Homebrew to Published?

barsoomcore

Unattainable Ideal
So I got the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide on the weekend (I've had the Monsternomicon and Lock and Load for a while now), and am kinda-sorta excited about running a game in this session.

But I'm also kind of. I don't know. Freaked out.

I've never run a game in a published setting before. It feels very strange to think that I'm going to run a game in a setting where my decisions as to who's where and what they're like might get superceded by later publications. I guess I can just ignore whatever Privateer puts out from now on, but it still feels very strange.

I know most people who play D&D do so in a published setting. Are there any homebrewers around though, who picked up a setting and ran a campaign in it? What was your experience like? Was it fun or painful or did you end up homebrewing the whole thing anyways?

I've also been poking at White Wolf's Exalted and trying to figure out how to suck all the setting-specific stuff out of THAT so I can use it for my next Barsoom campaign. But that's a different story.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


As a long time home brewqer one of my tricks it to be small in a published setting. I take a look at what is published and see what of it I want to use. If the game goes long and I find I need to go into an area not defined, well I just define it and see what happens. But you have one thing on your side, Privateer Press is not known for the ir fast production times so odds are by the time they publish something on an are you have defined, your campaign will be over with anyway.
 

barsoomcore said:
I know most people who play D&D do so in a published setting. Are there any homebrewers around though, who picked up a setting and ran a campaign in it? What was your experience like? Was it fun or painful or did you end up homebrewing the whole thing anyways?
I get a vibe like that just trying to run a printed module; "Am I doing this right?" and I know the GM of our Eberron game has expressed similar concerns about this issue, because she knows that we all have the Eberron book, and will probably buy subsequent Eberron material as it comes out. But I have this strange psychological (or perhaps pathological! :D) feeling that if I'm not running the setting "right" then I'm somehow doing a disservice to ...I dunno, someone anyway.

So, if I were in your shoes, I guess the first thing I'd want to know is, is anyone else in your group going to pick up the IK book? To me, that's a big factor, because I don't have to worry nearly so much about "getting it right" if I'm the sole conduit of information on what is right vs. not right.

Then, it probably would be painful for me to literally run someone elses setting. What I'd most likely do is simply immerse myself in the information I have, default to it, but when in doubt, just make up what's actually going on as needed. Kinda a half-assed homebrew, so to speak, using a lot of names, geography, plot hooks, etc. from the published setting, but not making myself beholden to them.
 

barsoomcore said:
I know most people who play D&D do so in a published setting. Are there any homebrewers around though, who picked up a setting and ran a campaign in it? What was your experience like? Was it fun or painful or did you end up homebrewing the whole thing anyways?

1) Painful. Tried to run FR. All the players knew in detail much more about the Realms than I did or, in some cases, even wanted to know. I couldn't deliver their version of FR.

2) Okay. Some of the above players played in limited Ravenloft scenarios before.

3) Great! None of the (new generation) players ever heard of Hommlet.

My homebrews usually turn out to be "alternate universes" of published settings anyway. I'll take bits and pieces that I like from Greyhawk, FR, Ravenloft, Necromancer games stuff and put them on an original map and try to make them fit together.
 

barsoomcore said:
... It feels very strange to think that I'm going to run a game in a setting where my decisions as to who's where and what they're like might get superceded by later publications...


The where & what won't change but will be expanded upon the release of the IKWG in a couple weeks, so if you want the geography setting fluff, you might wanna check that book out too.

There won't be many more books you need to worry about that stuff though in the next year ( at least ), but most signs are pointing towards war in the IK ( the meta plot driving the mini's campaign ), so who knows what might change over time.

That being said, I tore the hell out of a lot of the accepted conventions in the Scarred Lands setting a while back, moving the Mithril Golem, establishing the city of New Mithril in Western Vesh, and closing off all extraplanar portals - some widespread effects there, but who cares?

Don't be afraid of putting your stamp on the setting, using what you want and discarding what you don't. Just ignore something that you discover inconsistant with a ruling you already made. Players won't care, even if they are setting knowledgable. If I was using Barsoom from your web material, the changes I'd make would probably make you cry.
 

I DM Forgotten Realms campaigns which in my opinion can be a rough place to DM due to all the amount of material out there and the amount of people somewhat familiar with it. One thing is to set expectations if you think your players have a large amount of experience with the published setting in question. I let my players know I try to play the world accurate, but I don't know everything about everything Realmsian, so if I mess up a detail or an NPC we move on and that is just a tweak in my version of the Realms.

Keeping the initial location small also helps. It lets you focus on one specific area minimizing issues mentioned above. I have also been known to choose a rather isolated area of the Realms or one not run much to help make it a little more of an unknown. Once you get more comfortable you can shuffle the party to a place that is a little more mainstream if so desired.

And finally don't let it bother you if you stray some from how the setting is written. Once you start playing in it it will take on your own flavor and that is a good thing.
 

I'm going to echo several other people here and say to go small. My Mystara may or may not be anyone else's, but who could tell, since I use hamlets not on the maps, NPCs not mentioned anywhere else, and so on. No one can say that Nicodemus of Midwood is being presented wrong, because, while Karameikos is well-detailed, he and Midwood are MINE.

Yeah, it all takes place in the same world as Bargle the Infamous, the Princess Ark, night dragons and all the rest, but it's a big world, and I focus on the bits not detailed. And even in the most-detailed setting, these ALWAYS exist.
 

barsoomcore said:
I've never run a game in a published setting before. It feels very strange to think that I'm going to run a game in a setting where my decisions as to who's where and what they're like might get superceded by later publications. I guess I can just ignore whatever Privateer puts out from now on, but it still feels very strange.

This is the A#1 reason I dropped published settings in the early 90's. Sure, it can be easy to ignore certain items that are contrary to what's gone on in your campaign, but when the changes are to the extent of the Time of Troubles in FR, Wars in GH, or Wrath of the Immortals in KW, then pretty much all subsequent materials are for all practical purposes in a different world than the one you're using. (Heck in Mystara the maps weren't even the same since they drowned one continent and put a big hole in the middle of another.) I stopped buying FR materials after the ToT, and then stopped buying KW/Mystara materials after WotI.

Now I only run homebrew settings or 'dead' settings.

My advice to someone playing a current setting is to just get a limited amount of material - the main campaign book, an adventure or two, a supplement - and ignore everything else. From there, make the setting your own.

R.A.
 


Remove ads

Top