Are people that run homebrew settings more creative and overall better then DMs that don't? I mean I do and I certainly feel superior then people on here that run onions shit like starwars or pauldroncore shit like dnd
Are people that run homebrew settings more creative and overall better then DMs that don't?
yes modules and preestablished setting bad, thread over
Part of the advantage of homebrewing is that you can BS something together when the players do something unexpected. As long as it's inline with everything else in your setting you can often keep things consistent.
However, it's much harder and takes a lot more time and effort compared to using a pre-built setting. Considering that there's a perpetual shortage of DMs, I don't blame anyone from getting a module or splatbook.
More creative yes. Better, heh, depends. They can have potential and yet badly execute good ideas, the homebrewer is not guaranteed to be better at it than the writers of published settings. I also consider myself better than Star Wars, but I don't think I could pull off Glorantha.
In my experience, few people go 100% homebrew. They copy and paste stuff from a setting, a movie they like, couple stories, their own headcanon/fanfiction of something, and duct tape it all into their own ideas.
It's like cooking. Few people will make a 100% new recipe completely from scratch, but a lot adapt from the recipe they learned and make a dish more to their liking.
And like wrote, it's good to incorporate whatever shenanigans your players pulled off. That way, they also influence and help turn the setting into something creative, and perhaps, even unique.
So I am better then GMs that do pre-made shit but that doesn't necessarily mean my setting are better then the pre-made shit
Maybe, maybe not. We haven't even defined what's "better" in this case.
Preaching to the choir anon. These are all me: https://pastebin.com/u/Curupira And those notes lack a lot of things, like links about the history of european cannibalism, that chinese fantasy contribution I did in 2017, Zomia, stuff I never translated to english ...
>They copy and paste stuff from a setting, a movie they like, couple stories, their own headcanon/fanfiction of something, and duct tape it all into their own ideas.
Learn some obscure bits of history and geography too. Reality is full of the weird and wonderful.
spbp
Your own elaborate setting is well and good, but I've known too many GMs who spend so much time "establishing their setting" that they barely have any time to actually GM.
Not really, they just may be applying their creativity in different places, and using an established setting to lighten the load of familiarization on their group. But you were just baiting, so I don't know why I bothered to give you a sincere response.
Modules and Campaigns books are training wheels or bowling lane rails. They are there to help you learn the fundamentals. However, because it's effectively a lost art that was never perfected and never passed on, what we get instead are heavily video game-inspired themepark worlds where players are guided by the hand through a series of challenges that amount to simple checkpoints so the group can be strong enough for the next series of challenges. The fact that some groups go through Curse of Strahd and similar 5e campaign books over and over like they're doing vidya playthroughs tells you both how creative these people are, as well as how much they are learning about running and planning games of their own.
I dont run a homebrew to feel superior or more creative but because its more fun.
That way i get enjoyment out of the game.
Simple as
a good creative GM to me isn't a matter of how long you spent building some world, but how good you are on your feet when running your campaign, acting as your npcs and dealing with your PC's, especially when they're trying to find ways to accomplished tasks that you hadn't prepared for. you can spend months creating some highly detailed world where you've figured out social systems, politics, religions, trade, military etc, and if your game is boring or youre just not a good GM that is forced to railroad your players because you can't cope with them coming at you from left field, then what the frick was the point?
Shut up loser
I second this. Preplanned worldbuilding is only good if it’s in service of making the game run smoother, which requires seat-of-your-pants improv if you have even the slightest amount of engagement from PCs.
Having a good plan makes the improv easier and hopefully reduces the times you'll be, if you'll forgive the on-the-nose expression, caught flat-footed by a PC's actions. But if I had a choice between a GM that's good at coming up with shit on the fly and a GM that's good at world-building, I'll take the first one every time because the actual play is going to be more fun.
Magneto did nothing wrong
He's israeli
Well I mean if they shot a kid for being black or gay he'd be like "lol prob had it coming, fricking normies"
Dying by having your iron pulled out wouldn't really be that painful. Its just a really convoluted way to suffocate someone.
Shut up
That's strange, I only run onions shit like starwars or pauldroncore shit like dnd and I feel superior to you.
You are not sophisticated for being unable to memorize systems and lore or otherwise able to not care about a specific setting, no. It also just lacks sincerity due to having no pre-established history. Working creatively within the confines of the parameters set forth is like majority the point. I could understand if the system wasn't comprehensive, but there are too many that are. It also shows to a degree that you're incapable of properly using problem solving skills.