published settings do offer a lot more information for players, and homebrews can be rather fuzzy. But to a certain extent the amount of material available for a published setting can take away some of the sense of mystery from a campaign. It's easier for the players to forget that their characters don't know everything they know about that setting.

My first two experiences with D&D 3E were in homebrew settings, and I quite enjoyed both of them. In one campaign the GM didn't give us any kind of written material before the campaign began, and as it continued the players had very limited knowledge of the game world. That made the sense of discovery when we learned something new much more exciting for me.

On the other hand, I've got a friend who's trying to create a homebrew and is obsessed with detailing it as much as a published setting. This means he may never actually get his setting in a playable condition. And unfortunately it seems to me that his main purpose in creating a homebrew setting is to try out variant rules, which is something he could do just as easily in a published setting.

Overall I'd have to say the success of a homebrew is dependent on what the GM puts into it and what the players want out of it.

 

[werk]

4)Most importantly - My homebrew is far more flexible to the needs of my group than a published setting would be.

I think it is this flexibility that I am wary of. I generally like to make a character and then play that character in the world. When the world is largely unknown and amorphous it makes it difficult to plan a long term strategy, or at least, unpredictable.

I'm definitely tainted by previous homebrew DMs that I've played under, but also have the published DM complaint that they don't know the setting intimately enough.

I'm really hearing a lot of DMs saying that they prefer homebrews, their homebrews are great and everyone loves them, and I'm not really hearing any horror stories.

Thanks for your thoughts, keep 'em coming

 

[Warbringer]

I think it is this flexibility that I am wary of. I generally like to make a character and then play that character in the world. When the world is largely unknown and amorphous it makes it difficult to plan a long term strategy, or at least, unpredictable.

In general, homebrew campaigns could be difficult for you as a player, as there is no source for 'out-of-player' knowledge. Homebrews, in my experience, are more free-flow that published worlds; a DM may change his idea of how something works that he hasn't introducted to the player; BBEG will scale as the part rises (or fails to rise) in level; hell, cities, islands, even nations may spawn into existance!

Of course, the real bugaboo (where did he go anyway?) is that homebrews will always have house rules, class restrictions, new classes, and to many players that can feel that it's not the standard game.

But that's the rub; homebrews aren't the standard game and that breathes life back into playing, for whatever reasons. that's what my players say, but to be fair, we are playing something now that is about as familiar to 3e as 3e was to 2e.

 

[Umbran]

I think it is this flexibility that I am wary of. I generally like to make a character and then play that character in the world. When the world is largely unknown and amorphous it makes it difficult to plan a long term strategy, or at least, unpredictable.

Well, to borrow a much-used phrase: No plan survives contact with reality. How many of us are able to make a plan in life, and execute it exactly, with little variance? How many of us are working in the career we planned to? In the job we hoped for? How often does a business plan go without a hitch?

I'm definitely tainted by previous homebrew DMs that I've played under, but also have the published DM complaint that they don't know the setting intimately enough.

Certainly, there's good ways to use the flexibility, and bad ways (at least, for any given group). And I am sorry you got the short end of the stick in the past. But don't let that put you off the idea in general.

I'm really hearing a lot of DMs saying that they prefer homebrews, their homebrews are great and everyone loves them, and I'm not really hearing any horror stories.

Well, to be fair, we here may not be a particular representative sample of gamers. It may be that a great many DMs out there homebrew, and don't do it as well as we portray it here, or that some of the common facets of homebrew worlds really aren't for you. My players like my game. But maybe you wouldn't. And that's okay.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

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...

Flexibility is key.

When you hear this, respond with something like, "Cool! I want to play a sorcerer from the swamplands who gets his magical power from an ancient familial connection to some superpowered race that has since vanished!" or whatever idea you really, really want to try. You'll get one of four answers:

"Awesome! He can come from Marshpit, with a secret hidden connection to the Dalvernari!" --You got a winner!

"Okay, but know that the Green Order has decreed that all sorcerers or connections to the Ancient Ones must die." --Will that work? Maybe, maybe not. But at least you've got a starting point to discuss the world.

"Eh, I don't think that idea will work." --Probably a good sign to step away. Still, it creates a point from which to discuss the campaign world.

"Sure, whatever, that's cool." --You don't need to know anything to play in this world. If the DM is good, it'll be a decent game. Don't expect as strong a world focus as the DM might have first indicated.

Basically, homebrews give you the chance to make whatever you want without trying to shoehorn it into the published material. Give it a whirl, make what you want, and find the world that will cater to your tastes.

