Hey guys,
So I've been talking a lot with my gaming group about how I hate homebrew campaign settings, and it seems I'm in the minority within my circle, so I want to know how others feel beyond my small sample size. Personally, I feel that homebrewed campaign settings are just really incomplete, and the PFRPG Core Rulebook does little to help with that design flaw. Encouraging GMs to only come up with the barest amount of information to just barely stay a few steps ahead of the players (as the book suggests on p.405, paragraph 2) sounds like a recipe for disaster. How can any of the players know the setting's most basic common knowledge or portray their characters as knowing such when the world is incomplete? And even if the world is "fully" fleshed out, I've never found the information available to be encylcopedic enough to (as a player) create a truly rich character with a detailed background and a sense of placement within the world. I'm not expecting GMs to write multiple volumes on the minutia of their worlds, but I've yet to see a homebrewed setting (or play in one) that has the amount of detailed information printed in published settings (even those that don't have a menagerie of sourcebooks).
Is this a unique concern/preference or do others share my sentiments? I didn't start this thread to simply gripe about homebrewed settings, so I really want to hear your thoughts/experiences, from both the perspective of the player and that of the GM. Perhaps also those who have actually homebrewed settings can share their experiences (both positive and negative) with us?
As an aside, how do you (all) feel about "adapting" existing worlds (from video games, books, TV, etc.) into tabletop RPG settings and do you consider this to as equally offensive/inoffensive as homebrewing a unique setting?
Thanks everyone!
So I've been talking a lot with my gaming group about how I hate homebrew campaign settings, and it seems I'm in the minority within my circle, so I want to know how others feel beyond my small sample size. Personally, I feel that homebrewed campaign settings are just really incomplete, and the PFRPG Core Rulebook does little to help with that design flaw. Encouraging GMs to only come up with the barest amount of information to just barely stay a few steps ahead of the players (as the book suggests on p.405, paragraph 2) sounds like a recipe for disaster. How can any of the players know the setting's most basic common knowledge or portray their characters as knowing such when the world is incomplete? And even if the world is "fully" fleshed out, I've never found the information available to be encylcopedic enough to (as a player) create a truly rich character with a detailed background and a sense of placement within the world. I'm not expecting GMs to write multiple volumes on the minutia of their worlds, but I've yet to see a homebrewed setting (or play in one) that has the amount of detailed information printed in published settings (even those that don't have a menagerie of sourcebooks).
And you won't. The vast majority of people who create and GM their own settings are doing this as a hobby. So they likely do not have the time (and copy editing, cartography, and art resources) to create a professionally developed setting.
That said, I am not sure I fully agree with the advice in the PathfinderRPG on the subject either.
Is this a unique concern/preference or do others share my sentiments? I didn't start this thread to simply gripe about homebrewed settings, so I really want to hear your thoughts/experiences, from both the perspective of the player and that of the GM. Perhaps also those who have actually homebrewed settings can share their experiences (both positive and negative) with us?
Homebrewed worlds do have several advantages, though.
As an aside, how do you (all) feel about "adapting" existing worlds (from video games, books, TV, etc.) into tabletop RPG settings and do you consider this to as equally offensive/inoffensive as homebrewing a unique setting?
Or historical settings based on real world myths and legends?
This is no easier and fraught with more pitfalls then creating from scratch.
Thanks everyone!
As it is, I do know where you are coming from.
Creating a good "Homebrew setting" that works does require a lot of work. I think that the players would have the right to the level of information given in the RotRLs player's guide for creating characters that would belong in the setting.
Any less, and yes, the players are not really being invited to participated in the shared story telling.
Quite frankly most players couldn't care less what the setting is and wouldn't take the time to read up on it even if you sent them bits of information and told them they were mandatory reading. I've only ever had one player ask for reading material on my setting of his own accord; it's certainly not the norm, and staying a few steps ahead of your players is something that just works often enough to take it for granted.
Having that said I do get where you're coming from. The first thing that comes to mind is that most GMs have a lot more of their setting in their heads than they've ever put down on paper. Writing out a setting is a lot of work, and if you haven't done it, it pays to sit down with the creator and pick their brains about what they have. That's certainly the least I could do if someone is taking that active an interest in making a character that fits the world. Second thing that comes to mind is that the lack of detail can work in your advantage; you can work with the GM to come up with something you like and he can make it fit somewhere into the world without straining consistency like you might with a more established setting. The players can be part of the world building as much as the GM.
Anyway I have about sixteen more pages of text on this subject in my head but I gotta run so I can start cooking.
hehe; Imcomplete, that is funny; check out my homebrew if you think homebrews are all incomplete. I have nearly 30 years of development and players interactions in my world. I have more themes, characters, you name it; more than any "buy at your local store" setting that I have ever seen. Sure I like Greyhawk; Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and many more; and yes, new gm's just starting out don't have a wealth of stuff generated yet, but if they stay at it and have the wealth of players that I have been blessed with; their "homebrews" should rock any store scripted model.
Store scripted game setting have some other drawbacks; all the information is available to everyone and tends to draw arguements on what this hero or that hero would of or should have done.
The best game settings depend upon player development regardless of their beginnings from a humble homebrew or a team scripted setting from a publisher.
So what happens in your Store Bought Setting when the pc's sack your named city, like Arabel or <insert major city name here> and change it completely; is that not possible, because if it is; your no longer running the "store campaign setting" and are running your homebrew version of it.
I hope this is not coming across as a gripe and I sure have had my bad experiences with either homebrews or store bought stuff.
a Good GM are created, not born, and a good gm can make all the difference in a game setting. Some people just dont do their homework so when you show up for a game; it is haphazard with them grasping at straws with incongruent stories or monsters.
One big problem many homebrews have is on the natural world and how things work. They fail to answer to the players, why the sun comes up or why there is gravity or are actions good or does Good exist independant of actions. These things and things like them are where many homebrews lack details. Other problems start to appear when a gm starts mucking around with classes to make his or her ideal class; not as big a problem nowadays as there are so many sourcebooks for magic and classes though.
I think the major reasons people make homebrews is either because they dont like something about a game mechanic or they are to poor to buy a game setting and all its supplements or they have some other idea in mind.
