Why do a homebrew?
- Thread starter Tauric
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
Eosin and EternalKnight's procedure is the best one, I have found; it worked for Star Trek and Star Wars, and the coolness of the setting, combined with "mysteries that aren't mysteries" really draw out a person's curiosity.
You can use the same approach for magic. Have an NPC spellcaster do something with his variant magic that is either impossible or very difficult to do within normal D&D; Your spellcaster players will pick up on it immediately and want to know how he did it; leve them the possibility of finding and duplicating this magical feat, and you have hooked people.
Nothing hooks people better than something really cool that someone says they can't have.
One other point: DO NOT HAND OUT REAMS OF HANDOUTS, unless your player are really into that sort of thing. Make all handouts one page or less, and have as few of them as possible.
Second, make them interesting. In a very popular Alternity game I once ran, the players were chasing a rogue AI that threatened the computer systems of the largest nation in the Galaxy. They received once-per-session news feeds with all sorts of neat snippets of articles, advertisements, and buried within were clues to the AI's passing or presence in a given sector. They used these to track the AI, to look up new technology just being introduced on the market, and just plain laughing and enjoying the humor I threw into the stories. (One player got a kick out of the five-level Hexadecimal IP addresses I used for contact info.)
---------------------
But why homebrew? Because it's yours, and no one else's. That's to me reason enough. I play FR now, but still have my homebrew world that I have developed over the years, and the players still find something unusual every time they return to it. (Though sadly, I think my ability to run FR has now doomed my campaign. I carried all my experience from running it, as well as the tips I've gleaned from ENWorld over the years, and now my players prefer to play it! I've doomed my own world by making FR as dynamic as my homebrew.)
You can use the same approach for magic. Have an NPC spellcaster do something with his variant magic that is either impossible or very difficult to do within normal D&D; Your spellcaster players will pick up on it immediately and want to know how he did it; leve them the possibility of finding and duplicating this magical feat, and you have hooked people.
Nothing hooks people better than something really cool that someone says they can't have.
One other point: DO NOT HAND OUT REAMS OF HANDOUTS, unless your player are really into that sort of thing. Make all handouts one page or less, and have as few of them as possible.
Second, make them interesting. In a very popular Alternity game I once ran, the players were chasing a rogue AI that threatened the computer systems of the largest nation in the Galaxy. They received once-per-session news feeds with all sorts of neat snippets of articles, advertisements, and buried within were clues to the AI's passing or presence in a given sector. They used these to track the AI, to look up new technology just being introduced on the market, and just plain laughing and enjoying the humor I threw into the stories. (One player got a kick out of the five-level Hexadecimal IP addresses I used for contact info.)
---------------------
But why homebrew? Because it's yours, and no one else's. That's to me reason enough. I play FR now, but still have my homebrew world that I have developed over the years, and the players still find something unusual every time they return to it. (Though sadly, I think my ability to run FR has now doomed my campaign. I carried all my experience from running it, as well as the tips I've gleaned from ENWorld over the years, and now my players prefer to play it! I've doomed my own world by making FR as dynamic as my homebrew.)
Desdichado
Hero
LOL! All you have to do is burn out, I suppose, then you can return! I doubt I could ever make FR (or any published setting) as dynamic as I can make a homebrew, because it's not mine and I'm not as emotionally invested in it.Henry said:
BluWolf
Explorer
I have always prefered homebrew over pre-packaged. When I was in the military I dropped homebrew in favor of pre-packaged as our groups were usually pretty fluid and short lived so it helped that folks came to the table with a certain amount of assumptions and familiarity. It got the game on its mery way faster.
I am in the 6th full re-write of my campaign world now. Mainly because life does not afford me the time for a steady group. So I apease myself with writing sessions.
I agree with all advice given here. Introduce those elements of your world that are relative to the current situation or characters. Everything else if just sort of out there and unknown. I am a big beleiver in this as a whole even if the palyers are desperately interested in the world. I try to limit info to character knowledge. I use lots of words like "it seems" or "so everyone believes".
Some times the player ends up caring through the course of the campaign because their character discovers a new truth or dispells some sort of long held myth.
Knowledge is power even to the characters.
I am in the 6th full re-write of my campaign world now. Mainly because life does not afford me the time for a steady group. So I apease myself with writing sessions.
I agree with all advice given here. Introduce those elements of your world that are relative to the current situation or characters. Everything else if just sort of out there and unknown. I am a big beleiver in this as a whole even if the palyers are desperately interested in the world. I try to limit info to character knowledge. I use lots of words like "it seems" or "so everyone believes".
Some times the player ends up caring through the course of the campaign because their character discovers a new truth or dispells some sort of long held myth.
