Homebrew verse Box Setting

[Akrasia]

I liked running my homebrew setting "Ilmahal" in recent years.

There are some established settings that I like -- e.g. JG's Wilderlands, and the old Mystara seting. But for 'standard' D&D-style games, I prefer to use my own settings, and borrow from published settings.

Possible future exceptions: if I get to run WFRP in the future, I'll definitely use the Old World for that (as it is such a great setting); similarly, I have a number of ideas for a Middle-earth campaign using True 20.

 

[smootrk]

Um, who are you talking to? Is there somebody else at your end who's dissing on published materials? Cause nobody in this thread has done so.

Carry axe, grind axe...

Never meant that anyone here was dissing (is that a real word ) any particular setting.

Just extrapolating from observation on a few related threads expressing opinions on the settings.

I have been reading some of the threads on people's viewpoints of the various official settings and wondered how many people prefer homebrew over box settings and visa versa.

 

[Staffan]

I've often been thinking about making a homebrew setting, and sometimes even started - but I've never gotten around to making it complete enough even for starting a campaign. On the other hand, I have a big "Oooh! Shiny!" thing going, so I'm always buying new settings and/or games that I want to try out, and making your own setting doesn't seem so important when you have a new book you're aching to use in a game.

 

[Airboy]

I've used a mixture of both. My main world is the 'Greyhawk' setting. By I have added my own stuff to it. And have also added published material.

As for a player - I have liked both homebrew and 'boxed'. I think it also depends on the DM, that you have.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Personally, I prefer to run homebrew games, though boxed settings have some appeal. However, homebrew has proven to be cheaper for me, and a lot more flexible for design. Also, I can avoid player preconceptions with a homebrew, whereas with a boxed setting, that's a bit harder (esp. for a new player who jumps in mid-game).

Playing in other games is another matter. Some homebrews are great, while others are bleh. Same goes for boxed settings. More often than not, there are elements that I really like & that I really dislike. The Eberron game I'm in now is quite enjoyable: more so than some of the homebrews I've played in before.

 

[Wombat]

I've always prefered homebrew. Part of the reason for this is because it is the way I started. When I first got into gaming there were no pre-published worlds. As such, I grew to create my own.

One reason I am not fond of published worlds is a phenomenon I have seen and heard on far too many occassions -- "That's now what is says about [place X] in [fill in the blank supplement]!" I have run across this sentiment in several different systems over time and always find it annoying, whether this be for Forgotten Realms, Middle-Earth, Star Wars, Harn, the Buffyverse or whatever else you wish to pull out. When you create your own world, the world fits to your rules and nothing is there to contradict (except yourself, especially when you forget your notes... ).

I don't run a lot of published adventures, either, simply because it usually take so much effort to convert them to fit my world that I end up getting very little from them.

This is not to say that I don't gleefully use features out of some of these worlds - my players have run across Hallowfaust under a different name, and with many differing details, but essentially the base city. I have also run the adventure of The Broken Covenant of Calebais both for Ars Magica and, with a LOT of conversion, a D20 homebrew.

I have nothing against other people using published worlds and adventures. It's all good by me. But when I run something, I simply feel better when I know that I am putting the world together, with the aid of my players, rather than having the world written for me by someone else. As I have said before, for me, running someone else's world is like wearing someone else's clothing -- the fit is always just a bit off.

 

[Ron]

I prefer to homebrew because it gives me much more liberty to explore my creativity. I used to run some games in Greyhawk but the truth is that I have no patience left to study somebody else settings, especially complicated ones such as the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Agamon]

Homebrew, for sure. I run published campaigns once in a while, in fact I'm running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in Greyhawk right now, and prepping my next campaign in Elivone, my homebrew, which will begin probably at the end of the year. Everyone is chomping at the bit to get it started, so I think my players prefer playing in homebrew, too.

 

[The_Gneech]

My long-running Fantasy Hero game was set in a lovingly-detailed and extremely comprehensive homebrew world -- since in FH you have to pretty much build everything yourself anyway (or at least, you did in 1989, which is when I started the campaign).

These days, I use off-the-shelf settings for the same reason I play D&D -- I have 8 hours a week TOPS to devote to gaming. Assuming that four of those hours are the game session, the rest have got to be prep time -- I haven't got TIME to homebrew a world!

-The Gneech