My major reason started out, quite frankly, because I was poor; so drew my own stuff; but I had read a lot of ancient works like stuff by Homer and read lot of Indain tales like Hiawatha; and started reading lots of mythology from around the world and wanted to put D&D into those settings; so I set my world up with regions of our world and inserted magic; so you could experience Greek and Roman myths; or Viking myths and in the world they would all be real with all those histories all working together. Then I read some fiction books that were just so cool; I had to put in those settings.
Hombrews are for dreamers; for all those gm's who love a setting of a book or mythology so much that they want to share that world with players of similar interest. Be a Trojan warrior; be the leader of a Mongol horde; encounter all that stuff and more; make a homebrew.
hehe
Now; I am a bit timid about my sci fi extravaganza homebrew; as I am writing the game rules and the world and all the history and background from scratch; and it is so spanking new, sorta, that we are still making characters.
I hope it is not a big flop and I hope it doesnt have all the stuff you hate about homebrews, but to be fair; it is very new and I am writing things down best I can with time constaints. I always wanted to run a near future first contact game; well, actually wanted to play in one; but like that will ever happen.
|
I think that is right - how much detail exists in a homebrew is mainly a factor of age. For example, FR is a very detailed setting but it is ancient. I doubt there was massive detail when Greenwood started on it, but even then he had been writing little short stories about it for years and years as a child before he started playing D&D. I've tended to avoid homebrews in the past, mainly out of laziness, but started one maybe a year ago. I've just made up bits as I have needed them, but of course as I need more and more bits I am making up more and fleshing things out as I go. In a few years, it might even be vaguely respectable. In any case, I need to know only as much as is necessary to run the game and keep the overarching plot going. I don't need details of the next continent, or even the nexr country most of the time.
There are, of course, some issues with the PCs knowing stuff but I did a handout on their home region ahead of time, and the rest arguably they don't need to know or can discover as they go along. (And a significant problem with commercial settings is that the players can read all of the setting secrets in the book, which is more likely the more motivated they are by the setting, paradoxically.) Most medieval peasant knew next to nothing about what was beyond the next village, and even with magic that is probably enough to start off with in most instances. Also, the amount of detail isn't really the issue, it is (to coin a cliche) how much fun people are having. Detail which no one will ever read is wasted effort. Sure, it helps if you know more than the players do, but you probably don't need to know that much more.
|
Personally I am of two minds about homebrewed settings. I have seen some done outstanding, while not to professional levels they really fit the style and mood of the campaign better. Then I have seem those half ass tossed together of a few idea's the GM thought would be cool with no real rhyme or reason and tend to be terrible.
Me personally i like using published settings and tweaking them. Say changing about 20-30% of the setting. Sometimes taking things out, sometimes adding things in and sometimes changing already established things to be slightly different.
I had a player once want to play from a group that was very well connected and new a whole lot about what was going on in many places. The overview handout of heroes, movers and shakers of significance in the world was like 20 pages or so typed. This was just the cream on the surface; hehe I dont think she ever read it; just like many spellcasters dont read their spells. So even if all that background stuff if available in a quick, succinct handout; it doesnt get used.
One advantage of play at home over pbp in any game; is that if you hang out with the players and the gm, like we all usually go out for dinner and see movies together sometimes and stuff like that, if you want to or not you get to hear stories of various heroes in the game; some of these guys can tell stories from 20 years back or even farther so your game starts to get a mythical history itself. I have only seen this with a homebrew; not with a ready made store setting.
Am thinking of mine and Balfic D&D worlds, but come to think of it; we do tell a few stories about Lorms Rifts game, but to a much lesser degree.
One advantage, thinking of Balics Homebrew; is that people dont "blow up" your store bought campaign like has happened in several homebrews. Lorm has the title; World Killer; but I guess that is more properly Homebrew Killer. Balfic could give you the details on that; but I have never heard of such a thing with a store bought campaign setting.
|
I agree. Just think how horrible it would be if Golarion didn't have firmly established maps for all 8 of it's continents.
Oh, wait....
I'd wager that the majority of gamers playing D&D (or some variant thereof such as Pathfinder) use a homebrew world. It may be that some are largely influenced by existing campaign worlds or other fictional worlds.
Published campaign settings can be great. But you shouldn't automatically discount homebrew settings. Some may very well be as fleshed out as Golarion, or Grewhawk, or the Forgotten Realms. Although with the Forgotten Realms, I'd actually say it suffers from being overly defined (as well as overpowered, it seems every bum on the street has 30 levels of arch-mage).
As for adapting other fictional worlds, I'm not a fan of straight adaptations, but I'm fine with importing concepts from them. For example, the Sword of Truth novels / Legend of the Seeker TV show has a character called a Confessor, who has some interesting magical powers....I think that a Confessor could be an interesting prestige class. Same with Mord-Sith. But the problem with using too much of a setting like that is that usually either they characters all want to be the same type of character or they all want to play the heroes of the fictional universe.
|
|
Heya, I'm only infrequently on these boards now days, but these are the threads I enjoy reading and participating in.
I'm a fan of homebrews. It provides a large number of benefits to a DM, particularly if they have experienced players or have been playing a system for a long time.
1) It allows them the creative freedom to change details n order to bring aobut that sense of wnderment in their players again. The DM can use the stats for any one type of creature, but change its appearence completely from that described in teh MM for his homebrwew. In this way, you minimize the metagaming aspect of your players knowing what a creature does when they see it AND they get more enjoyment by fighting something "new".
2) It allows creative freedom in changing teh setting in big sweeping arcs. If players move through the world and complete adventures a high enough level, they could potentially change teh entire political landscape (and potentially the geological landscape as well). This is something easily accomplished in a homebrew as it won't upset any further releases that a company makes.
3) If the DM is open to the idea, it allows players the cretive input they may crave as well. If you as a player wants to make a character from the moutain regions of Icefold, then go ahead. If the DM hasn' developed this region yet then he/she may give you the chance to fill in details for him/her. Both people get what they want.
4) It allows for many influences from muliple media sources to be incorporated into the setting. I've read a large amount of fantasy and science fiction literature in my time (as have most people on these boards I'm sure). There are some great concepts in those books and films that I like to incorporate into my games (particularly things such as the nature of magic, pantheons of gods and political interactions. Those broad sweeping structures of a game world often take much thought and time, so borrowing them works for me).
