Homebrew settings and player appeal

[Umbran]

Instead the players are subjected, sometimes without a choice in the matter, to the DM's setting. I think that's a big difference.

That, however, is not the problem of homebrew vs published. That's a problem with GM/player relations. There's a negotiation that goes on before every campaign - "What are we going to play?" If that negotiation doesn't happen properly, you'll have problems. The players could then just as easily be subjected to a particular published world without a choice in the matter, and they may end up just as dissatisfied.

I guess what I'm saying is that I like depth and it's rare in a homebrew. Rarer still is the GM who has bothered to write it all down so that the rest of us can enjoy it. It can be the best setting ever created but that doesn't do me any good if I can read it.

That the GM writes it down is pretty moot if it isn't followed up with expression in play. And good expression in play removes much of trhe need for having it written down.

And, to be honest - writing it down is no guarantee of depth. I've seen some pretty shallow settings all written down in great hulking detailed documents, all sound and fury, but signifying nothing...

 

[DarkKestral]

The thing is with "Homebrew" vs. Published... is that a number of the OFFICIAL Campaign Settings started out as a designer's homebrew world, (in particular, FR and Oerth come to mind, pre-supplements, and possibly Eberron) and developed into an official one. Ptolus, the CS used in the earliest of early 3.0 games, was a homebrew... and now possibly the most detailed PUBLISHED CS out there. So, without homebrew settings, there would be no campaign settings published at all. So in a sense, a published setting's no different from the average. The only thing is that published ones have gone through a level of infodump and editing players may not see going on in a non-published setting.

The published one simply serves as a 'quickie' to bypass the time-consuming elements of world-building. (Unfortunately these are most elements of world-building, thus the reason why 'official' CS books are so popular) The DM isn't forced to build everything from scratch. However, it creates it's own problems, because most have uber-characters 'built-in' and canon, which means it's very hard to break out of a mold. The advantage is a quicker prep period pre-game... the disadvantage is player knowledge.

 

[Mallus]

I just don't think I can do any better than what's already been published.

You won't know until you try, if you're so inclined.

You've reminded me that I still think of the RPG industry as a cottage industry, despite the fact its currently dominated by a large, professional, and corporate entity. I'll always see RPG's in terms of semi-and-non professionall hobbyists churning out materials for their peers, like the original D&D content producers. In that environment, the difference between a DM/player and a 'professional RPG designer' was whether they got paid.

Although I see where you're coming from, your statements assumes I see playing a heroic fantasy character as stroking the players ego. I don't. The players are asked to create characters. The DM is rarely, if ever, asked to create a setting. Instead the players are subjected, sometimes without a choice in the matter, to the DM's setting. I think that's a big difference.

My point was that players, generally speaking, receive --and expect-- a certain level of ego-gratifiaction from play. They want to play heroes, or villians, but either way, they want their chance to shine, their regular moments in the spotlight. If we're talking D&D, they want to increase in personal power until they're quasi-medieval superheroes, sans tights.

In other words, they want their ego's stroked. Nothing wrong with that. But it's inaccurate to locate the desire for ego-stroking solely in the homebrewing DM. Pot calling kettle and all.

You can also play a game from level 1 through 20 with NO settng at all and have fun (Age of Worms, The Shackled City and World Largest Dungeon come to mind).

Actually, a lot of players, including myself, couldn't enjoy games like that.

Depth in a setting is HUGE to me.

Depth in a setting as experienced through actual play is meaningful to me. Depth that remains nestled safely in the pages of a sourcebook --and not brought to life by the DM/group-- is all but irrelevant.

Ever seen Agyris?

Looks interesting. I'll check it out. Might be something I can steal in there.

 

[TerraDave]

My homebrew can be found through my sig...

...so for my players, the advantages are

1) A setting where a lot of relevant detail and flavour is spelled out, but not everything is, leaving room for the particular campaing is to develop...

2) And is familiar, because it is based on our own Earth. This is something that has made a big difference in play, and added much to the experience.

Clearly, only one of two is relevant for most homebrews, but I also think that there is another key factor that the other posters have touched on:

3) Homebrewing can be a big source of fun and motivation for the DM. And this in turn can lead to a much better game for everyone.

 

[gizmo33]

I'll leave the writing to the pro's. They have the skills and the time to properly develop something to the extent I prefer.

Opinions about what makes for a good DnD game should be left to the pros as well. Let's be honest, people that write about their own opinions are just stroking their egos. In fact, players that want to make up their character backgrounds instead of using published ones are really arrogant. They should just come down off of their high horses and play Elminster. In fact, I'm going to stop DMing people's homebrew characters.

 

[werk]

Opinions about what makes for a good DnD game should be left to the pros as well. Let's be honest, people that write about their own opinions are just stroking their egos. In fact, players that want to make up their character backgrounds instead of using published ones are really arrogant. They should just come down off of their high horses and play Elminster. In fact, I'm going to stop DMing people's homebrew characters.

Funny you should mention Elminster. As mentioned earlier, all published settings are really just someone's homebrew that got published, so Forgotten Realms is a good case in point. It suffers from the same problems that I've experienced in the homebrewed campaigns that I've played in in the past, and that is DM-uber-NPCs.

