homebrew vs. printed worlds

[Sanackranib]

In your game what is the balance between the printed setting and your "homebrew". I tend to use the published world as the skeleton and flesh it out with modules and political manipulations and a healthy dose of character interaction with NPC's.

 

[Kilmore]

I am a total homebrewer. For one thing, I'm interested in creating original stories for profit using my setting, and I don't want Elminster or Bigby roaring through violating any of the dreaded Koppi Rites. Also, my players are a bit more avid when it comes to absorbing any fantasy books they get their mitts on, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to published settings.

And finally, I like shocking my players with things they never expected. I can do that a lot easier with my own world than I can having Drizzt dance through the streets in drag.

That said, I grab ideas wherever they may come, and I've found FR to be a good source.

 

[Nightfall]

I tend to take most everything as kind of whole model, and shape in my own stuff, such as NPCs, a few spells, the occasional magic item. Mostly though I prefer to bring flavor over mechanics.

 

[Sanackranib]

spells

so has running in hollowfaust helped you to come up with any new Necro spells?

what about varient on monster summonig undead summoning
1-9?

 

[Tonguez]

What Printed stuff?

Total and Complete Homebrew too

I create the cosmologies and the cultures and the lands and the NPCs and modify the spells and races and classes to suit. I will borrow ideas and use resources (especially of the internet) and adapt them to fit.

 

[Jay Berg]

I also use a whole lot of published settings but twist them to my own end. Generally speaking I like to take secondary characters from the sourcebooks and continue to use them to my own end. This way unexpected stuff happens (and btw if my players play too smart for their characters I am know to be a very harsh DM - because of this I either ran players off who used to read to much or simply have my players acknowledge that there is a difference between what they know and what the characters know). Also I always go way back in time when it comes to using published settings. This way I can incoporate my own campaign story to run smoothly with the general world events.

So far all that has been pretty successfull.

 

[Sammael99]

I'm a homebrew guy. I do plug some published ideas, and occasionally published adventures, in there, but I susually twist them to fit my needs and make sense in the meta-plot.

 

[Desdichado]

Hombrew, yet again.

 

[Zappo]

Published. I don't have time to build and maintain a homebrew, and in any case I like having heaps of resources without needing adaptation.

I also try to stick to the canon if I can. It's easier to maintain consistancy that way.

What I do, is making adventures myself. I rarely buy modules (exception: when I know a period is coming when I won't have time to write adventures), because I like my campaign to go exactly where I want and to have the theme I want. I'll make new spells, PrCs, items, feats, races, whatever, if it's needed for the adventure, but they'll all be niche things in the setting, not altering it in a major way.

I also frequently contradict myself... erm, I have a Dragonlance campaign where I've changed the world beyond recognition, mostly due to certain apocalyptic actions of the PCs. But I don't really like it, and the alt.Krynn I'm running is way oversimplified because of this. I only do it because the players enjoy it (and because I don't like standard Krynn either).

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Homebrew. But I permit the WotC classbooks and Relics and Rituals I. I'm also about to add in axiomatic and anarchic creatures from Manual of the Planes because they are just too darn cool.