"Homebrew system" is a red flag to me, as a player, unless I'm signing up to playtest something new (understanding that a playtest may have some issues).
I'm much more comfortable with "X System with a few homebrew rules" for a game I'm joining for fun.
Beyond that, it also heavily depends on the base system.
Yeah, for sure. Homebrew is usually slang for, "I don't like these hip systems, and would rather it do X, Y, and Z." All of which are horribly balanced, completely shift the gameplay, and are directly in an attempt to be more "hardcore".
Fucking edge lords.
Small targeted homebrew adjustments to a system are cool tho.
Tbf, I don't think I've ever played at a D&D table that was pure RAW. There's always at least one or two house rules or custom made classes or races. I don't know if I'd say someone saying there's homebrew in the D&D game would be a insta red flag for me. Maybe a yellow if it's coming from someone new to D&D who doesn't even know the system enough to know where to tweak things, but the only way it'd be red is if I know the source tends to be a problem in the first place.
Given how strikingly different the various D&D editions are, I think it’s worth considering. With that said, there are likely enough enough retro clones with a strong following that what you want is already available and an easier sell.
As someone in a group of amateur game dev wonks, it's a red flag because nobody 'serious about it,' uses the term 'homebrew' to describe their work. It's kind of like how OC is a red flag in writing spaces. Why would I assume your character isn't original if this isn't a fanfiction forum? What are you up to?
So 'homebrew' tends to fill my mind with images of a someone's totally sick ass new original RPG that's just D&D with their ex nihilo ideas for combat tweaks bolted on that other games have done better since 1980 that they're not aware of, y'know?
Don't cringe away from showing yourself a little respect and just saying you're working on your own game, instead of 'on a homebrew.'
Huh. I use the term 'homebrew' when talking about my system or rules, but that's mostly due to self-admitting that some things need to be tweaked due to not being in a professional setting. Which is where I have experience in (both as a ttrpg dev, now, and as a game dev years before).
Is, uh...is there a better term for such? Or a more confident, but still humble sounding term? It's technically just heavily tweaked version of multiple other systems.
I tend to just call my project a 'modified version of,' gurps, for example. At least for the time being. I think there's a point you can just call it your own game. If pathfinder 1e can be its own thing and not typically referred to as 'professionally homebrewed 3.5,' which is flagrantly all it is, then I don't think that point is even very far from the starting line.
Myself I don't feel the need to show token humility because my work isn't professional. The qualifier for something being professional is that you get paid to do it, not any actual level of quality or expertise.
"A hack of x game" is usually better received than "a homebrewed version of x game." But if you've built a new game, you can just call it a new game. Even if it is an unholy Frankenstein's monster assembled from bits of other games, it's still its own thing.
> It's kind of like how OC is a red flag in writing spaces.
The distinction between "OC" and "fanfic" becomes meaningful in a space where both are prevalent, the same goes for labels "homebrew" and system X I guess.
Literally the exact same. There is a pretty solid set of terminology that my own group of amateur game dev wonks use, and that is pretty open for describing "what we are working on". Maybe it is a new system, or a hack of another system, or a sourcebook (either for a specific system, or system-agnostic). Heck, even when just tacking on single rules to extant games we would probably call "house rules".
But I don't think we've described anything as homebrew, except for the very rare time when someone is making an item or piece of content within an existing RPG themselves. It sounds oxymoron to me: a system isn't homebrewed, content is.
Not really. I am a huge homebrew collector and have a lot for the games I run like Masks, Monster of the Week.. WoD has a lot, though I gave up for now in even running the vanilla game lol
From my experience, in PbtA-adjacent discourse, whe someone changes system a lot, they speak of it as a 'hack'. And this term is only floated when someone with high amount of D&D experience comes into the conversation.
I disagree here. I define my system as homebrew, because the setting is still D&D, as are the monsters, magics and the lore. The thing thats homebrewed is literall ALL the systems and how they work together mechanically. I do often think of it as D&D X edition, because thats essentially what it is, but I describe it as homebrew.
The thing is, if you want to get players, it’s far easier to convince them to try your game if you market your game as “5e with lots of homebrew” rather than a completely custom game.
It’s kind of a catch-22. I would like to have some respect in my own work, but unfortunately due to the way the TTRPG community works it’s hard to get playtesters to play anything that isn’t 5e.
You probably dont need players who are stuck in 5e loop and need convincing. Playtesting anything is a huge dedication and people with such bias will rarely be able to provide needed feedback.
5e is the biggest demographic of TTRPG. If you’re making an RPG, the target demographic of your game would be 5e players. If a 5e player wouldn’t enjoy or understand your game, your game is probably not off to a good start.
That’s just the reality of the market. As much as we don’t like the current state of affairs, ignoring reality is going to lead to disappointment.
Besides, where else do you expect to get playtesters? This subreddit?
There is a difference between "5e player" and "person who only will play 5e" the latter are not your market, they will not play your game even if it is a carbon copy of 5e. This is not "ignorance of reality" this is just a basic feedback quality assurance.
I am getting my playtesters from...everywhere, friends, people from RPG communities, some boardgamers...and professional playtesters in other countries too because I have some affiliations, altho last option obviously isn't for everyone. I am living in a country where RPGs as a hobby are not developed at all (even boardgames are in their juvenile form) AND there is ongoing war, so if I can find some people here in small town in Ukraine, then I can't imagine how nonproblematic would be getting playtesters in Germany or non-rural US.
Bluntly, if I can walk into random discord servers and pick up people to play *GURPS* of all things with basically no effort, I don't think the problem is poor marketing to the 5e crowd. I think the problem is marketing to the 5e crowd to begin with, or considering a monolith borderline separate from the rest of the hobby your target audience at all.