Knowledge is power even to the characters.
Vaxalon
First Post
One way to pique player interest in a homebrew is to have them help build it. Ask the cleric what his religion is like. Ask the fighter who he learned from, and what the fighting style is like. Ask the wizard whether he learned his craft at an academy or as an apprentice to a hermit.
Greatwyrm
Been here a while...
I like running homebrews for a number of reasons.
1. Most DMs, myself included, have a mental problem that forces them to create stuff. Homebrew settings are a good way to deal with this.
2. Most published settings have a lot of related fiction that goes with it. I don't read any of it. I think the Realms and Dragonlance are cool worlds and all, but I don't want somebody getting all over me because the timeline I lay out doesn't follow the cannonical fiction or I say the king is Frank when it's really Ted. I know as a DM, it's my game, but I'd still rather not deal with it.
3. Some campaign settings don't work well for the type of story you want to tell. The one I'm working on right now is a sort of "Atlantis rising" kind of thing. It's hard to make a continent disappear and reappear over the course of a thousand years in most established settings.
4. Sometimes your players just don't like the published settings. I think Dark Sun was the coolest thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately, most of my players have an abject hatred of psionics in fantasy settings.
As far as keeping the players interested in a whole new world, I'm trying to get them involved from the beginning. I did two or three email surveys before I began making my current setting. I made most of my decisions based on the feedback they gave me.
For example, somehow City Adventures and Wilderness Exploration were two of the highest rated campaign elements in the survey. So, I set up things to facilitate city/political mysteries and exploring a whole new continent (the aforementioned "Atlantis rising" theme).
1. Most DMs, myself included, have a mental problem that forces them to create stuff. Homebrew settings are a good way to deal with this.
2. Most published settings have a lot of related fiction that goes with it. I don't read any of it. I think the Realms and Dragonlance are cool worlds and all, but I don't want somebody getting all over me because the timeline I lay out doesn't follow the cannonical fiction or I say the king is Frank when it's really Ted. I know as a DM, it's my game, but I'd still rather not deal with it.
3. Some campaign settings don't work well for the type of story you want to tell. The one I'm working on right now is a sort of "Atlantis rising" kind of thing. It's hard to make a continent disappear and reappear over the course of a thousand years in most established settings.
4. Sometimes your players just don't like the published settings. I think Dark Sun was the coolest thing since sliced bread. Unfortunately, most of my players have an abject hatred of psionics in fantasy settings.
As far as keeping the players interested in a whole new world, I'm trying to get them involved from the beginning. I did two or three email surveys before I began making my current setting. I made most of my decisions based on the feedback they gave me.
For example, somehow City Adventures and Wilderness Exploration were two of the highest rated campaign elements in the survey. So, I set up things to facilitate city/political mysteries and exploring a whole new continent (the aforementioned "Atlantis rising" theme).
alsih2o
First Post
1. freedom- i can put what i want where i want.
2. knowledge- i am virtually guaranteed of knowing more about my world than my players.
3. meta-game preventitive- see 2
4. focus- i can more easily center my world around my players than someone elses.
5. control- i can figure out what changing borders eman without consulting 3 books and a sage-type
6. time- i have it, why not make my own world(s)?
2. knowledge- i am virtually guaranteed of knowing more about my world than my players.
3. meta-game preventitive- see 2
4. focus- i can more easily center my world around my players than someone elses.
5. control- i can figure out what changing borders eman without consulting 3 books and a sage-type
6. time- i have it, why not make my own world(s)?
Wombat
First Post
I'm rather interested in the range of reactions here.
Personally, I have been satisfied with only three pre-made worlds, one of which barely counts -- Paranoia, Ars Magica (but that's history with a few bells & whistles, and I even alter the bells & whistles massively), and RuneQuest's Prax. I think I would like Blue Planet, but I've never had a chance to run that game; same would go for more or less for Star Trek, but again I have A) never had a chance to run it and B) several personal visions I would want to change in it.
I have never cared for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or any of the other "core" campaigns for D&D. Too much magic, far too many intelligent races, too many types of monster, too much whizz-bang for my tastes. Cultures sit side-by-side without interacting (other than warfare), religions have no interaction, and there is far too much of a meritocratic, modern social attitude to the worlds. (Realistically, this is also a major gripe I have against most (but not all) modern fantasy writing.) I also find that playing in someone else's world leads to, "But in X supplement and Y novel, this happens!", rather than allowing separate visions of what is true. And, personally, I never want a world where I have to worry about, "But where is Drzzt/Elminster/Merlin/Wolverine/whathaveyou".
