Golarion or Homebrew?

[Tormsskull]

Homebrew 80% of the time, the other 20% I drift to Cerilia. Birthright was probably my favorite published campaign setting.

[zend0g]

Any GM that wants to be a master at their craft answers "homebrew".

[Slayerofundead]

I started to build a world be for but I think it sucks in comparison. I may start a new but more based off of Golarion. I have the itch to create when I look at prices even more so but I would like to explore there world.

[LazarX]

zend0g wrote:

Any GM that wants to be a master at their craft answers "homebrew".

Creating a world and GMing it are frequently two very different things. Creators who get too tied up with their NPC's frequently are the WORST forms of GM.

There is no inherent greater level of "mastery" in GMing your own world, just lots more opportunity for ego-boo.

[Tormsskull]

LazarX wrote:

There is no inherent greater level of "mastery" in GMing your own world, just lots more opportunity for ego-boo.

I have to disagree with you there. You're never going to know a world as well as one that you have created yourself. Part of GMing is bringing a world to life and making it seem like a real place. I would argue that GMs that craft homebrew worlds will be able to do so better/more easily than running a published world.

[Lincoln Hills]

I can concede that a GM will know a lot about his homebrewed world, or at least he'll know a lot about the things he's put some thought into:

Player: Wait... where do they get the iron ore to make their steel from? I thought you said there wasn't any on this continent.
GM: Um. They import it. Salt for iron.
Player: Didn't you say the Sea of Doom was impassable?
GM: Er - They teleport it in.
Player: Why wouldn't they just teleport in the finished weapons instead?
GM: There shall be no further questions!

On the other hand, a pre-written world - Golarion or otherwise - means that the players know what to expect in terms of departure from "standard fantasy tropes."

I don't really regard either approach as superior. They've got strengths. I like to switch whenever I have a new campaign coming up.

[The Indescribable]

I agree Tormsskull, but you miss one thing, you might know the world better, and still be a crap GM.

It's a mixture of knowing the world, and knowing the people your playing with.

[Tormsskull]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I can concede that a GM will know a lot about his homebrewed world, or at least he'll know a lot about the things he's put some thought into:

haha. True, but this can also happen:

Player: We want to travel to Endier to talk with Caine.
GM: Who?
Player: Caine, the wizard. He has sources in Spiderfell, we want to see if he'll cast a realm spell for us.
GM: Oh, THAT Caine. Of course...

Or in other words, its very possible that one or more players knows the campaign world better than the GM. In my experience, this has lead to the players being disappointed as the world doesn't fit their expectations.

The Indescribable wrote:

I agree Tormsskull, but you miss one thing, you might know the world better, and still be a crap GM.

True, but GM's that run published worlds can also be crap GMs. You might argue the fact that they have material to fall back on that is made by someone else gives them a leg up. I would argue that homebrew GM's know the rules better because they've had to spend months (or more likely) years creating their worlds.

[Lincoln Hills]

I thought the scion of Endier was Roger Aglondier or some such name. Or was that Iloen? (Note to those who are easily impressed by feats of memory: I have no idea what my home phone number is. I think there's a 4 in it.)

I guess the lesson we can draw from this is: If your GM is better at keeping details straight in his head, he should homebrew. If your GM is better at remembering where he saw references, he should use a pre-existing world. And if your GM isn't good at either, he should give somebody else a chance at the job. ;)

[Tormsskull]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I thought the scion of Endier was Roger Aglondier or some such name. Or was that Iloen? (Note to those who are easily impressed by feats of memory: I have no idea what my home phone number is. I think there's a 4 in it.)

Rogr Algondier was Illien. Caine was the wizard of Endier, Kalien was the regent.

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I guess the lesson we can draw from this is: If your GM is better at keeping details straight in his head, he should homebrew. If your GM is better at remembering where he saw references, he should use a pre-existing world. And if your GM isn't good at either, he should give somebody else a chance at the job. ;)

Haha. Agreed.

[Pandamonium1987]

I ran two campaigns in Pathfinder: the first one lasted a year and took place in my setting, while the second one is still going on (we've also been playing this for a year) and it's taking place in Forgotten Realms (3e).

I read Golarion and I didn't find it a particularly interesting setting, but I think I'm going to give it a chance for the next campaign.

[Zhayne]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

On the other hand, a pre-written world - Golarion or otherwise - means that the players know what to expect in terms of departure from "standard fantasy tropes."

Obviously, this was a mistake on the part of the GM for not telling the players this basic bit of information. Seriously, this is something basic you should tell your players no matter what game world you're running. Basic rookie mistake.

[Deadmanwalking]

To expand on my earlier post:

I love Golarion, it's got this great old-school vibe I really enjoy, seems pretty well thought out and internally consistent, and just generally makes me happy. Also, it saves me lots of work. I run games in it most times, and basically any time my plans fit in with Golarion canon.

Now, I've played with GMs who felt otherwise, and that's cool. And my current game concept (rebellion against a huge world-spanning empire by a tribal province)...didn't fit well in Golarion, so I made a world for it (found here, eventually, if anyone cares).

So I usually go with Golarion, but not always.

[Lincoln Hills]

Zhayne wrote:

Lincoln Hills wrote:

...a pre-written world - Golarion or otherwise - means that the players know what to expect in terms of departure from "standard fantasy tropes."

Obviously, this was a mistake on the part of the GM for not telling the players this basic bit of information. Seriously, this is something basic you should tell your players no matter what game world you're running...

I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant was that when you run in an established world, the players don't have to be told of the deviations (which can range from zero into the hundreds), since even if they're not fans steeped in the lore of that world, there tend to be players' guides (not to mention the Net) for them to refer to. When it's your own homebrew, it's all on you to present it to them (and if there are more than a handful of special conditions, you can expect your players to overlook or forget them.) Hand-outs or a Web reference help, obviously. (Whether you're using pre-fab or custom build, of course, some players won't bother to read what you provide, but that's another topic.)

[Gwaithador]

I use Greyhawk set nearly 5 centuries from the last official timeline. It's a setting taking the "Greyhawk from the Ashes" and "Points of Light" concepts to the nth degree. I dubbed it "Greyhawk: The Dark Ages."

[Damian Magecraft]

I use the Palladium Fantasy setting with a heavy dose of home brew modification.

[anlashok]

I tend to run a custom setting by default, but will run modules or certain campaigns in other settings.

Though my "custom" setting is essentially more or less a mashup of things I like from Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Golarion, Dark Sun, Tolkien and a bunch of other random sources.

I wouldn't really call it homebrew simply because I just mash whatever is convenient together.