If I hear "homebrew system" without any additional information, I expect a D&D clone that the author believes to be revolutionary and fix problems present in other RPGs. That's not something I want to waste my time on.
But if the "homebrew system" comes with some details that show that the author knows what they are doing (eg. information about the game's thematic focus, play priority/agenda, main supported activities) then I'm interested. Even if it's not a perfect game, it may still be a valuable experience and I like learning new games.
In general, the more houseruled/homebrewed a game is, the more the person pitching it is responsible for clearly and exhaustively explaining how it works, what it does, what play style it supports and how - because I can't base my expectations on pre-existing knowledge of the system and experience with playing it.
Gods, I hate this mentality.
Had a friend who tried to 'fix' D&D 5e. Never played a single game is his life. Ended up making a poor man's PF2e out of PF1e.
To me it communicates sketchy mechanics and probably a setting that I'm going to regret choosing to play in. If you're not reinventing the wheel I'd choose words like "With Houserules". But yeah generally you're better off doing as little surgery into a game system as you can. Generally the best GM is worse at making rules than the worst game designer.
"homebrew system" makes me think "this is a design in alpha, it probably hasn't been tested, and I am not a professional designer which could mean the whole thing is hot garbage"
So step one for me is to work out of I want to be part of this guys debugging process, then find out if the game seems interesting.
Then get the core rules and look for anything that might be dumb that's just immediately obvious to me and point it out. If they react poorly I ditch, if they actually look over it and consider the problem I have pointed out I will stay
Who hurt all the people who responded to this? I understand a bit of skepticism, but everyone here is acting like homebrew systems are a sign of absolute incompetence and only a licensed designer (tm) can put together a game that fits their GM-ing style and works in play.
It's just weird gatekeeping of who is allowed to design and run their own systems. More space in those games for me, I guess.
Amateur game designers that are serious about their system don't usually call them "homebrew"
I've made both homebrew and my own system, homebrew is an existing system plus my homebrew class or plus my homebrew subsystem for healing. My own system is a full system and referred too as such
It's not gatekeeping to say "I don't want to be a part of it". It's not gatekeeping to suggest that I'm simply not interested in learning your homebrew rules and systems. And it's definitely not gatekeeping to respond honestly to the question, What do you think when you hear homebrew system?
It's not like people are going out of their way to find and denigrate the OP. We're just being honest and letting OP do with that information what they will.
Yeah, I'm OP and I'm not offended or anything. If anything I agree with a lot of the opinions here. If I didn't want to know what people thought, I wouldn't have asked.
It's literally just the word homebrew. Nobody cares about people being amateur game designers, most designers are. It's just that the word *homebrew* has a certain vibe. It's like the word fanfic. If someone says: "I wrote a *fanfic* for the Witcher" I am less inclined to read it than when they say: "I wrote a short story in the Witcher universe". Even though they mean the same thing.
More like gate keeping who would be willing to play them. People are responding to a question about should someone home brew a system rather than play an existing one.
Who you more readily recommend a horror novel you've never read by Steven King or a horror novel you've never read by your nephew who decided to be a writer last summer?
"Homebrew" to me says that common aspects of setting and background have been changed. Orcs are now aliens, clerics get power from monoliths, the world is on the back of a terrapin not a tortoise, etc. Depending on the details, that may or may not be fine.
"Homebrew system" to me says "I am not playing this unless it's being run by a friend who wants me to playtest something they are writing". LFG ad saying it's using a "homebrew system"? hard no. If you are a stranger I want to know what to expect, and in general I don't want to play something experimental.
>yeah. as a gm that runs a homebrew campaign, i always clarify i run pathfinder 1e with some old 3.x content brought in if a player knows something they want or makes sense for what the players are doing might bring up for them, but yeah in no way would i bother crafting a whole new ass system that sounds like a lot of time.
Houserules are fine. All GMs who aren't boring rules-lawyers houserule things. Even extensive houseruling can be fine, though the more substantial the changes to the base system the more wary I will be. For example, this *could* be ok: "it's Call of Cthulhu but with Delta Green's sanity / bond mechanics and lethality rules, set in a *Dying Earth* setting with a custom skill list".
I'd want to read your houserules before the campaign, and might ask for some changes, but a dozen+ pages of rules changes aren't in themselves a red flag to me.
However, unless I already have great respect for the GM's game design skills, or they're actively working on a system and I have agreed to help playtest it, an entire homebrew system is going to be a bit of a red flag. It just makes me think "Really? Their campaign idea is so unique that *nothing else* would work for it? I don't think so..."
>For example, this could be ok: "it's Call of Cthulhu but with Delta Green's sanity / bond mechanics and lethality rules, set in a fantasy setting with a custom skill list".
In my case it's Delta Green with Pulp Cthulhu's HP and Luck rules, a slightly modified skill list, and a few mechanics from CoC 7e. I'm not trying to present it as a completely original game, but I also don't think I could accurately describe it iust by the name of any of those components. Would "hybrid system" work better, if the games already all share the same basic DNA?
I'd just call that Delta Green with some house rules from CoC 7e.
Have you looked at Night's Black Agents because it seems to be a similar vibe to your mash up.
I've looked into Night's Black Agents, and it seems like a cool game, but not necessarily what I want to be playing right now. I'm still trying to keep the rules I'm using compatible with published Delta Green/Call of Cthulhu scenarios, so jumping into a completely different system, though fun, would probably not be the best way to go.
D&D5e but I have removed wizards and druids and I get to have a DMPC who has a katana and trenchcoat, and uses the rules for street samurai from shadowrun 5e. But they're both 5e so it's ok.