I prefer to run campaigns in FR, but I've never exposed the party to elmonster, drizzle, etc, etc. I know if I play in a homebrew, I'm going to run into the DM's babies, who are just TOO COOL!

With a published setting the DM can add or remove most anything that they don't like (I removed the uber NPCs from FR, NBD) because there is such a wealth of material to use. Running a homebrew, I believe the DM is going to use every stitch of material he's created, simply because it took so much hard work and creativity on his part to cook it up...which may not be a good thing.



The benefits that I've heard are that as a PC I can influence the setting more easily since it is not set-in-stone, and that it may make the DM more comfortable or happier which will translate into a better game. Did I miss any other player benefits? Seems pretty slanted so far...

 

[Mallus]

Running a homebrew, I believe the DM is going to use every stitch of material he's created, simply because it took so much hard work and creativity on his part to cook it up...which may not be a good thing.

That's probably true. My players will run into my homebrew's bestselling romance novelist (yes, its a D&D world), one Arabia Wainwright, solely because I made her up, in a fit of inappropriate imagination.

But I think you need to explain why it would be a bad thing for a DM to use as much of the material he created as possible.

Did I miss any other player benefits? Seems pretty slanted so far...

Maybe. This is what you should take away from the thread: A lot of people posting here had the benefit of better experiences with homebrew settings than you did. This informed their opinion of homebrews, in the same way your negative experiences informed yours.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I prefer to run campaigns in FR, but I've never exposed the party to elmonster, drizzle, etc, etc. I know if I play in a homebrew, I'm going to run into the DM's babies, who are just TOO COOL!

Again, though, this is purely opinion and not established fact. I now have four games going on here at this site, all of them in my homebrew world. Sure, I have powerful lords, wizened old mages, evil tribal leaders that demand tributes, etc. But I don't force them on my players. The way I figure it is that the world would be incomplete if it didn't have its uber people. I mean, seriously. Do you honestly think that if this world didn't have Bill Gates that there wouldn't be someone else filling that role? Every world should have the big and easily recognizable people.

However, that doesn't mean my players ever meet them. I'm not that interested in stroking my own ego and showing my players how I can create uber people. I love generating the NPC commoners that the party meets. They're really nobodies, but I love making them come to life. Yet they are just as easily forgotten as the next person should the party choose not to remember them.

Having a homebrew is not about stroking anyone's ego - or I should say it doesn't have to be that way. For me having a homebrew is about world creation adn unique interaction. I don't have to be force into the "common" conception of FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc. The players can experience a new world, impact that new world, help flesh it out if they so desire - all without having to not worry about competing with the known names like Elminster, Fizban, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

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

The simple answer: to preserve the mystery. As a player, you're better off *not* knowing about the setting ahead of time; that way, you and your PC's discover the world at the same time, and there's a sense of wonder.

All this, of course, assumes competent design.

Lanefan

 

[Stormborn]

Funny you should mention Elminster. As mentioned earlier, all published settings are really just someone's homebrew that got published, so Forgotten Realms is a good case in point. It suffers from the same problems that I've experienced in the homebrewed campaigns that I've played in in the past, and that is DM-uber-NPCs.

I prefer to run campaigns in FR, but I've never exposed the party to elmonster, drizzle, etc, etc. I know if I play in a homebrew, I'm going to run into the DM's babies, who are just TOO COOL!

With a published setting the DM can add or remove most anything that they don't like (I removed the uber NPCs from FR, NBD) because there is such a wealth of material to use. Running a homebrew, I believe the DM is going to use every stitch of material he's created, simply because it took so much hard work and creativity on his part to cook it up...which may not be a good thing.

The benefits that I've heard are that as a PC I can influence the setting more easily since it is not set-in-stone, and that it may make the DM more comfortable or happier which will translate into a better game. Did I miss any other player benefits? Seems pretty slanted so far...

When I homebrew I never create uber NPCs. The one time I did it was to have him serve as a patron for the PCs and then I had him killed in front of them by the time they were 3rd level. Otherwise they are figures of legend that are long gone or rulers of distant lands. They don't adventure, they don't get in the way of the PCs. They don't come to the rescue. When I run premade campaign settings I do everything in my power to keep the PCs away from the uber NPCs. Perhaps I have simply never understood the appeal of such things. When I develop a campaign, whether it is using an established setting or homebrew, the PCs are the focus, not the NPCs. I think that uber-NPCs are an unfortunate inheritance of DnDs past.

It seems that werk has had some bad experiance with homebrews and ican see how that would turn you off. Its unfortunate. As to the earlier comment that a setting can't be explained in a few sentences.... well, quite simply its wrong. There is no setting that can't be boiled down to a few sentences, if not a single sentence. Being unable to do so is not a refelection of the campaign setting, its a reflection of the communication skills of the GM. Which in and of itself could be a problem.

Basically there are pros and cons to both homebrew and published for the player and the GM. Everything has to be weighed out. I think that the best course of action when someone says "its a homebrew and its complicated" is to ask "well, can you describe to me the things the PCs did in the last session/what you see PCs doing in the game?" If they answer is something you would like to do, then at least give it a try. The issue isn't the setting, its what the person running the game does with it.