Now a homebrew campaign, conversely, I am able to address all the problems I find with other worlds. Equally I am able to tailor matters so that the world reflects the notions I want to play around with in the campaign (both in terms of philosophy and heroic style). This includes not only the world itself, but also (obviously) the rules used. My group does not care for the miniaturization of D&D, so we run a swifter, simpler combat system -- this was a joint decision. Examplex include not using battleboards, not worrying about AoO, and accepting GM decisions about how close various parties are in combat.
But homebrew doesn't mean creating 100% from wholecloth either. For example, in my current campaign I use the maps from Harn, the basic religion (in the major, civilized regions) of The Book of the Righteous, and other "known" quantities. On the other hand, I have altered both dwarves and elves so that they are ECL +1 races and placed a restriction that players may only take play these races after they have met them in the game and see how the act different from humans to various situations.
I try not to overload my players with material about any given new world. I start off with small bits of material and each game sessions I hand out another 3-8 pages of background notes. Equally all the players are allowed to add material, as long as it does not cancel out previously supplied material. This means that this is not "my" game, but rather "our" game.
Overall I find greater creative and gaming satisfaction in a homebrew campaign. I understand why others prefer pre-made campaigns: they are in some ways easier to run and, if you have limited time, required less effort to run, which is no bad thing at all. For my tastes, however, I shall stick to my own worlds.
Personally, I have been satisfied with only three pre-made worlds, one of which barely counts -- Paranoia, Ars Magica (but that's history with a few bells & whistles, and I even alter the bells & whistles massively), and RuneQuest's Prax. I think I would like Blue Planet, but I've never had a chance to run that game; same would go for more or less for Star Trek, but again I have A) never had a chance to run it and B) several personal visions I would want to change in it.
I have never cared for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or any of the other "core" campaigns for D&D. Too much magic, far too many intelligent races, too many types of monster, too much whizz-bang for my tastes. Cultures sit side-by-side without interacting (other than warfare), religions have no interaction, and there is far too much of a meritocratic, modern social attitude to the worlds. (Realistically, this is also a major gripe I have against most (but not all) modern fantasy writing.) I also find that playing in someone else's world leads to, "But in X supplement and Y novel, this happens!", rather than allowing separate visions of what is true. And, personally, I never want a world where I have to worry about, "But where is Drzzt/Elminster/Merlin/Wolverine/whathaveyou".
Now a homebrew campaign, conversely, I am able to address all the problems I find with other worlds. Equally I am able to tailor matters so that the world reflects the notions I want to play around with in the campaign (both in terms of philosophy and heroic style). This includes not only the world itself, but also (obviously) the rules used. My group does not care for the miniaturization of D&D, so we run a swifter, simpler combat system -- this was a joint decision. Examplex include not using battleboards, not worrying about AoO, and accepting GM decisions about how close various parties are in combat.
But homebrew doesn't mean creating 100% from wholecloth either. For example, in my current campaign I use the maps from Harn, the basic religion (in the major, civilized regions) of The Book of the Righteous, and other "known" quantities. On the other hand, I have altered both dwarves and elves so that they are ECL +1 races and placed a restriction that players may only take play these races after they have met them in the game and see how the act different from humans to various situations.
I try not to overload my players with material about any given new world. I start off with small bits of material and each game sessions I hand out another 3-8 pages of background notes. Equally all the players are allowed to add material, as long as it does not cancel out previously supplied material. This means that this is not "my" game, but rather "our" game.
Overall I find greater creative and gaming satisfaction in a homebrew campaign. I understand why others prefer pre-made campaigns: they are in some ways easier to run and, if you have limited time, required less effort to run, which is no bad thing at all. For my tastes, however, I shall stick to my own worlds.
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Well, I think many of the points in favor of a homebrew have already been made. And I have faced the exact same problems in generating interest in a homebrew setting compared to running a established setting--much of the advice here I could use for my own homebrew game.
One of the biggest things that has held up my homebrew game has been the 3.5 releases & supplemental rule books (waiting on UA and PsiHB now; any OA updates would be nice, too). I really don't like to kick off a game when a new race, core class, or mechanic in a supplementary book is released that I'd like to add to the game (& which may cause a significant shift in the homebrew setting). It's an obsessive trait on my part (and an annoying one at times), but sometimes it does help solidify a concept I have for a game, whether it's a "Crunch" of "Fluff" aspect.
A big advantage to a homebrew is that you can easily incorporate elements from existing settings that you like, and with a little time & work, make it a reasonable part of the setting rather than have it look like some badly-assembled Frankenstein's monster of a setting. It also allows you the freedom to exclude anything you want as well. (Sure, you can do this with an established setting, but you run the risk of having problems/issues with your players over it, especially if it's a well-known/well-loved setting.)