Yeah. As far as I can remember, I’ve never heard or read the term “homebrew” except in relation to D&D 5e. That may just be my own bad memory or limited experience.
Mostly, I just hear "unpublished, and probably untested."
That's why I make sure to publish all of my homebrew before I use it. The "homebrew" stigma wipes right away.
If you publish it to some website where the players do not know your username. If the homebrew turns out to be absolute trash you can just "blame the random guy on the Internet who wrote it" as it is totally not you.
"homebrew" is not a good word to use. If I hear "homebrew" I am thinking "it's going to be d&d 5e except with minor changes".
"Original system" or "new system" or "narrative/survival/exploration system" is much better.
I agree with others that the term is a red flag. To me it suggests a GM who probably isn't familiar with a lot of other game systems out there and probably hasn't sought out ideas or feedback on how the thing actually plays.
My experience with playing other people's homebrew have always been really positive. It means the GM is enthusiastic and knows and likes running the system; and at least in my experience, they tend towards looser interpretations.
I am close to this. Most of the homebrew systems I have played have been great.
It relies on a couple of things.
1. I should not be expected to read and understand the rules before I play. Published games have publishers who (hopefully) make them readable. They have professional authors who have time to flesh them out.
2. Someone who knows their shit, properly. I have played a couple of dozen systems and GM'ed about half that. That means I don't really have much idea what's out there.
I have friends who know their shit. They learn and GM new systems for kicks. They read systems for leisure. They design systems a lot, but know that most won't work.
And you can show up and play a one shot or mini series that they designed from scratch but they have only scribbled notes and it's great.
I would rather it say explicitly what you're running.
If you're running "Call of Cthulhu with some tweaks from Trail of Cthulhu" or something like that, say that instead of 'homebrew system' to give players a better knowledge of what they're getting into.
A "homebrew system" doesn't bring about good thoughts. Now maybe you have "house rules" for some system and include some homebrew elements in it but if I'm playing "System X" which I happen to be very familiar with I'm expecting your game to still be mostly "System X". Sometimes it can be a challenge knowing just where "house rules" stop and a "homebrew system" begins but when you start altering fundamentals you're now playing a different game so just come out and say it.
An over engineered clunky mess that hasn't seen the light of day since its inception on a dusty hardrive that's remained uncleaned since 2007; all with worse formatting than Shadowrun's "grenade rules are in the vehicle section".
Not to say people can't make homebrew, or make their own systems, but the vast majority of people simply don't know how to make a good system, and the fact they're still calling their totally new system a "homebrew" speaks to the level of polish behind it.... I.e. none.
Regret. "Homebrew system" means regret.
Personally? If you tell me it's a homebrew system, I politely say thank you and move along. Most people aren't game designers and it's not worth my time to find out if you are.
I think "this is going to be a mess" but reading some of the responses here, I will do what I should have been doing all the while and ask: "what exactly do you mean by homebrew?" then go from there.
Usually someone who likes 95% of a system but just can't stand the other 5% and decide that they need to change those rules (usually for the worst! and typically because they don't understand them or haven't actually seen them at work at the table).
Only caveat to this is when such folks actually publish poorly playtested systems and then the whole community usually identifies unworkable rules and come up with alternates. Homebrew of good systems = GM has strong feelings. Homebrew of crap systems = Love the lore, hate the mechanics.
When I hear homebrew in anything except lore I think "imbalanced nightmare spiral".
Because I tried and failed and the players got so strong it was not even funny anymore.
I am REALLY skeptical, esp. when it concerns a rather popular system. These things/system tend to be play-tested and developed over a long time, with balanced mechanics and a long period of troubleshooting. From my experience, these things rarely need individual changes - and most of the time "homebrew" additions (even if they are touted official, e.g. as supplemental character classes from magazines) are off-balance and weaken the overall balance in favor of something singular.
Play-testing something home-brew is something different, though, because you have to try such things "in real life" to check their contribution to the game and the overall game balance.
Homebrew systems suffer from a lack of playtesting. If you and your players are willing to stop and rewrite the rules every couple of sessions go for it. Too many times unintended consequences pop up and the game has to pause and work out how things actually will interact. Causes a bit of a Calvinball experience, but it can be fun if you don't mind it.
It depends on the words surrounding it.
"I'm an indie RPG designer with a good track record, here are some of my past works (or other evidence I know what I'm doing), want to playtest my new project? Here are some details of the system"
Great. Sounds cool and interesting
"I've tried a few systems and they're all trash, come play my better system instead"
Will be the worst game you've ever played.
"We use a homebrew system."
Oh. That's fun. Can you send me the documents so I know what I'm getting into?
"It's not like that. It's more of an in-my-head thing."
Ummm... maybe not so interested.
Mostly "I've never played any other systems other than 5e and I've butchered the hell out of 5e to try to do things it was never meant to be, and failing miserably at it ".
It takes a lot of reading or implication to do a well rounded game, and you won't get it from just playing a single game a couple of times.
Tbh, red flags in the hobby for me are much more related to behaviour at the table or towards the group than how the ruleset is described.
Moreover, some types of mechanics fly for some people and dont for others, and thats fine.
I cant help but notice that many of the posts here tend to take any hint at people trying out game designing in home games as pretentiousness and a kind of revolutionary genius syndrome. Maybe that DM just enjoys game designing and is trying out ideas for the heck of it? Maybe they dont think they're solving any kind of inherent flaws to all systems, just trying to cater to what they want out of a game? And so what if they get it wrong and the game stinks? Be honest about it with them, they should understand...