Having said all of that, any time I've tried a homebrew there are some things I make sure are complete so players can get involved.
1) Races must be fleshed out. If you're chaning them significantly from the main rules, let players know.
2) Start with a good idea of how the main world may look. I always have some form of wolrd map drawn with dodgy names written in. This doesn't involve dropping in details etc, just having place names to use consistantly as needed. It also makes for interesting little plot hooks of places of interest to drop on your characters occasionally.
3) Have an established pantheon.
4) For the immediate area the group is starting in, have at least some idea of teh political structure and possible enemy groups int eh zone. This is less important if you're running a scripted game, and far more important if you're running sandbox game.
A good homebrew develops detail as the game ages. Play through three or four campaigns to level 20 in the same campaign world and suddenly your dealing with a rich tapestry and detailed history. This is how books series develop and television series as well (Starwars, Startrek, Stargate all examples of this).
I've played in Valegryms game world (although briefly through PbP only ). It was great and inspired me to try my hand at my own on these boards. That game was developing into some great story lines before life got in the road and I had to limit my time on these boards.
My advice is to give homebrews a go. Give them time to age and mature and you may find the world becomes something more organic than anything you've played in before.
Cheers
How can any of the players know the setting's most basic common knowledge or portray their characters as knowing such when the world is incomplete? And even if the world is "fully" fleshed out, I've never found the information available to be encylcopedic enough to (as a player) create a truly rich character with a detailed background and a sense of placement within the world.
I have to adamantly disagree with this. The thing about a homebrew campaign setting is that you as a player, now have the chance to attach your character to the world in any way you see fit. You get to create part of the world with the GM, instead of just having to take the hooks he gives you. You wanna play a knight, but the GM hasn't come up with any knightly orders? Then make one up, make it your ideal knightly order, and present it to the GM. More likely then not, he'll take it and make it part of the world and appreciate that you did some of the work for him. Win/win situation there, you get exactly the character you want as well as getting to help define the setting, and the GM doesn't have to do quite as much himself.
thanks for the nice plug Wrath.
Very true; I didnt have an assassin's guild until a player wanted to play and assassin in 1st ed. hardbound. Now the guild is everywhere; several other players have played one and expanded the guild all over the place making a huge impact to the political scene in the world. Could that happen in a premade world; sure; but as in the knightly example; if you can only pick from one of four knights, because that is all the game came with; well, it crimps pc creativity.
How can any of the players know the setting's most basic common knowledge or portray their characters as knowing such when the world is incomplete? And even if the world is "fully" fleshed out, I've never found the information available to be encylcopedic enough to (as a player) create a truly rich character with a detailed background and a sense of placement within the world.I have to adamantly disagree with this. The thing about a homebrew campaign setting is that you as a player, now have the chance to attach your character to the world in any way you see fit. You get to create part of the world with the GM, instead of just having to take the hooks he gives you. You wanna play a knight, but the GM hasn't come up with any knightly orders? Then make one up, make it your ideal knightly order, and present it to the GM. More likely then not, he'll take it and make it part of the world and appreciate that you did some of the work for him. Win/win situation there, you get exactly the character you want as well as getting to help define the setting, and the GM doesn't have to do quite as much himself.
Folks here have already hit many of the high-notes on the pros & cons of homebrew versus published. So, I'll just add my bit - my apologies for the ramble. I am fan of most published settings - my comments about any particular game-world doesn't mean I hate them or anything.
Homebrew versus published depends on a few things: what type of group your playing with and what they expect. Secondly, it depends on what you expect from a published gameworld and the quality of it as well. Lastly, homebrews depend on the author/DM and how it develops it.
Does your group expect to play something epic or pure character stories or just an on-the-fly adventure? If players want something sweeping and majestic (ala Lord of the Rings), then a homebrew can be an epic-fail unless you provide the range of details. Of course, if that's the route you are going, then you probably will invest a great deal of time in creating a world. I have been involved in epic homebrews where I can tell you the DM had covered *lots* of details - he had created a whole encyclopedia, stories, people, and even basic languages before even starting his game. If your players prefer character-driven, then I can see that published materials helping more to create that background. Sometimes, impluse-driven playing on it's own can create an improvised and appropriate game world.
As for published gameworlds - disregarding the nature of job vs. hobby when discussing published material versus DM's personal creation - there's also the question of what do you expect from published materials? Do you want sources that cover everything or just enough to get you started? Diablo or Dragonage have their own RPG's materials, but I think it's hard to create a viable campaign becuase such stuff is so closely tied to a specific story. Harn is an amazingly detailed world, but I'm not sure it gives you much room for adding your own information. Greyhawk is a very open setting, but until the Gazeteer it was a disjointed mess as a source. Pathfinder is doing a good job of trying to balance details with flexibility on this front. Forgotten Realms, though longer-in-the-tooth, is similar to this - lots of history and details, but some open space to play. Although, it's longevity has created so much detail and canon, it can be overwhelming and create contradictions with players. So, I would say that your "mileage may vary" when I look at published worlds.
Finally, as I mentioned a moment ago, homebrews can be very detailed affairs - depending on your DM. It allows for some great playability, especially if your players feel they are part of the world because of the interaction and details from their DM. There's a cool feeling of exploring a new world they don't know or can't find in a book. A bigger problem can be when your DM feels his world is "too precious" for the players to change. Ironically, like can happen with a published world, you can get a stuck or railroaded feeling. I had a DM who created a great game world from scratch, but he had invested so much history into his villains, we could never defeat them. A recurring villain is one thing, but "Deus ex machina" was incurred so often that it lead to heated arguments.
I look at Ed Greenwood's long career creating the Forgotten Realms and I'm amazed. He basically created such an amazing homebrew that it became a great marketable product. I amazed by how much detail he created for that world. But I sometimes wonder if the large amount of dedication to nigh-unstoppable characters like Elminster, Kehlben, Alustriel, etc. was a result of the creator's fiat or the publisher's decision.
So is your opinion on homebrew in the minority, I don't necessarily think so. Published gameworlds can have great materials, and some are clearly successful. But I don't think homebrews are as limited in my experience.
|
|
I'll break down my response into my two ways of thinking.