As for why I even expend so much time & energy into a homebrew? Well, to a certain degree, it is an obsession, on my part---it's a way for me to be creative. It's also a way for me to get all of my D&D-like ideas out of my mind & used, rather than just sitting in my brain & mingling in to ideas for my writing (which I'm trying to keep somewhat unique & non-D&Dish).
Also, it's cheaper for me. I don't feel the need to purchase all of the supplements for a setting, especially ones that may be relevant for the PCs (like, for example, the Underdark FR sourcebook for any sort of drow, duergar, or svirneblin PCs).
I can borrow elements from anything & anywhere for my homebrew--and I often do. Whether is a plot hook from a story, a city from a old sourcebook/setting, or even a NPC from a CRPG, I'll use it if it interests me.
I think one of the big reasons why I'm into homebrew settings instead of established ones is due to the information base--especially for settings like Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Star Wars, Marvel/DC, Lord of the Rings, etc. Though there are some players who may have knowledge about the game to understand certain nuances & reference, not all of the players may share that level of knowledge.
And to a certain degree, some players emulate elements of an established setting a bit too much, whether it's a prominent NPC (Elminster, Drizzt, Raistlin, etc.), a unique race (draconians, saurials, thri-kreen, etc.), or even unique abilities/concepts (spellfire, Chosen of XX deity, wild magic, etc.). It gets a bit tiresome after a while.
Ultimately, keep on keeping on, if you will. Homebrews really do have potential to capture the imagination of your players--sometimes it just takes the right "spark" to set it off.
One of the biggest things that has held up my homebrew game has been the 3.5 releases & supplemental rule books (waiting on UA and PsiHB now; any OA updates would be nice, too). I really don't like to kick off a game when a new race, core class, or mechanic in a supplementary book is released that I'd like to add to the game (& which may cause a significant shift in the homebrew setting). It's an obsessive trait on my part (and an annoying one at times), but sometimes it does help solidify a concept I have for a game, whether it's a "Crunch" of "Fluff" aspect.
A big advantage to a homebrew is that you can easily incorporate elements from existing settings that you like, and with a little time & work, make it a reasonable part of the setting rather than have it look like some badly-assembled Frankenstein's monster of a setting. It also allows you the freedom to exclude anything you want as well. (Sure, you can do this with an established setting, but you run the risk of having problems/issues with your players over it, especially if it's a well-known/well-loved setting.)
As for why I even expend so much time & energy into a homebrew? Well, to a certain degree, it is an obsession, on my part---it's a way for me to be creative. It's also a way for me to get all of my D&D-like ideas out of my mind & used, rather than just sitting in my brain & mingling in to ideas for my writing (which I'm trying to keep somewhat unique & non-D&Dish).
Also, it's cheaper for me. I don't feel the need to purchase all of the supplements for a setting, especially ones that may be relevant for the PCs (like, for example, the Underdark FR sourcebook for any sort of drow, duergar, or svirneblin PCs).
I can borrow elements from anything & anywhere for my homebrew--and I often do. Whether is a plot hook from a story, a city from a old sourcebook/setting, or even a NPC from a CRPG, I'll use it if it interests me.
I think one of the big reasons why I'm into homebrew settings instead of established ones is due to the information base--especially for settings like Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Star Wars, Marvel/DC, Lord of the Rings, etc. Though there are some players who may have knowledge about the game to understand certain nuances & reference, not all of the players may share that level of knowledge.
And to a certain degree, some players emulate elements of an established setting a bit too much, whether it's a prominent NPC (Elminster, Drizzt, Raistlin, etc.), a unique race (draconians, saurials, thri-kreen, etc.), or even unique abilities/concepts (spellfire, Chosen of XX deity, wild magic, etc.). It gets a bit tiresome after a while.
Ultimately, keep on keeping on, if you will. Homebrews really do have potential to capture the imagination of your players--sometimes it just takes the right "spark" to set it off.
Last edited:
Altalazar
First Post
I do my own homebrew world for the same reason I built my own house instead of buying someone else's used one. I like to be able to build things from the ground up and make it my own. I'll freely use elements from anywhere I can find them, but in the end, I'll get something that is uniquely my own, with its own history, and is both a total mystery to all others (since there is nothing published on it) and also feels like home to the players, as the world is very much a part of them as they are a part of it.
It leaves total freedom to experiment. It satisfies the lust to build. Talk about the utter act of creativity - one left to mythological beings outside of gaming - that of building an entire world, including everyone who lives there.
It leaves total freedom to experiment. It satisfies the lust to build. Talk about the utter act of creativity - one left to mythological beings outside of gaming - that of building an entire world, including everyone who lives there.
Similar Threads