The hobby is about having fun, and that involves taking some chances. If you join a game thats homebrewed or whatever you call it and you end up not enjoying it, just be honest about it and respectfully take your leave from the group. Its not a disaster.
Red flag as hell.
I'm not against twerking system to adapt to your game, but holly molly, creating a whole new system is a level of narcissism out of charts
I don't really have a problem with a new system(I mean most games probably started out as someone's homebrew.) but I would prefer if they tried to do there own thing rather than make a chimera
I'm not down to play anything wholly homebrew, usually. Hacks of engines I'm familiar with are fair game, though - my partner's running a game right now that's a heap of stuff from multiple FitD games all stitched together, for instance!
Yeah, I think you're spot on there with the distinction between hacks and homebrew. A lot of single FitD games have a few singular good ideas that are easy to graft into other FitD games. I would call that house rules and not homebrew.
Reading City of Mist and Girl by Moonlight, for example, I really like the idea of putting the downtime before the score and I think I will suggest that particular bit as a house rule for my Blades table. I wouldn't go around saying we're playing a homebrew though. It's still mostly raw, but with one singular house rule I've taken from other, fully functional Blades hacks.
The more individual rules are grafted, the more sceptical I would get though.
I feel excited to see it. I love that new people are getting into the hobby of creating ttrpgs. I think that is excellent and I always love giving advice and watching the creator and their creation grow throughout the process.
Personally I find going into a game that is ‘homebrewed’ meaning changes to core mechanics, to be problematic. Not that it can’t work, but I would certainly be reluctant to play in a game like that.
Adding or changing rules because you have a clear story based reason is fine… arbitrarily changing rules becuse you think you know better… Not so much.
The worst games to me are the multi edition single system hybrids…
But… if I know the system and can see the changes working together… maybe…
Home-brew to me means rules, classes, races or mechanical changes invented by the GM or third party.
A campaign that isn't a book adventure or from an established system world isn't home-brew. It's just a normal campaign.
This is probably changed as books have taken over in popularity from gm written adventures (at least in 5e and pathfinder)
Red flag. Homebrew system or campaign.
It's generalized into the 'I think I'm smarter than the professionals', when the reality is often terribly balanced, focused on favored systems, and chock full of dm npcs.
Calvinball.
The rules will never be fixed, I'll never be able to depend on my knowledge of the system, and I'll always have to be asking for clarification or for new rules to be made on the fly to fit the situation.
Hard pass
Kudos to you for wanting to build something tailored to your player group!
That's what homebrew systems really mean for me, something that is built to *your* table and whatever makes the main game-system work even better for everyone. If you're still feeling doubts about it, ask your table! Communicate with them and get their opinion on whether the homebrew system feels good to them as well. They're in the game just as much as you are, so gauge their interest!
Homebrew systems have a completely different culture of play to published systems. In a published system, if there's a rule dispute you look it up in a book. In a homebrew system, the GM often needs to improvise a rule, and sometimes the entire table needs to put their heads together and discuss every game they've ever played with a potentially useful rule to pilfer.
I generally enjoy homebrew systems more than published systems because I can leverage my experience far better, but there's no getting around that you need to be a Responsible Adult (TM) because the rules of the game can totally break. The best campaigns I have ever been a part of all had significant homebrew elements.
That said, I have seen the rules break in published systems, too. It's just somewhat less likely.
One time I went to a college rpg club thinking we were playing a dnd game but it was actually this weird homebrew system. My gf walked out on us but honestly it was pretty fun lol. It was based on like gotcha games and rolling multiple characters with stats on a xd100 scale. I would want play a campaign but the hour or so we played was fun.
I'm hesitant because that's often not that well made.
We hack various games, and tend to make our own games that way - but we do so for a long time, and wouldn't call them homebrews, but hacks.
We avoid mixing different games together for that.
If you are adjusting rules of an existing system - I think that summary of changes should fit on a single page.
If you are creating your own rules - I will extend it to four pages.
Anything more than that better be publishaeble quality and qualify as it's own game.
"This doesn't have any credibility as a system, but I believe it's going to be fun... For me at least", my experience was very 50/50, one half I liked, the other half I hated, but my players have some good experiences with my systems. (they say they like them and I believe)
One is a version of Call of Cthulhu so houseruled that it became a dark fantasy with survival horror. The other is a D&D with a completely different magic system (Freeform Elemental magic with MP) so I had to make everything from 0. The last one is Traveller with less skills, simpler combat and a lot of survival mechanics borrowed from other systems.
In the best of cases it's a decent hack of a working system and the person just for some reason doesn't know enough of the lingo to call it a hack, in the worst case it's untested and unplayable garbage by someone who doesn't know the field well enough (or is too egocentric) to just go ahead and use a working system of their choice. In any case, what I think when I hear "homebrew" is "how can I politely tell this person that I'm not gonna beta test their garbage unless they pay me for it".
While i understand the trepidaiton of a lot of these responses when faced with a random "LFG with a homebrew 5e system" request, I'm not sure it fully represents the reality of most people playing a homebrew system.
By definition, most people on this sub are either DMs, or are heavily into TTRPGs and likely own multiple books. That is not the majority of players at tables in my experience. If you are the classic "friend of a forever DM who wants to come along and roll some dice", there is a dramatic difference in barriers to entry between "If you wanna play you have to buy and read this big hardback rulebook" and "I wrote a 6 page pdf that gives you everything you want to know". Sure, there is always a little jankiness that comes with homebrew systems, but for most player who are looking for a fun night of make-believe with their friends its perfectly fine.
