D&D 5E Published Campaign Setting or Home Brew?

[Snoring Rock]

I will venture to guess the favorite setting here in use is Forgotten Realms. I have used Wilderlands, but that is getting old after a vey long run. Starting a new campaign with 5e when-ever my books arrive; I am thinking of doing a home brew.

What do you do? Why do you use a published setting? If so, which one? Why do you do your own?

 

[steeldragons]

Homebrew. 100%. Been using/creating it for nearly 30 years. Not about to start using someone else's now.

FR is 5e's "official published default." Some of it I love/admire the work of Mr. Greenwood. Some of it is entirely not important to me. I don't use it and any "official 5e" flavor/fluff/story that conflicts with my world's information/flavor is thrown out the window. Simple as that.

The D&D at your table is your game. Don't fall into the false trap that if D&D says it then your hands are tied/must use it. If it exists, or such and such happens in FR or Eberron or wherever, you have to have it...unless, of course, that's the kind of world you want to have/use...and I, personally, love a degree of "kitchen sink-ness." But don't get sucked into the trap of having to say, "Yes" because that's what the PHB, MM, published setting says. Your game, your own world.

EDIT to PS: I think the perception that you will find Forgotten Realms as the preferred/"favorite" setting here on EN world is...mistaken. Will be interesting to see though.

 

[Blue]

I love to create worlds, and several players at my table love to explore and find out about new cultures, so that's a good fit.

Though the past several years I've been inviting the players more to help with this. I come up with broad ideas, they can leap in and detail cultures, areas and organizations that their characters belong to.

I also run 13th Age and this is very much the idea of the default setting - paint in broad strokes that just ooze plot hooks, and then actively encourage each table to make it their own by having each character (a) have One Unique Thing and also their skill system ("Backgrounds") tie into the world in such a s way that the players really help define what they want to see and describe parts of the worlds.

It's a time investment, but there's lots of grwat advice out there (like the decade old Dungeoncraft articles from TSR's Dragon mag that are still relevant and floating around the web) that make it both fun and less up-front work.

To end with one bit of advice from that series - always put a secret in every bit of world crafting you do. Doesn't matter if it's something the PCs will every find.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

I have run both published (mainly FR) and homebrew campaigns (currently doing homebrew) and each have its advantages. While a homebrew can be an incredible timesink, you get the world just as you want it, while a published world often have elements that doesn't fit your style.

My biggest problem with published settings like FR is, that I always feel a bit reluctant to change it up too much. I can't really explain why, but it does tend to hinder my creativity somewhat.

 

[iserith]

If everyone at the table has some experience with and likes a particular published setting, then we'll use one. We discuss how closely we want to adhere to "canon" prior to play and what themes are going to be stressed.

Otherwise we just create a setting together and use that instead, adding to it as we play.

 

[AriochQ]

I run Greyhawk but let my players know that just because it is published some book somewhere doesn't make it true. I tend to keep the majority of canon, but change things as needed. In most cases, the character would not have the knowledge anyway, so making changes shouldn't be a problem unless a player is metagaming (in which case it serves them right! muhahahah).

 

[Li Shenron]

What do you do? Why do you use a published setting? If so, which one? Why do you do your own?

Being both a player and DM, I have conflicted feelings on the matter...

As a DM, I have used both published settings, homebrew settings, and mixed settings.

I prefer published settings when running the game for casual players, because a published setting saves me a lot of work, and often comes equipped with nice maps and artwork to show. My favourite published settings are Rokugan, Forgotten Realms, Planescape and Al-Qadim (tho I've never run a game of the latter).

But when I have experienced players at the table, I prefer homebrew, so that I can throw their expectations to the wind. If I play for example Forgotten Realms, it is so popular that any seasoned D&D player probably knows more than me... On one hand, it's a good thing for a player to know about the setting, on the other, I can't keep up with all the stuff and I will certainly create some inconsistency, foil their knowledge, and possibly even piss them off. With homebrew, I can exercise my creativity fully and also get rid of certain fantasy tropes I might be bored with. That said, I'll happily throw published material (adventures, locations, monsters, NPCs...) in my homebrew in order to simplify my job, perhaps refurbished to make it less recognizable.

As a player, I strongly prefer published settings. That's because I feel much more compelled at sharing the same gaming experience with thousands of others (present or past), and play famous adventures in famous fantasy worlds, rather than nobody's homebrew.

And yes, if you read between the lines, you'll get that I wouldn't want to be a player in my own games

 

[Snoring Rock]

I have done homebrew, but it was in a distant past life. The player have always enjoyed my work over published material. I guess the homebrew lends itself to my spur of the moment add-ins. I tend to try to stay cannon like the poster above, when I use a published setting. When I do my own thing, I do tend to use published and re-skinned material to save time.

While I prefer someone-else's art and maps to my own, I think the players like my stuff better. Not sure why. Maybe because I never stop to read or look it up. It is mine, heart and soul. But it takes more time to be ready...er...maybe not. I find that I read the published material over and over and then fill in gaps. I may spend just as much time or less, just putting noted down and then "knowing" my world. Then I do not have to study the published one.

 

[Sunseeker]

Homebrew. Published material always feels too linear and when it isn't players often treat it like its linear and its a waste of money.

 

[bedir than]

I've DMd DragonLance and SpellJammer. Back in AD&D1/2 I also had a homebrew that was middling at best. Now I only DM in a homebrew because that's how I can best explore the themes I want to explore.

I've also played in the above published settings as well as Ravenloft and the Realms. I enjoyed Ravenloft, but I think the Realms are overdone and overdeveloped.