Home Brew

[KainVorador]

Is it just me or doesn't anyone else have a hard time getting enjoyment out of a home brewed campaign?

I've been in a few and one of two things usually happened.

1: The DM goes so far out of their way to make their world unique, that it doesn't make plausible sense, and becomes difficult to enjoy.

Or

2: The DM does the exact opposite and creates a world that they "came up with", but it resembles an already exisiting universe almost down to a T. Only major differences being that the names are different and uncreative, and the maps are different.

I tend to only find enjoyment in one of the already pre-published worlds such as Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft...anyone else have this problem?

[Griogre]

My experience is simple - the most important thing about the setting (and system too, actually) is the GM. A good GM will make the setting good. It doesn't matter if it is homebrew or not.

Now for GM's prepackaged settings may or may not be easier to run. It depends on the level of detail and how close the GM wants run the setting as presented. From the GM side it can be a pain to run popular well known settings - just because they are popular and well known. Try running a Star Wars game where you change something around or a Forgotten Realms game without Waterdeep or Elminster or a Ravenloft without Strad.

Players who really like those settings will not be happy. This can make running home brew settings very attractive, since you don't have to worry about "setting doctrine" and can make the setting appropriate to the adventures you wish to run.

[Admiral Ed]

For some DMs (myself included), a lot of the fun of being a DM comes from creating a home brew universe. I would only really be interested in being a player if i didn't get a chance to stretch my creative muscles and invent stuff.

I do agree that without forethought, even a well concieved homebrew campain can fall apart pretty quickly. Maintaining a fictional world is a delicate balance that few ever get completly right.

[Phystus]

I'm with Admiral Ed, working on my homebrew setting is a big part of the fun of being a DM. But the key here is work. Making a decent homebrew setting is a lot of work, both to set up and to maintain. Not everyone can really pull it off.

Another variable is the players. I'm blessed with players who take great pleasure in exploring the setting and interacting with the plot, which makes putting the time into making that stuff good has some payoff when gametime rolls around. If they were just interested in exploring the graph paper dungeon and getting some loot, the plot and setting would probably suffer from inattention on my part.

The one advantage the homebrew DM has is passion. If they're decently creative, or able to plagarize tastefully, it's quite possible to make a playable world that can provide many hours of fun for the players and DM alike. As long as it does that, it's a success.

~P

[Veldehar]

I've seen a lot of bad campaigns in prefab settings, and frankly, I've likely run a couple, at least in a sense, because I don't have a real caring for that world. My most successful campaign has absolutely been my own creation, lock, stock, and two smoking undead. I've been in some very good prefabs also, so it is mostly the GM. For me as a GM, the prefabs were a good learning ground, but in no way comparable to my own creation. As I head toward the release of Rolemaster for FG2 and a new campaign after 10 years off, this world will have existed (in some form or other) for 25 years or thereabouts, so it does have some advantages, LOL.

[longarms]

"2: The DM does the exact opposite and creates a world that they "came up with", but it resembles an already exisiting universe almost down to a T. Only major differences being that the names are different and uncreative, and the maps are different."

If the only thing that is different between some of the homebrews and published settings is that the names are different, I would expect that you would be able to find more of less equal enjoyment from them! Just struck me as funny.

Regarding your question, I find both published settings and homebrews to be fun.

[KainVorador]

"2: The DM does the exact opposite and creates a world that they "came up with", but it resembles an already exisiting universe almost down to a T. Only major differences being that the names are different and uncreative, and the maps are different."

If the only thing that is different between some of the homebrews and published settings is that the names are different, I would expect that you would be able to find more of less equal enjoyment from them! Just struck me as funny.

Regarding your question, I find both published settings and homebrews to be fun.


I can definatly understand why you'd think that, but it's just the opposite for me simply because I see so much similarity that it really starts to get under my skin. The lack of effort starts to make me question a great deal and I simply lose interest.

[Oberoten]

Personally I always thought that using prefabs is the same in roleplaying as in cooking. It makes for sloppy and unapetizing stuff.

Now a bad chef will come away with meals that taste bad no matter what they do, but a good one will be able to make TV-dinners taste like a feast with but a bit of work.

Though anyone worth their salt will do FAR better with pure ingredients and making their own compared to using half fabs.


- Obe

[Admiral Ed]

Personally I always thought that using prefabs is the same in roleplaying as in cooking. It makes for sloppy and unapetizing stuff.

Now a bad chef will come away with meals that taste bad no matter what they do, but a good one will be able to make TV-dinners taste like a feast with but a bit of work.

Though anyone worth their salt will do FAR better with pure ingredients and making their own compared to using half fabs.


- Obe

I'm imagining a DnD/cooking game show hosted by Ainsley Harriot.

"This weeks suprise ingredient is: Adult White Dragons!"