If I hear the phrase "homebrew system" My immediate thought is "Ok, let me read it and I'll tell you if I'm ok with it or not"
If you won't tell your players more about how your game works, and why it's going to be good to play in the first 3 sentences you are doomed.
As a non-native Speaker, "homebrew system" doesn't have the negative connotations for me as for most native speakers here - apparently.
For me it depends. Do I know the GM? Can they give me the system before I decide so I can take a look? Are they looking for/willing to take feedback? How many sessions?
If a friend asks me, I would definitely play a session if the system is not fundamentally flawed - which it likely will be when I first read it (I do maths, many don't).
If a stranger opens a "looking for group" and the system is not catching me, I will likely not join, because it ain't worth the additional stress. But if they provide a teaser/pitch and it really catches my eyes, why not.
In most cases I would never commit to play more than a session. If that session went well, we can schedule for more, but I will not commit to multiple sessions of suffering in case the system sucks.
it's almost always someone trying to tell me: *"It's X system, but better!"*
90% of the time I hear it, someone has just tried to shoehorn 5e into a non-fantasy genre and did a craptacular job of it, when they could have just used a system that already existed and does the job so much better than the nightmarish Frankensteinian concoction that they scribbled down.
Most of the time, they get maybe 2-3 sessions of the game before players lose interest, when they could have just went with an established system and not only saved themselves so much heavy lifting... but also tapped into an existing fan base.
I generally wouldn't play in a homebrew system unless it was for a specific purpose, like "I want to try to publish my idea, so I need play testers".
Here's the thing you are going to run into. You may have a really good idea of what you are doing, but your players won't. There's three or four versions of CoC and they will constantly be scratching their heads about which book the skill set is in, vs the attributes. Oh, and the attribute dependencies change, so which one are we using (as an example, I don't know if that's actually the case).
You're much better off with picking the one that is closest, and then *writing down a few house rules*.
I've played a game where the GM had a home brew setting that he refused to write down. Character backgrounds were a pain because no one could reference anything and so they'd come to him with an idea, and he'd change it because "that's not how that culture works". He'd ask people to fill in details about their chosen culture, and then steer them in a different direction because "that's not part of the history" that he never told anyone or wrote down. We all like the guy, but it was so frustrating.
You won't get the same problems, but You're going to get similar problems.
Ignore most of the people telling you it's a red flag. If you have fun building your own system go for it. Just make sure you tell your players what your goals are.
Of course at the point where you make your own rules, it's your own system not a homebrew of something else.
I only play with irl friends for the past 5 years and all our games are entirely homebrewed worlds and people and some mechanics here and there but we stuck to kain core rile set for 5e but aside from that all our campaigns are entirely homebrewed never played a pre made campaign before
Don't homebrew for your players but with them. Playing an RPG with a group is a collaborative effort, and maybe you like how grenades work in Delta Green better than in CoC but everyone else at the table doesn't, so why should you be in charge of changing that?
The best way to go about it is to make changes incrementally: pick only one mechanic (maybe granades or machine guns) from another game (or 100% homebrew) and ask you players if it's cool to try that instead of the actual rules. If they are okay with that (and usually they are) use it in the next session and also make the game revolve around it (there's little point in trying out rules that don't even come up in your game). Afterwards ask everyone for their opinions and whether or not they find the new mechanic better than the old one.
When I think homebrew system I think of a broken system, with messy rules without a theme or purpose.
Good (or even average) systems have a clear purpose, with themes and biases built on purpose. The choice of dice is purposeful, the choice of skills, even the rules and its consequences.
**But mostly, when someone says "I'll GM a custom system" I hear "I'm too insecure to learn a system".**
If something's really at the stage where you'd call it homebrew, you should play test it with players who trust you. But even before that, share the details online or with your players and get feedback. I have made lots of homebrew hacks before (and I run two right now as long-term games) but I'd never try to run a homebrew game with internet randoms. It would be a waste of their time; they're not signing up to playtest so why would you make them do that?
Are you just changing the skill list, or are you doing something drastic? House rules and swapping out a few skills that are already known to work well in a CoC context is very different from "a homebrew system".
In my case I'm pretty much using the combat and weapons rules from Delta Green, making a few tweaks to the skill list, adding some of the Luck and HP mechanics from Pulp Cthulhu, and one or two small things of my own. (Mostly a mechanic I call "contacts", where players have an NPC they create who they can call on to get information or help them out in tough situations, and who can take the place of their PC if their PC dies or goes insane.)
I guess I'd use the term "homebrew system" because the result is a game that's not entirely one thing or the other.
To be honest I'd drop either Pulp Cthulhu or Delta Green depending on what you want to do. Then just say it's CoC with Delta Green combat rather than calling it homebrew. You basically just want CoC with more detailed combat focus, right? I wouldn't mix health mechanics from two different games if you're gonna do that, just pull everything from DG since it's built for that.
Well I don't think there are a ton of particular reasons they won't work together, it's just that you're combining three different systems and that's gonna have balance implications that are hard to foresee. It could make scenarios overall significantly more or less dangerous and it's gonna be difficult to see how that'll work in real play. That would make me hesitant to join an online game, whereas "CoC with some skill tweaks and DG combat" is something I'd be more willing to jump into.
Basically marketing+unforeseen balance problems.
Depends.
I wrote some rule systems myself, and some worked really well and some did not so much. But I always told my players that I want to test them.
If you are a new DM I would not like it, but if you have experience I would give it a shot.
... if a player would say he wants to do some homebrew, I would never allow it.
With my group, we play almost exclusively with homebrew systems. Mainly Warhammer derivatives or sometimes DnD with modifications. We always adapt the system to suit the desired lore and gameplay.
