Why do you homebrew? or Hombrew blues

[painandgreed]

I homebrew because I like to come up with my own ideas and want to put them into my campaign. I could run a pre-published campaign and try and fit those ideas in, but sometimes, it is very much like fitting a round peg into a square hole. Sometimes, the ideas are significant enough that major changes would have to be made. Meanwhile, there are often ideas that are in published settings that I do not like. I can get rid of them, but then that breaks other things in the pre-published setting. So, if I use a prepublished setting, it ends up a patchwork of my ideas and missing data that will just confuse players (often also DMs of the same world) who are familiar with the setting. They will take things for granted that no longer exist and not take advantage of the things that do. Replace the pre-published setting with a hombrew and PCs know to ask about the setting, they don't correct you on the setting, and your setting is not made obsolete by some game companies "metaplot" which makes it even more unworkable with future products and players.

 

[Geoff]

I homebrew because I like to experiment with crafting different kinds of beer and drinking something different than I can buy at the store.

Ooooh, you didn't mean *that* kind of homebrewing!?!?!?

 

[Nyaricus]

Oh, I can't seem to do a PHB only game (although I would with new players if I ever got the chance) but I am going with a "rules in print" game where I don't alter and add to everything in sight.

Well, those are fun too . For my homebrew, I have all-original classes and races, but I also DM in Faerun, as I like to switch it up a bit and stay with core sometimes too. My homebrew is a work in progress, but I love it

 

[Gundark]

I used to create huge involved worlds complete with political histories, unique races, and so on - the players did not care. Really, most players do not care - tell them the stuff that involves their PC - that's it.

It's lazy because I can insert locations wherever I want. I can make up locations, personalities, kingdoms, or whatever else without any contradiction. I do not have to remember anything I have read. I find it much easier to remember things I have created and written. I do take notes at the table for times when I create things on the spur-of-the-moment to try and maintain consistency.

The problem I find with most campaign worlds these days is they try too hard to be different. They want new angles, new mechanics, new classes - thanks, but I'll just take my vanilla pseudo-medieval core D&D lazyman world.

To be honest this is what killed the "homebrew spirit" for me. No one really cared about my world.To them it didn't matter, they weren't predisposed to playing in my world over the other. Thus I was like "freak why put up with the effort of worldbuilding". Now that I am wrting a homebrew again I am still contending with this, this time however it's all about a creative outlet for me. I have asked the group i game with to offer feedback as I go along with the build (right now we are playing an age of worms in Eberron). I have gotten a few people who put input, but hey.

For me a homebrew (remember it's IMHO) needs to be different from the vanilla flavour. if not then I might as well play in FR or Greyhawk. The reasons that people mentioned above I could still do in a published world as I could still manipulate the world how I see fit (e.g I could take FR and change it so the Dalelands are united under a single king, Cormyr is fighting a brutal civil war, etc).

Oddly enough I would find that using a published setting would be more lazy than the other....but hey.

 

[pogre]

Oddly enough I would find that using a published setting would be more lazy than the other....but hey.

I certainly understand. I guess I have a tiny bit of pride in my lazyman vanilla D&D worlds. And my campaign are invariable grittier than gh and fr.

 

[RFisher]

For those that homebrew...why do you? I see so many vanilla homebrew fantasy settings...why bother? Why not use a published vanilla D&D setting? Is your setting so unique that it hasn't been done? What keeps you from just simply using a published setting?

I've never found a published setting that I really felt gave me a significant head-start over homebrewing. They're usually filled with stuff that doesn't really have any impact on the game.

A published setting could be useful if I knew the players would be familiar with it, but they aren't. Published settings are typically far enough from vanilla that it's easier to use my own vanilla setting.

But most importantly, I like creating my own.

 

[el-remmen]

I homebrew because it is fun, and even in the years where I could not find a good group to play with I entertained myself by developing the world and the setting for future games (and all that prep worked out).

I homebrew because I feel like I will always have a better handle on the feel of the world than I would ever do with a published setting.

I homebrew because I set the expectations for the setting.

Oh, and for all you homebrewers in this thread, feel free to drop by this thread and sound off.

 

[Odhanan]

Why cook a meal when you can microwave a TV Dinner?

The prepackaged campaign world, like the TV Dinner, might be serviceable if that's all you have the time or inclination for. But the meal you cooked -- if you have any skill in cooking -- is almost certainly better.

RC

That's a really short and great way to put it. There are some premade campaign worlds that will be more like ordering from a restaurant than just TV dinners (I'm thinking of Ptolus for instance), but even if you eat restaurant food from time to time doing it all the time becomes quickly boring: you'll like to cook for yourself to get exactly what you want, when you want it every once in a while, at least.

 

[Jack Morgan]

I've done lots of weak on the fly homebrews. Right now, though, I'm making one and I'm doing it full bore; my intent is not so much to publish a setting, but to make one that is thorough and well thought out enough that it could be published. Moving forward with it has taught me more about the rules than simply reading/playing them could ever do.
So from my point of view, it's not just a matter of cooking for yourself, but learning HOW to cook for yourself as well.

 

[Afrodyte]

Oh, it's fine enough to give people a map, descriptions, from politics to racial makeup, religions, legends, attitudes and everything they could possibly want or need. But there are two problems with that. First is, you never want to do too much work, because if you do, you might feel that all that work is unappreciated. Also, there is that factor of 'why'...why is something there? If something doesn't seem right, logical... I want reading to be able to question those things. If you as a reader understand my purpose, then you can then understand my campaign world. That's something I thought a lot of published and homebrew worlds don't have, a perspective of where the creator is coming from. Not to mention, if I make a horrible mistake, and make something completely illogical, I want to know about it.

I think you're on to something here. I'm starting to doubt the necessity of doing things that way in general. For me, the least interesting parts about a setting are its history and geography, while the most interesting are its culture (especially religion, folklore and mythology) and metaphysics. I'm more interested in what the characters are going to do and how things work right this moment than I am in providing hooks for world-spanning epic campaigns. There might be something worthwhile in creating a setting that is really about people and not about everything else. One of these day I might shape an entire world with myths and folktales. At the very least, I hope it to be more interesting reading.

As for making my own homebrews, it's mainly because published settings don't often have anything I want to play with for an extended period of time.