Homebrewers: How Publishable is Your Brew?

[Mafro]

I'm curious how much work people put into their homebrewed stuff to make it accessible for others to use (a.k.a. publishable). If you were to put your homebrewed stuff in another GM's hands, would they be able to use it? Or do you think it's a waste of time to detail some of your house rules, races, items, etc. when those that need to know already do.

 

[Halivar]

I work pretty close with my DM on the game-world we play in. The world(s) right now consist of about ten or so binders stuffed with unorganized loose-leaf pages. We're trying to collate it into something usable as a campaign setting.

So no, it's not very publishable right now.

 

[EricNoah]

Mine is not at at all publishable. Mostly because it is plagiarized bits of many different intellectual properties.

 

[Voadam]

I have a list of house rules on the web.

I have a little bit of description on the web.

Mostly I use modified published settings and mash up stuff to my taste.
Oathbound/Dragonlance/Sci-Fi/Warhammer/Greyhawk.
Post-ApocalypticGreyhawk/Ptolus/Planescape/created history.
Ravenloft/GreekHomeBrew/DarkSun/Greyhawk/FR.

 

[Nifft]

I steal from the best.
I wing all the rest.
Forever free... unpublished!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

Mine is not at at all publishable. Mostly because it is plagiarized bits of many different intellectual properties.

And that's the boat I'm sailing, too.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

While I do have quite a bit in print (I won't make with the shameless self-promotion because most of it isn't relevant to the thread), the actual homebrews I use are in unpublishable form.

Call it 35% in my head, 35% cribbed from various closed IPs, 20% disorganized notes, 10% possibly-publishable campaign primer.

IIRC, I've sometimes cannibalized a stat block from one of my campaigns for a published source, and I did use some material I'd originally come up with for a campaign in a recent submission. Which is good, because it never actually saw use in the campaign. :/ It's the exception rather than the norm, though, unless you're talking about stuff I'm running explicitly for playtesting purposes.

 

[Thunderfoot]

In the TRUEST sense of the word, it could be published, but the questions is, would anyone want to purchase it?

The information I have could easily been written up, (most of it is) and transfered to a publishable format. However, the lack of certain 'elements' that are staples of 3.5 like PrCs and treasure tables and mega magic, would proabaly deflate the sell value. Its a low tech, medium magic world with lots of intrigue and world spanning events.

Whether or not the players characters participate in any of those events is complelety optional. Goblinoids are extremely rare and orcs are actually civilized. Reptilians however are a plague on the butt of humanity and their allied races. Contact with outsiders is almost unheard of and gods rarely if ever directly intervene. Its more historically accurate and for some, the emphasis on role-playing vice 'roll'-playing might be a bit of a turn-off. Is it possible, yes, but not very liekely.

 

[Haloq Jakar]

Mine is not at at all publishable. Mostly because it is plagiarized bits of many different intellectual properties.

Mine too the maps are Judges Guild/CityStates with different scale and political boundarys

but 99% of the NPCs are all original and several different campaigns Dungeons are here there and everywhere. I only have 1 original dungeon and its yet to be found

 

[Arkham]

Considering my current homebrew consists of a theme statement, a list of deities, and a page of names and titles, it is far, far from publishable.

It'll get more detailed as things go, but its not meant to be a whole truely unique world. It is more of local setting on an obvious real world mythological backdrop.

Basic world background I pilfer freely from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana