Homebrew VS Established Setting

[wrathofzombie]

There was an blog post I read a little while ago (can't find link, sorry) that was talking about how older games facilitated, either due to lack of published works or through the encouragement of the author itself, for the GM to make up their own homebrew world where as today that is not so much the case.

When I first started role-playing with 2e I never even batted an eye at creating my own world nor cared about the detail in it.. I would just make shit up as we went along and the world was flushed out.

However once 3.x came along and the published settings (Eberron comes to mind) came out with TONS of info and books and etc I started feeling that creating a homebrew world was a massive undertaking every time I thought about sitting down to start one.

How do you feel about this? Do you find this to be the same thing or do you not give two poops?

[anarkeith]

Back in the day I actually didn't understand why anyone would bother with the published stuff since (in my mind) it was so inferior to either published fantasy worlds, or worlds I created based on published fantasy worlds. I eventually came to like Mystarra (the Known World setting), and Eberron is a good one. Fritz has opened my eyes to Greyhawk's goodness (I was put off by all the stupid names that Gygax and company created.)

I've used parts of published stuff (sometimes extensively), but I've always preferred to roll my own. I love creating setting details. Too much in fact. The result is I create a lot of unnecessary details that can sometimes bog down the story, or don't allow my players to create the story (as I've since learned they should.)

Phil, the Chatty DM wrote about a "scaffold" system he's using to frame his adventure notes.

critical-hits.com/2011/04/20/chattys-adventure-scaffold-1-words-with-fiends/

In addition to that, the 5x5 method of story options forms a nice framework for campaign development.

critical-hits.com/2011/03/04/the-5x5-method-compendium/

Both of these tools are useful when setting up stories that allow players to be active participants in the storytelling.

The setting is something I provide to give a flavor to the campaign. I try to create NPCs that are memorable, and worth interacting with. I pull them from wherever I can. Books, TV, published settings. I pull setting details from my travel experiences, published stuff, and wherever else I can get it. That's something I still love to do (and I "waste" a lot of time on writing stuff that is unlikely to see the light of day.)

Names of people and places are very evocative to me. I have no idea if others share my enthusiasm for this, but a name can (for me) provide a snapshot of who or what I'm describing. They can be original, or cribbed from other sources (although if it's a major character, I won't use it. You won't find any halflings named "Frodo" or wizards named "Oz" in my games.) The major houses, or noble families, in Dominium City are all named after subway stations in Athens. Just because they sounded so cool!

Nowadays I'm finding that I need to let out the reins a bit, and give my players opportunities to participate in the world-building process. I'd like to think that the Sunday group I run is a particularly successful example of this, but I've lost two of the original five players to attrition. Whether that is due to the game, or just scheduling challenges, it's hard to discern. But I think it's a valid model for future campaigns I might run. Getting players to create some NPCs, some locations, and some story details means that, like published materials, I have something to "brew" with. So, I'll never turn my back on these possibilities. If all my ideas were as golden as I thought they were, I'd be a million-selling author by now.

[wrathofzombie]

I have embraced the sharing world building nature, although against as I have stated in the past, player Apathy or lack of wanting to put forth effort because of their own, "I'm too busy to do that yet I can watch youtube for 6 hours" lifestyles can really put a dampener on my spirits when we get together or I toss out an email looking for info.

What do you do to have your players participate in world building?

[anarkeith]

Apr 26, 2011 11:48:42 GMT -5 wrathofzombie said:

What do you do to have your players participate in world building?

The initial survey provided lots of fodder. In addition (in the Sunday group at least), a couple of my players have "agendas" they've been pursuing. Dave's character is setting up a band of halfling kids as a sort of Baker Street Irregulars. I don't really know what he has planned. I'm just facilitating it, and we'll see where it goes.

Paul and Dave's characters are establishing their independence from the thieves' guild that employed them. They're choosing the sorts of activities they want to undertake, and I present the world's reaction to that. They're driving that story with their choices.

[steve]

When I was 18 I literally spent 60 hours a week working on my dungeon. I preferred writing my own campaigns. Now that I'm a freaking old dude I don't have quite the time to devote to it, therefore I've fallen back into published works.

When the recent abomination edition was release we used the Keep on Shadowfell and Thunder Spire with little modification. They were good for concepts but a far cry from what someone could come up with on their own with half an imagination.

The real reason I don't like published material is that it is someone else's idea of how a campaign should work. I don't really have a sense of ownership or commitment to it. I'm not as motivated to connect the dots when I feel they fit oddly. I'm just plodding along though someone else's concepts.

I caught a couple of my guys "cheating", meaning reading the modules outside the game for whatever reasons they needed. That is sad for a lot of different reasons. After that I started looking online for KoTS & TS and found that the entire modules were duplicated, maps, descriptions, NPC motivations, secret doors and the works. I was kinda shocked people could get away with that without getting busted for copyright issues. Podcasts revealed everything as well. Regardless, players could always simply go out and buy the module if it was that important to them.

I still didn't have time to write up my own campaign but wanted to keep away from published material. The next thing I did was to download a PDF of a campaign close to what I wanted. I converted it into a word file and then made a master list of all character, nation, city, river and other names. To the right of each name I created my own. Then I used a global change command to rename everything. The next thing I did was to read the campaign through and question each item. For example, I didn't like the motivation behind an NPC so I'd change it, then elaborate on it and build the NPC into something he/she didn't start out as. I'd change traps or treasures to fit my group better and etc. When I started the campaign was a 15 meg file and by the time it was done it was somewhere around 53 megs.

In essence I used the commercial product as a skeleton and fleshed it out. It was custom fit to my group and took about a third the time of doing it from scratch by myself. Since it had so much of my imagination in it I felt a sense of ownership and it made for better sessions.

[randy]

I'm a big homebrew fan (I use both homebrewed rules and campaign setting). I think the advantage is that it forces the GM to take ownership of the setting and the details. I may not be as creative as some of the professional authors, but everything fits within my concept and gives the flavor I want. I know how everything connects together (or doesn't), and can use that knowledge to easily extrapolate or fill in details as the campaign progresses. Even with such control I often get (pleasantly) surprised by things that happen and am freer to take advantage of such opportunities. I've played in campaigns where the GM uses the module as much more than a playing aid or even crutch- it is the total life support system on the campaign. It makes it too easy for the GM to just read the appropriate section as you arrive in that room/area/etc. Lazy GMing makes for boring campaigns. I think some people can do a great job with a published setting (and I believe in stealing as many good ideas as possible), but I think the total work load for most GMs doing a good job is the same whether they home brew the whole thing or use published material.