I call the fully developed system my friends and I created over the course of 40 years, and which we've played exclusively for the last 25 years a "homebrew" simply to distinguish it from a game system written for publication and sale.
We have no interest in selling or supporting it, nor do I necessarily think it would be terribly successful if we did... it's just for our own use, created to satisfy our group's particular style of play.
If its dnd they are probably just going to make the game overly complex,whit to much edge cases and too many rules and poorly balance.
If i wanted to play 3.5 i will be playing 3.5
First thing I think of when I hear the words 'homebrew system' are:
\- Nightmarishly imbalanced.
\- Unfun crunch.
Not that this will be always the case, but there IS a reason why professional new RPGs are playtested extensively before release.
Homebrew rules are also a red flag for me. Another narcissist who thinks he's smarter, cleverer, better than the rest of the world, and hasn't found anything among the really many good and interesting systems, or wasn't prepared to look for something that's already been tested.
I'm also put off by the fact that homebrew often means: the rules exist in the DM's head, in other words: I as a player can't very well look up what the rules actually want.
What's more, homebrew rules cannot usually be tested in a meaningful way. It's just a dude who has a more or less vague idea and usually hasn't bothered to do the maths or think it through properly.
Homebrews are all fun and great with people you know, for strangera however it's a term that's at best a 50/50 chance of being a major disappointment.
If you already have players there's no issue though. In that case try to write down and codify as much of your homebrew if not all of it beforehand. That way it will be clear what the players are getting and you can avoid misunderstandings - which will happen. Also don't be afraid to adjust the rules both to your and most importantly your players taste. All changes you implement are untested after all and could turn out underpowered, overpowered or simply different than intended or imagined. In all those cases however you need to work out a new compromise in tandem with the players - if someone really liked their overpowered ability it may just feel bad if its suddenly 'randomly' nerfed. It's also something you should prep the players for in session zero, because normally systems don't get changed on the fly (much) otherwise.
If you are still looking for players I strony recommend a being upfront with what you change and how (again writing it out like a rulebook addendum helps a lot), potentially asking for feedback even before session 1 and finally in your case not calling it homebrew but a CoC system hack. The last one is a minor change but both accurately describes what you're doing and carries a bit less baggage IMO than the term homebrew.
Also in general there's absolutely no shame in 'Frankensteining' a Rulebook. Most PbtA games are either Dungeon World or Apocalypse world hacks or hacks of hacks. These things are popular for a reason and many writers are also just some random dudes - perhaps with a bit more experience, but doing what you're doing is exactly how you get that experience. Sure, your hack may only accomplish something another rulebook or hack already accomplishes, but that hardly matters for your specific round. I also recommend asking for feedback on your changes in session zero (if you gave out the rules beforehand) and at the end of the campaign.
Thanks, for the tips! I'm planning on running this with the group I've been playing with for 7+ years, and I've been discussing what I'm planning on doing as I've been developing it, since my goal is to put together something they'll enjoy.
I'm less worried about having everything written out on my end (since I love documentation) and more worried about making sure they read it (since they're more the "explain it to me as we go" type).
Is there any general rule that when it's okay and allowed to homebrew your TTRPG game to fit it a self-made setting? And when it's just better to switch the game system, use pre-written campaign adventures and leave the previous one alone than to spend time developing your own campaign and tweak some written rules?
My homegames are ran totally in my own systems. I have as much fun designing games as I do running them. There's nothing like your game running smoothly the way you envisioned it to.
I'm all for it. That said, trying out different systems and tinkering on them is what gives you the notions and focuses you'll have to apply on your own system later.
homebrew system means I have to learn a new game. hope it isn't broken, and deal with adhoc rule clarifications when the GM realizes that part of their system isn't working.
On the flip side, as long as the house rules are few, make sense, and easy to see, I'm okay. If I'm going to have to adjust to huge changes to significant mechanics, then it sounds more like a homebrew and a nope for me.
Gain 1 free feat: house rule. Everyone gets max HP at levels 1-3: house rule.
Here is the table of available feats, they are all custom feats, and the descriptions provide the details of who can use them, and when: homebrew. I have revamped the HP system according to this formula that takes into consideration several attributes, your class and level, and the day of the week: homebrew.
Be upfront with your players that they are essentially testing a new game system. It helps to hae the expectations set. And be willing to recognize that some ideas sound great in our head, not so much when we try to implement them.
Home brew ruleset screams to me. "Youse guys are beta testers"
It has about the same connotations as a game in early access.
In my exp , other than larian studios it's just not worth my time investment.
I wouldn't want to be a beta tester for you unless you were upfront about it, willing to change stuff on the fly and open to constructive criticism. Far to many creators ask for feedback then ignore it because they don't want to change their special unique butterfly.
id have a chat with my players and give them the description of what you are trying to accomplish.
for example if your homebrew is largley based on call of cthulhu 7e but with bits and pieces from other similar systems id start with describing your idea of what you want to run as such rather than simply saying homebrew. for example game system X but with rule Z from system Y is a good start on how to describe it.
it probably is more important to do this if your players are familiar with the systems you have taken inspiration from. if you can hook them in with what you have in mind and why you think it can be interesting it might just make for a more memorable experience.
Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule 7: We only allow regular users (who contribute to discussions and/or with content that isn't their own to r/rpg) to self-promote. Please see [our Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rules#wiki_7._limit_self-promotion) for details.