 

[edemaitre]

Homebrew vs. published settings

First off, I must admit to being a worldbuilding Game Master, with more than 5,000 years of continuity running from heroic fantasy through steampunk, modern/superhero, cyberpunk, and space opera eras. Much of it is in outline form, but each genre/setting is detailed through years of interaction with Player Characters in various rules systems. When recruiting, I've been able to describe each in one or two paragraphs. I've owned many of the D&D/D20 settings at one time or another, and have used them heavily for inspiration.

As a role-player, I appreciate the certainty of having options laid out for character development in published settings and the flavor/detail that they offer. However, a bad D.M. or player group can result in forced storylines, hack-and-slash roll-players skipping over potentially interesting Non-Player Characters and plot threads, and metagaming abuses, regardless of whether a setting is homebrew or published. Does a first-level P.C. ever really know the world he's about to begin exploring or know where he'll end up?

A good collaboration between a G.M. and players should result in believable adventures and characters with enough internal consistency to sustain a serial narrative over many sessions but enough flexibility to provide a sense of wonder. Just as a G.M. can surprise his or her players with a novel bit of setting, story, or N.P.C.s, so too can players help develop a world through creativity and clever tactics/strategies. I'd say give homebrews a chance, but let the group and your G.M. know your expectations and preferences upfront.

 

[delericho]

What is the appeal, for a player, to want to play in a homebrew setting?

Sense of wonder. Thrill of the unknown.

Precisely because the player can't simply go out and buy and read all the books on a setting, and doesn't know what to expect, it's easier to surprise and delight players with a homebrew setting. It can be done with a pre-gen setting, to be sure, but it's harder IMO.

Also, of course, there is a lot of ground that hasn't been covered by the existing settings. For example, for d20 Modern, I was working on an Elizabethan-themed steampunk/spelljammer crossover. To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing like that on the market.

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.

On the contrary, creating a good and detailed homebrew setting is far more effort than buying and learning a published setting. And, at least in my case, time is a far more valuable resource than money, so saving a few pounds is not my motivation when homebrewing.

Thoughts?

Just one more: perhaps you would do better to appreciate the efforts of those DMs who go to a lot of trouble to create worlds and campaigns for your enjoyment, and not just attack them as cheap and lazy? (That might not have been your intent, but your post sure sounded like an attack to me.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

To me, the appeal of playing (D&D) in a homebrew setting is that no currently published D&D setting suits my genre preferences.

With a homebrew, I have a chance of playing in a world with one or more of the following features: mecha, airships, no standard fantasy races, no non-human races at all, no or low magic, firearms, pulp style, no planar travel, spelljamming or other fantasy space travel, and powers unique to individual PCs.

While some published settings offer sets of those (Iron Kingdoms does mecha and firearms, Eberron does airships and pulp, Conan does pulp and no non-human races, etc.), there's not a lot of overlap.

Now, if I express interest and the GM's homebrew turns out to be the inverse of all of those things - especially if it turns out to be a bog-standard epic/high fantasy world with new names slapped on the locations - then I'll politely excuse myself from joining the campaign.

 

[werk]

Just one more: perhaps you would do better to appreciate the efforts of those DMs who go to a lot of trouble to create worlds and campaigns for your enjoyment, and not just attack them as cheap and lazy? (That might not have been your intent, but your post sure sounded like an attack to me.)

Noted. I'm trying...

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I know what the original question is, but to answer that I have to go through the DM a bit. For my group, we play what the DM wants to play. As I am often the DM - we homebrew alot. I play in the homebrew to flesh it out even further. Note - this doesn't mean I don't buy books or that I don't have an advanced world. It does mean that in inviting other players to interact with the world they come up with other angles that make sense to them and I wouldn't have thought of.

Now, I love playing homebrews as much as DMing in them. I love the thought of being able to help flesh out a world. I love not knowing for certain what to expect. I love being able to play in a world where elves are snooty, dwarves aren't condescending and stubborn, and humans are more than the great melting plot. I love having tribes of good orcs (or evil gnomes, whatever...), friendly kobolds, integrated societies, etc. I love creating a new pantheon and helping to put forth concepts for things like creation myths and "god wars."

I don't like pregen worlds because I never know if the other player's perceptions of a pregen world are the same as mine. I never know if I am acting "in character" for the setting or if I am walking all over their expectations. Playing in a homebrew allows me the flexibility that I am most comfortable RPing in.

I guess I like world building better than world adventuring. Or - maybe I should say I like to build as I adventure rather than simply adventure. But then again, if you adventure long enough in any homebrew it begins to feel like home.