Question for Players: Commercial or Homebrew?

[Jack99]

Normally I am the DM, but when I get to play, I prefer homebrew campaigns. This is because I buy many official campaign settings myself, and I like getting surprised.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

If you, as a DM, hate every single established campaign setting that D&D has to offer, then I would say it's time to give Shadowrun, Cyberpunk or maybe even V:tM a shot.

I meant every. System doesn't matter. I only ever liked one, and I'm fairly certain I don't want to run that.

Are you sure you can trust the same DM who runs a homebrew poorly to run a published in an okay manner?

 

[Barastrondo]

The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that homebrews are as diverse as the DMs running them. Some are extremely good. Others, not so much.

Also basically true of player characters, inasmuch as you can judge another guy's character (or homebrew) as "bad" or "good."

I usually run a variety of games, but when playing D&D, all other things equal I enjoy homebrew more than published settings. For every DM who uses a homebrew setting to enforce his Grand Vision on unwilling players, there's another DM who uses a published setting as a kind of absolution of personal responsibility, screwing over the players and then saying "It wasn't me, it was the books." So given equal levels of DM skill and interest in the players' fun, definitely homebrew. It's better for the actual sense of exploration than can't be had from reading a book, and I like the nearness to the creator.

 

[fba827]

As a DM (I realize that's not the question), I strongly dislike commercial settings -- I get so scared to do anything because I fear what I do contradicts something I've forgotten on some random page, OR that something I do will contradict some major point in a not-yet-released publication. Though I may occasionally mine out some ideas from something published.


As a player, it depends on how much I trust the DM and how long I'll play with him. For instance, in a one-shot game or a DM that I don't trust, I'm okay with a commercial setting (it's easier for the DM to just say "X setting" to invoke the tone and feel and scene). For a longer-term game, or a DM that I do trust, I'd prefer a homebrew setting -- that way I don't feel like a slave to learn all the backhistory that the character should know, etc. and the DM would have the time and skill to set the tone and setting as appropriate.

Edit: added a sentence to each

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

I meant every. System doesn't matter. I only ever liked one, and I'm fairly certain I don't want to run that.

Are you sure you can trust the same DM who runs a homebrew poorly to run a published in an okay manner?

This is a good point, but I view homebrews as being a red flag pointing to the type of DM to which I was referring earlier.

From my perspective, homebrews tend to be horribly altered versions of D&D's core mythos (however nebulously defined that may be) that are defined more by what they remove from the game, than what they add to it. Besides, what's the point of homebrewing if you're not going to make something completely different?

I find it difficult to believe that you don't like anything that any established D&D supplement has to offer. Are you sure you wouldn't have more fun in community theater or something?

 

[Jhaelen]

As a player I don't care - assuming the DM is doing a good job. If the DM is unexperienced I prefer commercial campaigns.
If the DM is experienced, a homebrew settings can make the game more enjoyable. This is because they're better equipped to deal with the unexpected.

As a DM I never use a commercial setting as written. Since my time is limited I prefer to use a commercial setting as a basis, though.
For me it's also an insurance against players that are hardcore fans of a setting. There are some players that seem to have read and memorized every single tidbit about a setting and are getting incredibly annoyed at every deviation from the 'canon'.

 

[Barastrondo]

From my perspective, homebrews tend to be horribly altered versions of D&D's core mythos (however nebulously defined that may be) that are defined more by what they remove from the game, than what they add to it. Besides, what's the point of homebrewing if you're not going to make something completely different?

Something in the excluded middle, basically. Like grilling burgers at home: what's the point of cooking yourself if you're not going to make something totally unlike a burger you could get at a restaurant? Or like rolling up your own player character: what's the point of making your own dwarf if there's already been the mighty Gutboy Barrelhouse?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

From my perspective, homebrews tend to be horribly altered versions of D&D's core mythos (however nebulously defined that may be) that are defined more by what they remove from the game, than what they add to it. Besides, what's the point of homebrewing if you're not going to make something completely different?

I think that's because those people keep getting advice that says "Don't make something too different or people won't be able to understand it at first glance and terrible things will happen to your game". At least, that's what I keep seeing. It's the problem I keep running across trying to decide what setting I want to make. That's actually a lot of the problem I see in published settings: they are way too similar to the fantasy core and thus have all the problems I was already trying to avoid.

So what would you consider "completely different"-enough to warrant homebrewing? It seems from what you say that you just want DMs to stick to the core options, but is that just because you don't see their settings as being different enough to warrant changes?

 

[RFisher]

I prefer homebrew, but I’m not sure why.

Maybe it’s because I expect less so I’m less likely to be disappointed. ^_^ Probably not, since I’ve become cynical enough to not expect much from books of any stripe anymore. ^_^

One of my all-time favorite DMs used a mash-up of every published setting he could get his hands on. So, it half-felt like a published setting, but also half-felt homebrew.

 

[Shroomy]

I prefer published campaign settings; I haven't tried to create a homebrew in a long, long time (high school maybe?), but most of what I produced didn't satisfy me or I lost interest. Besides, I like hanging my personal touches on a well crafted framework.