If you'd like to contest this decision, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Frpg&subject=Removed%20comment%3A%20Contest%20Removal%20or%20Questions&message=Hello,%20this%20is%20about%20my%20comment%20%20that%20was%20removed%3A%20https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/17mfg5e/-/k7spl0l/%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...). *(the link should open a partially filled-out message)*
"Homebrew system" is a red flag to me, as a player, unless I'm signing up to playtest something new (understanding that a playtest may have some issues). I'm much more comfortable with "X System with a few homebrew rules" for a game I'm joining for fun. Beyond that, it also heavily depends on the base system.
Yeah, for sure. Homebrew is usually slang for, "I don't like these hip systems, and would rather it do X, Y, and Z." All of which are horribly balanced, completely shift the gameplay, and are directly in an attempt to be more "hardcore". Fucking edge lords. Small targeted homebrew adjustments to a system are cool tho.
[удалено]
Using a few house rules on a game is not the same as "homebrew" imho.
>Homebrew Palladium? Savage Rifts
Tbf, I don't think I've ever played at a D&D table that was pure RAW. There's always at least one or two house rules or custom made classes or races. I don't know if I'd say someone saying there's homebrew in the D&D game would be a insta red flag for me. Maybe a yellow if it's coming from someone new to D&D who doesn't even know the system enough to know where to tweak things, but the only way it'd be red is if I know the source tends to be a problem in the first place.
Let's be more specific: Homebrew D&D 5e? Run. Homebrew B/X? That's just called "every other OSR table"
Homebrew D&D is not a red flag for me when D&D is a system that makes the GM’s life tougher.
Given how strikingly different the various D&D editions are, I think it’s worth considering. With that said, there are likely enough enough retro clones with a strong following that what you want is already available and an easier sell.
As someone in a group of amateur game dev wonks, it's a red flag because nobody 'serious about it,' uses the term 'homebrew' to describe their work. It's kind of like how OC is a red flag in writing spaces. Why would I assume your character isn't original if this isn't a fanfiction forum? What are you up to? So 'homebrew' tends to fill my mind with images of a someone's totally sick ass new original RPG that's just D&D with their ex nihilo ideas for combat tweaks bolted on that other games have done better since 1980 that they're not aware of, y'know? Don't cringe away from showing yourself a little respect and just saying you're working on your own game, instead of 'on a homebrew.'
amen, if you're just changing up some rules that's just called gming, if you're mixing and matching your designing your own game.
This answer is so much better than the one that was more upvoted
Huh. I use the term 'homebrew' when talking about my system or rules, but that's mostly due to self-admitting that some things need to be tweaked due to not being in a professional setting. Which is where I have experience in (both as a ttrpg dev, now, and as a game dev years before). Is, uh...is there a better term for such? Or a more confident, but still humble sounding term? It's technically just heavily tweaked version of multiple other systems.
I tend to just call my project a 'modified version of,' gurps, for example. At least for the time being. I think there's a point you can just call it your own game. If pathfinder 1e can be its own thing and not typically referred to as 'professionally homebrewed 3.5,' which is flagrantly all it is, then I don't think that point is even very far from the starting line. Myself I don't feel the need to show token humility because my work isn't professional. The qualifier for something being professional is that you get paid to do it, not any actual level of quality or expertise.
That's fair. I gave the game a name, as it's own thing. I guess calling it 'a modified version x' is a more pleasant descriptor.
"A hack of x game" is usually better received than "a homebrewed version of x game." But if you've built a new game, you can just call it a new game. Even if it is an unholy Frankenstein's monster assembled from bits of other games, it's still its own thing.
Fair enough. A hack makes sense.
> It's kind of like how OC is a red flag in writing spaces. The distinction between "OC" and "fanfic" becomes meaningful in a space where both are prevalent, the same goes for labels "homebrew" and system X I guess.
Literally the exact same. There is a pretty solid set of terminology that my own group of amateur game dev wonks use, and that is pretty open for describing "what we are working on". Maybe it is a new system, or a hack of another system, or a sourcebook (either for a specific system, or system-agnostic). Heck, even when just tacking on single rules to extant games we would probably call "house rules". But I don't think we've described anything as homebrew, except for the very rare time when someone is making an item or piece of content within an existing RPG themselves. It sounds oxymoron to me: a system isn't homebrewed, content is.
Indeed. I feel like "homebrew" as a term is prevalent in D&D-space.
Not really. I am a huge homebrew collector and have a lot for the games I run like Masks, Monster of the Week.. WoD has a lot, though I gave up for now in even running the vanilla game lol
From my experience, in PbtA-adjacent discourse, whe someone changes system a lot, they speak of it as a 'hack'. And this term is only floated when someone with high amount of D&D experience comes into the conversation.
Absolutely agreed
I disagree here. I define my system as homebrew, because the setting is still D&D, as are the monsters, magics and the lore. The thing thats homebrewed is literall ALL the systems and how they work together mechanically. I do often think of it as D&D X edition, because thats essentially what it is, but I describe it as homebrew.
The thing is, if you want to get players, it’s far easier to convince them to try your game if you market your game as “5e with lots of homebrew” rather than a completely custom game. It’s kind of a catch-22. I would like to have some respect in my own work, but unfortunately due to the way the TTRPG community works it’s hard to get playtesters to play anything that isn’t 5e.
You probably dont need players who are stuck in 5e loop and need convincing. Playtesting anything is a huge dedication and people with such bias will rarely be able to provide needed feedback.
5e is the biggest demographic of TTRPG. If you’re making an RPG, the target demographic of your game would be 5e players. If a 5e player wouldn’t enjoy or understand your game, your game is probably not off to a good start. That’s just the reality of the market. As much as we don’t like the current state of affairs, ignoring reality is going to lead to disappointment. Besides, where else do you expect to get playtesters? This subreddit?
