Homebrew settings and player appeal

[painandgreed]

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

Depends on the DM. For most and most games, I'd say that it really doesn't matter. Are we in Greyhawk, the Dales, or some homebrew? Usually, I'd say that it won't affect the game or dungeon one bit. For those DMs that it does, they've usually spent enough time to make different and bring something else to the table. They're into it and know a decent amount about thier world. Still, if you like it as a player will depend greatly on if you enjoy the same things as the DM. Personally, the most enjoyable games I've been in have been homebrew (sort of, they used Harn as a base though but not much more than the maps and names that were on them). There were also plenty of DMs who would talk about their homebrew and it would just turn me off to the point that I'd never even try it.

Pros
-it's interesting a new
-many times you can work with the DM and help create the world or bits of it
-if you don't play in that DMs homebrew, you're going to have to DM
-better immersion because you don't know all the secrets of the world (and can't make misguided judgements because of them)

Cons
-lack of knowledge about setting
-sometimes bizzare to the point of being disinteresting

 

[Ed_Laprade]

As Mr. Morden would say, "What do you want?" It appears that you want to be told what you can play, rather than asking the GM if you can play some off the wall character that wouldn't fit into a published setting. If that's so than a lot of what makes homebrews fun for many isn't going do it for you. But you can never tell unless you ask!

(Besides, I've never yet seen a published setting has every little town and hamlet marked on the map, let alone having everyone in them statted up!)

 

[jollyninja]

things i have done in non homebrew worlds as a player: acted as a high level npc's pawn (for good or ill), 900000 dungeons, brushed shoulders with literary characters weither it made sense or not, endless prefabed encounters from published materials

things i have done in homebrews:
set up international spy rings
gone to war with dragons againts the gods
created something similar to the harpers with a much meaner outlook on what needs to be done to the evil.
set up bardic colleges named after my character
become king of a major nation
filled niches in the pantheon with characters
destroyed the world
stopped the world from being destroyed.

I'll take a good homebrew as a player any time

 

[johnnype]

Let's be honest. Homebrewing is all about stroking the GM's ego. It's great if you're the GM but, in my experience, bland as hell if your're one of the PC's. Oh sure, there are exceptions. I don't doubt that every world builder on this message board likes their setting best, but how do you convey that to your players?

In all seriousness, as a player I've yet to be impressed by a homebrew. Published settings are often maligned for being too confining. Allow me to disagree. Most settings I've seen (and I'm talking about D&D specifically) are nothing if not flexible. I'm not saying they are all great or that you as a GM can't do better. what I am saying is that unless you have a way to convey your hard work to your players it's all for nought.

I know I'm in the minority here (especially among DM's) but I'll take a published setting over a pie in the sky homebrew any day of the week. Unless your homebrew has something for me to read (50+ pages preferably with a decent amount of detail) It's going to feel generic and amorphous. If that's the case then why bother?

 

[Odhanan]

For the player, the appeal is to have a really significant role for the character in the homebrew without feeling like an "official setting" has been altered out of the norm. It mainly avoids frustrating "resets" from DMs. For instance, if your Rogue saves Faerun and then you play with another DM, maybe this DM won't agree on the events that happened on the previous game. Even if you play another character, maybe the DM just doesn't want anyone to make allusions to the Rogue's achievements.

With a homebrew, in other words you have the "official" continuity right in front of your eyes, at the game table. Your character's actions matter more than ever and can have long lasting, campaign-crossing impact.

There is a much greater sense of familiarity with a homebrew you get to know over the years. You just get, as a player, to know the place, and you know the creators of the game and can ask questions directly to them: it's you players and your DM!

It's also good to play homebrews to just change styles in settings and game styles. Sometimes, the FR or Eberron just become casual places with a sense of wonder that's slowly wearing off. In these times, it's good to "refresh" your interest in the game by playing a homebrew.

As well, it's good to know that exceptional DMs are particularly exceptional when they homebrew, because they control all the ins and outs of the game. Therefore, the game will be even better than if the DM was just running an official setting and trying to respect this or that cannon or idea suggested by authors who, in the end, wouldn't fit the "awesomeness" of your current DM.

Of course, if the DM's just decent the point becomes moot.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Going into a homebrew, especially one that is not written up very completely

Well now, that's a specific problem. It just means the GM is not a particularly good world builder.

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 totally disagree, based on my own experiences throughout the years. I have enjoyed playing in and running both published and homebrew settings.

But anyway, to illustrate the point more clearly in the present tense, another GM/player I know currently runs one published and two homebrew settings. He owns and is *very* familiar with the TSR setting, but has also put a lot of work into his own. And more work is done on an ongoing basis, *before* it's needed.

Perhaps you've had some bad experiences (it sounds like it), or on the other hand perhaps you simply prefer settings that are known quantities (to you). Which is fair enough. But, as I said, I think your conclusions past that point are erroneous.

 

[KenM]

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

This is why I only try to run homebrew. Because if you use a published setting, the player assumes all the sorcebooks are cannon for the way the DM wants to run his game. Its the DM's world. The players just live in it. Players should not assume that every DM will run a published setting excatly as written.
I still by sourcebooks, they are great for ideas. Heck, I stole most of the god's names for my homebrew that I have worked on from other books. But just because the god name match a name in a FR book should you assume its the same god from that book.

 

[Crothian]

This is why I only try to run homebrew. Because if you use a published setting, the player assumes all the sorcebooks are cannon for the way the DM wants to run his game. Its the DM's world. .

You run Homebrew becasue you have bad players?

 

[KenM]

You run Homebrew becasue you have bad players?

Accually i'm running nothing because I don't have any players. But anyway, all i'm saying is the few times i ran published setting stuff, some of the players assumed that it was as written in a couple of sorcebooks. I told them from the start there was going to be changes to the world as written. Not my fault if the player assumed differently after i told them.

 

[Nifft]

You are always playing in a "homebrew" (to some degree) because a DM will always do something that's not in the published campaign setting.

You are always at the DM's mercy. Being in a published setting won't help you in a fight vs. the DM.

-- N