1) I love a good homebrew.
2) A good homebrew is hard to find/make.
In category 1, I have been playing for years now in my wife's homebrew world. She wrote it originally back in the days of 1e AD&D and has updated it over the decades. It's an incredibly rich and detailed world that truly lives on its own merits. It has unique elements I've never found elsewhere while remaining very functionally a D&D/PFRPG game.
I myself have been working on my own homebrew since September of 2009. I think it truly stands alone in a great many ways, while also remaining identifiably a PFRPG game.
In category 2, I've spent hundreds of hours on my homebrew. I've cursed, fought, screamed and ranted at many points along the way. I've consulted with my wife and a great many other gamers on how do do X, Y or Z. And in the end, it is still not QUITE complete. But it's good enough for me to start playing in. I know that by playing in the sandbox that I'll learn more about my world than I ever could by just churning out page after page of design details. (At present, my primer document is at over 26k words and continuing to grow) Will I ever be happy with what is essentially "my baby"? Probably not. Is it good enough? Definitely.
That's my 2cp, thanks for letting me share.
Wow, the sheer amount of detailed, highly-invested responses on this topic is a little overwhelming...!! Thank you to everyone for their thoughtful input and enthusiasm! Hopefully we'll see some more spirited consideration of each " sides' " (not that there really are sides) pros and cons. How thrilling!
Having read through the responses so far, I've come to realize that my experiences with homebrewed worlds has primarily been on the more unpolished side of things, and that non-published campaign settings can have an equal (if not greater) wealth of information as their hardcover counterparts. That being said, however, it also seems as if the collective view regarding the hard limits of what can be done with a published setting is somewhat myopic.
Whenever I've DMed, I have always strived to remain faithful to the material provided in a published setting (with regards to geography, tone/flavor, history, etc.), but as far as the sweep of events is concerned . . . Well, let me put it this way: The second my group begins a campaign in a published world, the setting's future is ours to control . . . and if I'm not mistaken, isn't that the way it's intended?
From the way it sounds (and I very well could be wrong about this), it seems as if the people who are championing homebrews are doing so partly because of the freedom of it provides to change the shape of the world without going against the "cannon". In my personal experience, I will say that my PFRPG FR game is well beyond the year of the Spellplague, but it never happened since we're playing from the 3.5 CS, not 4E. I'm getting the impression perhaps that some DMs are clinging too faithfully to a supposed cannon and feel restricted by it. Is that correct?
One other thing that I think is great about published settings is that they're sort of impartial. With a homebrew setting, the DM/creator is far more likely to care about the world than the players are because it's his/her "baby", so to speak. A third-party published world offers a sort of (I hate putting it this way, but) "compromise" for the players and the DM. While a preferential bias will no doubt always exist in the hearts of both the players and the DM, the setting itself is more or less "set in stone" and the group can then decide to either take it or leave it.
Further thoughts one way or another?
|
|
Whenever I've DMed, I have always strived to remain faithful to the material provided in a published setting (with regards to geography, tone/flavor, history, etc.), but as far as the sweep of events is concerned . . . Well, let me put it this way: The second my group begins a campaign in a published world, the setting's future is ours to control . . . and if I'm not mistaken, isn't that the way it's intended?
This is how I play in my home group. We run our games in Eberron, and since we just finished a level 20 cmpaign and are about to start another, I've made significant changes to the game world based on what happened in the last campaign (I actually progressed the timeline ahead 100 years). This now makes that game world my homebrew.
What's more, all the little house rules we created along the way o flesh out errors and character concepts make it my home brew.
As a DM with little spare time for creating an entire world (which is the reason I had to give up my attempt at one on the Pbp boards), this method works for me
What it does do, however, is invalidate many of the suplements that may have been released for the Eberron world, since now the political and geographical environment have changed somewhat to relfect the PC actions in our last campaign. From this point on, it's all on me to make things run, though I still have many of the core concepts mapped out for me (see my list of needed items above).
From the way it sounds (and I very well could be wrong about this), it seems as if the people who are championing homebrews are doing so partly because of the freedom of it provides to change the shape of the world without going against the "cannon". In my personal experience, I will say that my PFRPG FR game is well beyond the year of the Spellplague, but it never happened since we're playing from the 3.5 CS, not 4E. I'm getting the impression perhaps that some DMs are clinging too faithfully to a supposed cannon and feel restricted by it. Is that correct?
As long as the onl thing you're grabbing is the orginal campaign setting then that's fine. It's only really a problem when players want to use supplements later released that are invalidated in your current version of the campaign setting.
The other thing to consider is the scope that a game encompasses. The Golaraion AP's are all long campaigns well into the teen levels. However each one is set in a different area and so the impact on the entire worlds structure has been minimal so far. If you play games like this then a prepublished campaign is ideal for people. However, my players enjoy the fact that they have now changed the world, and their new characters get to play in the arena they helped create.
One other thing that I think is great about published settings is that they're sort of impartial. With a homebrew setting, the DM/creator is far more likely to care about the world than the players are because it's his/her "baby", so to speak. A third-party published world offers a sort of...
This can be true, however it is mitigated by running a campaign world exactly like the rules suggest. By building the world one smal bit at a time, its hard to get overly invested in it.
You do have to be careful including old PC's though. If you plan on introducing them as major players in a new campaign, and having teh new PC's take them down or have them killed off somehow, it can lead to bad feelings amongst the players. You hve to balance that. IT's why I progressed my timeline 100 years. The old PC's are mostly dead and all legends now. The only real interaction the new PC's will get is with their legends and perhaps a few artefacts or unfinished plots the old PC's left behind. I'll still drop in some hints and bits of story though, to increase teh "cool" factor for my players.
Well that's me out for a while again. Not sure whenI'll get the time to visit and write in these forums again.
Hope it helped
Cheers
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I've DMed, I have always strived to remain faithful to the material provided in a published setting (with regards to geography, tone/flavor, history, etc.), but as far as the sweep of events is concerned . . . Well, let me put it this way: The second my group begins a campaign in a published world, the setting's future is ours to control . . . and if I'm not mistaken, isn't that the way it's intended?
