Why Homebrew?

[Tinker Gnome]

Hmmmm, after reading everyone's answers so far I have come to the conclusion that if I do decide to make up my won setting(I sort of have one in my head) I would go with the "make it up as I go along" approach. Meaning that I might only create a small area of the world and then create more of it as the PCs explore more.

Everyone's replies have been fascinating to read.

Oh, and when I do run a published setting I have no problem messing with canon. I am also the one who will know the most about it in my group, I do not have to worry about any players getting upset about how I did not follow "Setting Element X".

 

[Herobizkit]

I, for one, enjoy homebrew settings because I have grown extremely weary of the generic fantasy that is expected of the core rules and most pre-gen modules/adventures. I LIKE Sci-Fi in my Fantasy, for example. My campaigns invariably contain elements of steampunk, victoriana, robots, lost technological relics from age-old civilizations, unusual races... If you will, I strive to make my campaign worlds feel like a Final Fantasy-style setting, and seek out products and settings that support my vision (Iron Kingdoms and Etherscope are VERY close to my ideal setting, but don't mesh well together - well, not yet, anyway ).

Running homebrew setting also allows me to tinker with rules and options (thank you, Unearthed Arcana!) and create stories and situations that would be far outside a "standard" setting.

 

[Nellisir]

I will say that I'm not one of those people who came up with a setting back in the day and has been building and adding onto it ever since. I change settings almost every campaign (and my campaigns tend to last nine months to a year max). As a result I am probably not approaching the degree of detail that some GMs have. But I also have no compunctions about wrecking the worlds I've made. I will kill my pretties in a heartbeat if it means a more fun, exciting game.

I am one of those people...but I also kill my pretties with some consistency, mix up the parts, and create CAMPAIGN GOLEM!!! Or something. My setting undergoes cycles of design and redesign. Aspects that work, or interest me, stay, aspects that have lost favor or proven uninteresting get scratched. Countries shift, history changes - although never where the players can see.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I butcher my settings as well, partially since once the story/campaign is done that setting has played its purpose since it was custom built for that campaign. But also my mind is usually always dragging me somewhere else and wanting to do something else and I know better then to try to mix them into one setting.

 

[Nifft]

But, can anyone tell me any compelling reasons to create my own world beyond just the satisfaction of it?

If you don't feel the urge to create your own world, it's unlikely that anyone can impart that desire in you with just a few words here.

But let me ask this: what compelling reason did you have for starting your own thread, instead of just responding to a thread that already existed? It's likely not too far from what some homebrewers feel.

Plenty of people have worlds that "haven't been said yet", and homebrewing is one way to express themselves.

Cheers, -- N

 

[JoeGKushner]

Allows a high degree of customization which can allow you to surprise the players.

 

[fanboy2000]

In a homebrew, it's fairly easy to integrate published material into the world.

Blackmoor doesn't have be in Greyhawk or the Known World. City State of the invincible Overlord doesn't have to be in the Wilderlands. Stuff like that.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But, can anyone tell me any compelling reasons to create my own world beyond just the satisfaction of it?

The satisfaction of your players. No, really! Well, also the joy of running sessions using that setting, of course.

There have been times when players have let me know - in one way or another - how much they think some of my homebrewing has rawked. Which yeah, makes it all worthwhile, come to think of it. But anyway, yes, it's entirely possible that players can get just as much - or more, at times? - from a homebrew setting, as the GM might.

And this is true of those times when I've been a player in a campaign setting of another GM's creation, when it's been fantastic. I've appreciated it so much, all that care, thought and effort, and generally remembered to let them know this, somehow.

When it's done right, there's nothing like it. Those GMs who put in the hours, creating a setting that is all kinds of awesome: respect.

 

[Byronic]

I have a general loathing for published settings and don't believe they're realistic enough. Especially in fourth edition. So I make my own. I find the mindset, cultures and such very... limited.

Ravenloft and Dark Sun are notable exceptions but I don't have their books.

 

[Mikaze]

I love a lot of campaign settings(oh Planescape, let me count the ways), but homebrew is closer to my heart. I can get everything I and my players are looking for that way.

I want to run a world where black-skinned elves are just another flavor of elf rather than drow.

I want to run a world with more nuanced relations between all of its races, where the expected alignments are kicked out and racism is still present but orcs and dwarves can live together.

I want to run a world where most of the big-name abberations are an unknown or unpresent entirely.

I want to run a world without the usual Underdark, I want to run a world using a pantheon of original gods and a few pulled in from other settings.

I want to run a world where celestials and fiends can't enter the Material plane through the usual channels, and have to use mortals as living gateways or "rides".

I want to run a world with a mysterious continent on the other side of the world populated by a secretive culture of good yaun-ti variants with a marilith priestess-empress that's possibly on her way to becoming that world's goddess of redemption.

So I have to homebrew.​