To me, that's entirely the point of being a GM. Taking what's provided, making it yours and then running with that. In short, I wholeheartedly approve of this approach and I rather think that it IS the point of published material.
The catch to that, however, is with running extensively campaign world based games. Allow me to elaborate.
Let's say that in my Golarion PFRPG game, the events of the Council of Thieves Adventure Path are part of my campaign. If things play out, history is set one way or another. And if in the future, Paizo releases something that plays to a specific ending for that AP, how does one deal with it?
Me? I'd just take what I did as law and run. Others might have difficulty with that.
Really, at the end of the day, canon should come second to fun.
Just my 2cp.
Whenever I've DMed, I have always strived to remain faithful to the material provided in a published setting (with regards to geography, tone/flavor, history, etc.), but as far as the sweep of events is concerned . . . I'm getting the impression perhaps that some DMs are clinging too faithfully to a supposed cannon and feel restricted by it. Is that correct?
One other thing that I think is great about published settings is that they're sort of impartial. With a homebrew setting, the DM/creator is far more likely to care about the world than the players are because it's his/her "baby", so to speak. A third-party published world offers a sort of...
First off, let me apologize for my lengthy diatribe. Looking over the responses, I think most people encapsulated the discussion themes in a much better form than me. That being said...
To answer your first question, I think it was matter of how I interpreted your original piece as more of a "I love published stuff as is becuase homebrew is too vague and mercurial" statement. So, I was trying to say each has its place.
As far as changing a published setting, I agree absolutely that you certainly don't have cling to canon as your campaign develops. The point is this has some dangers inherent to this. If you go on far enough in a game world, you either stay within the world's boundaries (which could get boring) or you find new ground to develop. In the latter case, you may eventually find yourself having to create new elements that may or may not gel with the game world - essentially hybridizing into a quasi-homebrew. Also, and this depends on your players, but if they are fans of the published game world, and you go away from the canon too much then will they find it hard to stay committed to it. I think that is what some folks are talking about when we talk aboout having limitations with a published world's canon. It's not an absolute rule, just the idea that you are dependent on someone else's idea tree.
You cite a Forgotten Realms example, saying that your party ignored the Spellplague. If you are a fan of the Realms, then I think you'll agree most FR players have ignored this canon if they want to keep playing in 3.5 - it was a horrible idea in my opinion anyway. But the point is, you have a fairly established source to work from even ignoring this. But what if in the course of the game, some established piece of the Realms that you like is at risk by your players? Let's say you like to use the Zhents as your big bad. If the players wipe out the Zhentarim network or the re-established Church of Bane, what happens? If you do this, what happens to the Moonsea area? Does Hillsfar become the major power? Does the Church of Lathander covert a bunch of Banites and make it the land of happy flowers? Although FR source materials may be able to help, eventually you may have to make some changes that have no reference and that's where you may find yourself doing something your players don't care for because it's not part of the Realms they know ("Hey, Manshoon always has a back-up plan - he is a genius planner, etc.")
But even still, the rest of the game world is still there, so if they start new characters, you still have a famililar world to play in. But do you keep the changes, or hit the reset button-especially if later on the publisher makes further changes to the game world.
In the time it's taken me to write this, Mikhaila has once again better explained it than I have with a much simpler dialog.
Thanks everyone!
Go to Some ideas for a new campaign at this site.
In service,
Rich
http://zhalindor.com/
Hey guys,
So I've been talking a lot with my gaming group about how I hate homebrew campaign settings, and it seems I'm in the minority within my circle, so I want to know how others feel beyond my small sample size. Personally, I feel that homebrewed campaign settings are just really incomplete, and the PFRPG Core Rulebook does little to help with that design flaw. Encouraging GMs to only come up with the barest amount of information to just barely stay a few steps ahead of the players (as the book suggests on p.405, paragraph 2) sounds like a recipe for disaster. How can any of the players know the setting's most basic common knowledge or portray their characters as knowing such when the world is incomplete? And even if the world is "fully" fleshed out, I've never found the information available to be encylcopedic enough to (as a player) create a truly rich character with a detailed background and a sense of placement within the world. I'm not expecting GMs to write multiple volumes on the minutia of their worlds, but I've yet to see a homebrewed setting (or play in one) that has the amount of detailed information printed in published settings (even those that don't have a menagerie of sourcebooks).
Is this a unique concern/preference or do others share my sentiments? I didn't start this thread to simply gripe about homebrewed settings, so I really want to hear your thoughts/experiences, from both the perspective of the player and that of the GM. Perhaps also those who have actually homebrewed settings can share their experiences (both positive and negative) with us?
As an aside, how do you (all) feel about "adapting" existing worlds (from video games, books, TV, etc.) into tabletop RPG settings and do you consider this to as equally offensive/inoffensive as homebrewing a unique setting?
Thanks everyone!
I have seen some well developed homebrews. It think it is more accurate to say you dont like ones that are poorly made. To say you hate homebrews is to assume nobody has it done it correctly. :)
You have to remember..ever "official" world started out, in some way, as a home game. You put together what you can, let the players help build the world (you want to play a viking based culture..umm..sure I can run with that..), and when the players venture off the map..improv, and build as you go. And sometimes that improv is sheer magic.
How can any of the players know the setting's most basic common knowledge or portray their characters as knowing such when the world is incomplete? And even if the world is "fully" fleshed out, I've never found the information available to be encylcopedic enough to (as a player) create a truly rich character with a detailed background and a sense of placement within the world.I have to adamantly disagree with this. The thing about a homebrew campaign setting is that you as a player, now have the chance to attach your character to the world in any way you see fit. You get to create part of the world with the GM, instead of just having to take the hooks he gives you. You wanna play a knight, but the GM hasn't come up with any knightly orders? Then make one up, make it your ideal knightly order, and present it to the GM. More likely then not, he'll take it and make it part of the world and appreciate that you did some of the work for him. Win/win situation there, you get exactly the character you want as well as getting to help define the setting, and the GM doesn't have to do quite as much himself.
I actually give out bonus XP when a player comes up with an idea that gets added to my game world.
hehe back in the old Greyhawk world where we all played and ran through premade dungeons and fell in love with the game; we all discovered that the dungeons all had map coordinates that a dungeon was in; I forget how we found out in character about the place, but we would travel there like this.
Gm: it will take your characters 3 weeks to get there; mark off the food; <rolls for random encounters> ok; you got 4 random encounters along they way.
<fight four battles>
ok; now your in "start of premade dungeon."
While that is not a bad formula and some still do it and we enjoy it; I find that most peoples developed homebrews have a few degrees of sophistication above this as instead you travel day by day; encounter villages and their issue; maybe get hired for side adventure or encounter a lair or two and certainly get much more character development as your get more roleplay encounters.
So this comes to the big gm questions we all have to deal with; that of what your players think is fun. Some are in a rush to get things done; move move move; finish the task; and some of your players want to go into every tavern; sniff out rumors; talk to the locals for info and give some in return, make friends; build a network. That second kind of player really adds vitality and depth to your game; the 1st tends to be more served by premade settings.
I have found that when I have been a player in premade world/games that the worlds often lack depth beyond what is written.
Maybe that is just my experience though. I like both ways of playing; but I really want to know which way the game is going to go before hand. For homebrews I make a much more subtle character; for premades I make someone who can handle a slugfest.
Anyone else notice that they play different kinds of characters in Premade worlds from Homebrews or does it not matter?
|
I think, the suggestion to start small, close to the players and just a few steps ahead of them is quite good for any homebrew setting - but it certainly works best, if the PCs come from the same area (or if an exotic PC has a background detailed by player and gm alike).
Most fantasy worlds are pretty dangerous places. There are Monsters and Bandits in the wilderness looking for easy prey (aka travellers), thus one can assume that most people don't see much of the world in their lifetime (not more than their own hometown and perhaps a few neighboring towns or a larger city nearby, and even that is all but certain) - or receive any reliable information about other parts of the world (that was the same for most people during the middle ages and the renaissance in which most fantasy settings find their roots - even without ogres, dragons and worse out there), so encyclopedic knowledge for the worls at large is not necessarily a good thing at the start of a homebrew campaign.
And if the gamemaster forgot to detail something his players should know (and ask about) like "does this world has a moon, has it some kind of zodiac signs etc. he can always make it up like the rest of the world (and hopefully make a few notes). If the setting is a shop bought one he might be reluctant to do so, even if the needed information isn't in the book, in fear of crossing the canon.
(By the way, I mostly use shop bought settings, but thats more a matter of the time I like to invest in the campaigns I master.)
|
|
I'd also like to point out that I don't think there is a completely defined published campaign setting world out there. We know that Golarion has 8 continents, but only part of two of them have even been mapped. We know a few vague details about some of the other continents, but should a group of characters decide to go there, the GM would be no more well prepared that if he were using a bare-bones homebrew campaign setting. Likewise, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Ebberon, etc all have "blank areas".The only real way to avoid this is to run a purely historical campaign, which is incompatible with PFRPG/D&D.
|
|
Interesting topic, and some really cool responses so far.
Let me preface this with saying: In my experience, and very much in my opinion, which does not represent the opinion of my players, city, country, etc etc ;)
I think a good homebrew is really, really hard to find. Why?
1) Most GMs who world-build, are crappy at it.
2) Most GMs who want to world-build also want to write fiction. They're generally crappy at that too.
What does one have to do with the other?
In point 1, I think most GMs really have a poor idea of what it takes to make a world interesting. I'm not talking about mountains that are all the same height, or a river that flows backwards, or why your elves are 'different'. I mean the inherent conflicts and powder kegs of the regions, the dicotomies between various societies and peoples, the various powers behind the thrones whether religious, mercantile or monarchy.
In a few words, what makes your world interesting for adventures.
In point 2, I think alot of traditional GMs were also the people who saw RPGs as a way to express themselves creatively, and often this meant the ultimate goal was to write some kind of fictional novel - heck, they may even have done it or started it. The RPG world, and the game, was largely an extension of their desire to fuel their primary goal - writing fiction.
In a few words, if everyone could write good fiction, we'd all be doing it.
Now, neither of those is necessarily a bad thing, or mutually exclusive. Valegrim, to pull a name, has indicated that his campaign has had significant longevity - and his posts have demonstrated that he uses a whole lot of point number 1. I think there's a reason why it's as loved as it is by his player's. Steven Erikson's Malazan series is based largely on his D&D campaign setting ... but he's a good writer, so the 'game' is transparent to his ability to just tell a good story.
I also don't think it's a fluke that alot of the big name settings, that have been published, such as Forgotten Realms, or Ravenloft, even Golarion, are fueled by people who understand point 1, and are also highly industrius creative types or point 2.
Finally, I also think, that for a lot of groups, a setting is good because frankly - it's theirs. You know, no matter how many ugly bumps a kid hit on its way out of the womb, that baby is still the most beautiful thing in the world to a parent.
There is something inherently exciting about participating in the birth of a new creative effort, and alot of groups will enjoy that period, even if looking from the outside in, it's not all that great. I think this is why homebrews are generally the most exciting for the player's who had spent the most amount of time working with it.
Often, it's not unheard of for new people to come into homebrews years after their germination, to find them laking.
So with all that, which do I prefer. A bit of both, I think. I've had some really, really good homebrews. And, I've had some really, really good adventures in published settings.
So, as with most things, do whatever your group has the most fun doing. If you've got a GM who can bring a world alive, whether homebrew or published - that GM's a keeper.
hehe; Imcomplete, that is funny; check out my homebrew if you think homebrews are all incomplete. I have nearly 30 years of development and players interactions in my world. I have more themes, characters, you name it; more than any "buy at your local store" setting that I have ever seen. Sure I like Greyhawk; Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and many more; and yes, new gm's just starting out don't have a wealth of stuff generated yet, but if they stay at it and have the wealth of players that I have been blessed with; their "homebrews" should rock any store scripted model.
Yes, that is my experience, too. I started my homebrew in 1988. One of the reasons was that the only campaign world available at that time, was the Forgotten Realms, which I am not really a fan of. My husband also had a campaign world, but during play in his campaign we discovered that it was not ideal, so I wanted to try my own hand at world building.
I started out with 3 countries, and the story that these were the only known lands, since they were surrounded by wilderness. It was a very medieval society then. Then I added political intrigue and war and monster threats from the surrounding wilderniss.
As the characters went up in level and travelled through the wilderness, I added more countries one by one, giving each its own atmosphere. When these did not fit on 4 A4 pages anymore, I made a huge world map, mostly just filling in names and a few mysterious regions. The map still serves me well. I recently added a western continent since I started playing the Savage Tide in my world.
Some of my players have been playing in my campaigns since 1988 and know almost more of its history than I do. So they come up with original character concepts all the time. I also work with them if they e.g. want a new knightly order, a new faith, etc. So they actually help me in fleshing out my campaign world.
Some fun things we have done in my homebrew:
1) Playing campaigns in different periods of history. This means that the PCs of previous campaigns are now the historical figures of the new campaign. This had led to fun things such as a PC in the savage tide campaign renouncing the LG heritage of her ancestor, a noble and heroic cleric played by another player in a previous campaign, who is now venerated as a saint.
2) One of the characters from the first campaign has become a deity. The same player played a cleric of this deity in the subsequent campaign and fleshed out the faith together with me. In a third campaign a relic of the deity's temple (which was actually one of the magic items the cleric in the previous campaign made) was stolen by drow and one of the PCs is trying to retrieve it.
3) I regularly introduce characters who are descendants of previous NPC heroes/villains. It is a nice way to play with the expectations of the players.
4) Twice a campaign ended with a major change in the political landscape, actually on the initiative of the players.
In all these years 1 have written thousands of pages of campaign history, items, monsters, NPCs, gods, cities, countries, etc. and the world is still growing. One thing you have to do, is make notes. If something has not been fleshed out and you improvise on the spot, you have to write it down, so that in the future it fits with the rest. We also have a website, so that players have access to the campaign details. It has maps, lists of NPCs, a in-game newspaper, etc.
At the moment there are several campaign worlds I would consider buying, e.g. Golarion, if I had not invested so much time in my own campaign world. I even took the time to rewrite everything when starting with the third edition. If I buy a campaign world, all that time was spent for nothing. Moreover I would never know this bought campaign world as well as my own, no matter how much time I spent reading it through.
I actually tried this once, playing the WOT roleplaying game with a group. Though it was nice, it never became my world. It did not generate as many ideas for me as my homebrewn world does, where somehow I always seem to know how the story continues. I was spending too much time looking up things, and not finding them.
|
|
Merf...
I just realized that my 'show not tell' attitude slipped a bit.
Here's a link to the aforementioned world primer for my homebrew. I finally condensed all the chapters to one omnibus so I could get a word count.
Hey guys,
and some other stuff
First of all, what they said. I think everyone has brought some very good points to the discussion.
What I was going to say when I saw your post was that the things that you hate about homebrews are my favorite things about homebrews. I'm running one now. But as a DM I let players create their characters as they see fit. If the concept of their character requires a certain cultural background, they get to create it, without having to shoehorn their own idea into a predetermined mold. But I have some very creative players. I consider worldbuilding a group exercise. I have a wiki set up for my campaign world, and allow players to modify it to further the narrative.
I have a mostly vague outline of the world beyond the part of the world the players need to see. I have a few things in particular that I require as the skeleton/supporting features of my world. I have a basic creation myth, some distinct ages of history, and a present political climate, and the rest is only introduced to the players as they need it. I often have to make something up on the spot when the players need to know. It then becomes canon.
I'm not a big fan of most published settings. I hate FR, because I think it's way too generic, and kind of silly at times. And I really can't take Dragonlance seriously with its steel economy and color-coded wizards. I like the concepts behind Dark Sun and Eberron, but I've never played a campaign in those worlds. However, on the topic of published worlds, it should be pointed out that once a campaign begins, the setting essentially becomes a homebrew, because whatever the PCs do does not carry over to the published world. And unless the DM believes himself to be a slave to published material, he can change anything at any time as needed.
Merf...
I just realized that my 'show not tell' attitude slipped a bit.
Here's a link to the aforementioned world primer for my homebrew. I finally condensed all the chapters to one omnibus so I could get a word count.
SPELLJAMMER!
I've been deterred by this threads title for a day or so(it made me sad), but I just had to come in and see what turned this guy off to homebrews. I'll post more later, but here is a link to my own. Hopefully you(and others) get turned on to it- myself included, as I have some editing to do.
[EDIT]Not spelljammer, but still fascinating...
After campaigning in the Realms almost exclusively from the end of 1E through 3.5, playing in a homebrew has been a breath of fresh air. One of the common complaints about the Realms pre-4E is that they were mapped out down to every last pixel. Now I'm in a world where we're exploring and adding to the texture of the map by going into new places that the GM hasn't gotten to detail extensively. And she's happy to do that.
Homebrews are great for exploring new options. You can make a world where sorcery is the only acceptable form of arcane magic and bards are considered dabblers while wizards are dangerous criminals. You can decide to allow paladins as a prestige class but not as a base class. And so on.
Worlds like Oerth and Toril have their advantages when it comes to running a game, but so do homebrew worlds. Neither is superior to the other, just different. And in the end, every world was a homebrew until it becomes published.
Haha, more and more my opinions on the matter are shifting in favor of "maybe homebrews aren't so bad after all". One of the clear advantages of a homebrewed setting that keeps coming up is that players have a hand in helping shape the world by creating their own orders, guilds, etc. and thus contribute to the overall texture of the campaign setting.
Allow me to play devil's advocate: Doesn't this sort of player participation run the risk of mucking up the creator's artistic vision for his/her world, resulting in a "too many chefs ruin the soup" kind of situation?
I think we can all agree that all games are essentially homebrews (even those in published settings) because every game, its exploits, and its characters are unique, and are not included in the published canon (unless of course the players are playing NPCs presented in a sourcebook, down to the stat block, but you know, come on). However, it isn't fair to assume that the kinds of interconnectedness that emerges in homebrew settings isn't possible in published ones.
As a matter of fact, three of the things in Luna's homebrew example had all happened in my FR game. My current character idolizes a previous character of mine from the game before (which is funny because the new young wizard is a total sweetheart, but his misplaced hero worship is for a guy who's a total ass [even though he became the Magister]). Two of the party members from the first game went on to join the Faerunian pantheon as lesser gods, and two other characters built up powerful cities in their time that in our continuity rival Waterdeep and Calimport. Many might say that these kinds of these destroy the pre-conceieved notion of "what is Faerun", but quite frankly, I strongly feel that this is the point and that many players and DMs still don't realize that ... :(
In response to Valegrim's question, my group has always had a much more exotic, highly-detailed collection of characters in published settings. In the homebrews we've done, we're almost always childhood friends from the same dirt-farming village that's cut off from the rest of the world by thick wilderness. I know it may sound idyllic in as much as its such a staple of fantasy literature, but I've come to expect a much more sophisticated level of creativity in my gaming.
I admit, I really like the responses that this thread is getting. It's interesting to see how everyone feels about homebrew and published settings, both specifically and in general. Keep it up!
What can I say, I love my spelljammer.
Excellent! I've been a sometime fan, and I miss playing in it. Got to check it out!
|
|
Allow me to play devil's advocate: Doesn't this sort of player participation run the risk of mucking up the creator's artistic vision for his/her world, resulting in a "too many chefs ruin the soup" kind of situation?
Yes.
No.
An RPG, in my opinion, is an interactive storytelling experience. Every participant brings something to the table and takes something different away. I've had my Beloved Spouse (Kobold chorus: "We love you!") completely break my concept at numerous points. At other points, I've meddled with my original vision by running published material in my world and just filing off minimal serial numbers. A GM building a homebrew - (this is my opinion) - should be flexible. There have been countless times when I've had to just make something up on the fly. And in those moments, I find true joy as a storyteller.
I guess I should probably just quote GM's Rule #1.
"The plan never survives contact with the players."
Thank you again for starting such a wonderful discussion. I've really enjoyed this thread.
|
|
Allow me to play devil's advocate: Doesn't this sort of player participation run the risk of mucking up the creator's artistic vision for his/her world, resulting in a "too many chefs ruin the soup" kind of situation?
This, I think, most specifically addresses my issues with a specific type of GM who insists on doing homebrews.
I have, unfortunately, had the experience of a number of GMs whose homebrew is, for lack of a better term, finished. They have their background, their fiction, they've defined how it all works, and doesn't work - and they become very frustrated with attempts to change the world at it's foundation.
What they really wanted to do was to use their world to tell us a story, instead of letting the players play in their world, and make their own stories.
It's a fine line, but I do believe that it is a component that defines a good Homebrew GM from a bad one.
|
|
One thing that I would like to point out is that almost every professionally produced setting out there began as a "homebrew" setting.Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and the like almost universally started out as someone's home campaign and grew from there. For me a homebrew is a chance to do new things and present my players with things that they have never seen before. Of course most of my players are second and even third generation gamers so they have either played or heard stories of most of the major settings out there. Homebrew seems to be the best option in my situation.
Allow me to play devil's advocate: Doesn't this sort of player participation run the risk of mucking up the creator's artistic vision for his/her world, resulting in a "too many chefs ruin the soup" kind of situation?
It could, but the DM always has veto power over anything the players come up with. I've only had to use it once, to veto the canonical existence of Clarence the Friendly Robo-Grell. Long story.
Allow me to play devil's advocate: Doesn't this sort of player participation run the risk of mucking up the creator's artistic vision for his/her world, resulting in a "too many chefs ruin the soup" kind of situation?
That is one of the risks I kind of mentioned above with a homebrew.
The gist of it is, it can make for a great deal of creativity and uniqueness to the gameworld. But this is depedent on the GM, and also how is players want to participate.If your GM has a singular vision or idea with no deviation, then yes it can lead to frustration and issues between GM and players - fostering the "us vs. DM" mentality. By the same token, some players - for example: those that don't care, those that want to create the unconventional constantly, or those who overinvest in their character background from the start - may make it more difficult to create a communal bond for the game world.
But if a GM is flexible, and sees his players as assets to develop the gameworld's corners, then I think such collaboration is useful. By the same token, players can only make it work if they are somewhat interested in such world building for their chracters. A player playing a rogue may just be playing to kill some monsters and loot some treasure; a player with a paladin may see it as their duty to build a nation devoted to a specific diety. One is going to have a bigger role and impact in how your game develops and what they highlight to you in the world creation process.
[EDIT]Not spelljammer, but still fascinating...It's a fairly spelljammer intensive world in its history. And it's only going to become more spelljammer intensive as time passes. Currently, the World Navy is jamming about 15 vessels.
What can I say, I love my spelljammer.
God, it's so good to hear someone say that. I remember being the only person who liked spelljammer back in high school. I'm still working on a Savage Tide/Pyrespace Spelljammer conversion.
stuff
Well we did leave the crew taking shore leave on Refuge. I'd say that's pretty spelljammer. ;)
Sorry, as a player in Mikhaila's game reading this thread, I had to show some love. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to find pictures of purple skinned dwarves? Closest I could do with short notice.)
Probably has helped my homebrew that I have a few degrees; English and History among them and have lived in other countries and been to like nine countries. Gives you a larger context to world build. But then, I can also write fiction; poetry and the like and an not crappy at that either.
but that said; I own 4 premade campaign settings; so go figure, helps to see what the pro's do before you write your own.
|
|
[threadjack]
God, it's so good to hear someone say that. I remember being the only person who liked spelljammer back in high school. I'm still working on a Savage Tide/Pyrespace Spelljammer conversion.
I loved Spelljammer in junior high and high school. I love it now. I'm very happy that the fanon for it has continued and allows me to have some basic 3x compliance.
I love running a 'jammer centric game. (To expound, while Tinris is not spelljammer exclusive, the primary game I'm running there now is pretty much a 'ship's crew based on Tinris' game.
If you'd like to read more about that specific game, I've got it blogging over here on Obsidian Portal.
[/threadjack]
|
|
stuffWell we did leave the crew taking shore leave on Refuge. I'd say that's pretty spelljammer. ;)
Sorry, as a player in Mikhaila's game reading this thread, I had to show some love. (Do you have any idea how hard it is to find pictures of purple skinned dwarves? Closest I could do with short notice.)
Admiral on deck!