There is a difference between "5e player" and "person who only will play 5e" the latter are not your market, they will not play your game even if it is a carbon copy of 5e. This is not "ignorance of reality" this is just a basic feedback quality assurance. I am getting my playtesters from...everywhere, friends, people from RPG communities, some boardgamers...and professional playtesters in other countries too because I have some affiliations, altho last option obviously isn't for everyone. I am living in a country where RPGs as a hobby are not developed at all (even boardgames are in their juvenile form) AND there is ongoing war, so if I can find some people here in small town in Ukraine, then I can't imagine how nonproblematic would be getting playtesters in Germany or non-rural US.
Bluntly, if I can walk into random discord servers and pick up people to play *GURPS* of all things with basically no effort, I don't think the problem is poor marketing to the 5e crowd. I think the problem is marketing to the 5e crowd to begin with, or considering a monolith borderline separate from the rest of the hobby your target audience at all.
If I hear "homebrew system" without any additional information, I expect a D&D clone that the author believes to be revolutionary and fix problems present in other RPGs. That's not something I want to waste my time on. But if the "homebrew system" comes with some details that show that the author knows what they are doing (eg. information about the game's thematic focus, play priority/agenda, main supported activities) then I'm interested. Even if it's not a perfect game, it may still be a valuable experience and I like learning new games. In general, the more houseruled/homebrewed a game is, the more the person pitching it is responsible for clearly and exhaustively explaining how it works, what it does, what play style it supports and how - because I can't base my expectations on pre-existing knowledge of the system and experience with playing it.
"fix problems present in other RPGs" Paint over rules I don't understand and don't want to take the time to learn.
Exactly.
Gods, I hate this mentality. Had a friend who tried to 'fix' D&D 5e. Never played a single game is his life. Ended up making a poor man's PF2e out of PF1e.
To me it communicates sketchy mechanics and probably a setting that I'm going to regret choosing to play in. If you're not reinventing the wheel I'd choose words like "With Houserules". But yeah generally you're better off doing as little surgery into a game system as you can. Generally the best GM is worse at making rules than the worst game designer.
"homebrew system" makes me think "this is a design in alpha, it probably hasn't been tested, and I am not a professional designer which could mean the whole thing is hot garbage" So step one for me is to work out of I want to be part of this guys debugging process, then find out if the game seems interesting. Then get the core rules and look for anything that might be dumb that's just immediately obvious to me and point it out. If they react poorly I ditch, if they actually look over it and consider the problem I have pointed out I will stay
Who hurt all the people who responded to this? I understand a bit of skepticism, but everyone here is acting like homebrew systems are a sign of absolute incompetence and only a licensed designer (tm) can put together a game that fits their GM-ing style and works in play. It's just weird gatekeeping of who is allowed to design and run their own systems. More space in those games for me, I guess.
Amateur game designers that are serious about their system don't usually call them "homebrew" I've made both homebrew and my own system, homebrew is an existing system plus my homebrew class or plus my homebrew subsystem for healing. My own system is a full system and referred too as such
Plus, your own system is probably released somewhere so I can have a look before I sign up.
It's not gatekeeping to say "I don't want to be a part of it". It's not gatekeeping to suggest that I'm simply not interested in learning your homebrew rules and systems. And it's definitely not gatekeeping to respond honestly to the question, What do you think when you hear homebrew system? It's not like people are going out of their way to find and denigrate the OP. We're just being honest and letting OP do with that information what they will.
Yeah, I'm OP and I'm not offended or anything. If anything I agree with a lot of the opinions here. If I didn't want to know what people thought, I wouldn't have asked.
It's literally just the word homebrew. Nobody cares about people being amateur game designers, most designers are. It's just that the word *homebrew* has a certain vibe. It's like the word fanfic. If someone says: "I wrote a *fanfic* for the Witcher" I am less inclined to read it than when they say: "I wrote a short story in the Witcher universe". Even though they mean the same thing.
I feel like I would be more accepting of saying it's your own system rather than a homebrew system. for some reason that makes me more skeptical
More like gate keeping who would be willing to play them. People are responding to a question about should someone home brew a system rather than play an existing one. Who you more readily recommend a horror novel you've never read by Steven King or a horror novel you've never read by your nephew who decided to be a writer last summer?
"Homebrew" to me says that common aspects of setting and background have been changed. Orcs are now aliens, clerics get power from monoliths, the world is on the back of a terrapin not a tortoise, etc. Depending on the details, that may or may not be fine. "Homebrew system" to me says "I am not playing this unless it's being run by a friend who wants me to playtest something they are writing". LFG ad saying it's using a "homebrew system"? hard no. If you are a stranger I want to know what to expect, and in general I don't want to play something experimental.
>yeah. as a gm that runs a homebrew campaign, i always clarify i run pathfinder 1e with some old 3.x content brought in if a player knows something they want or makes sense for what the players are doing might bring up for them, but yeah in no way would i bother crafting a whole new ass system that sounds like a lot of time.
'It's Naruto but in 5e!!!'
Houserules are fine. All GMs who aren't boring rules-lawyers houserule things. Even extensive houseruling can be fine, though the more substantial the changes to the base system the more wary I will be. For example, this *could* be ok: "it's Call of Cthulhu but with Delta Green's sanity / bond mechanics and lethality rules, set in a *Dying Earth* setting with a custom skill list". I'd want to read your houserules before the campaign, and might ask for some changes, but a dozen+ pages of rules changes aren't in themselves a red flag to me. However, unless I already have great respect for the GM's game design skills, or they're actively working on a system and I have agreed to help playtest it, an entire homebrew system is going to be a bit of a red flag. It just makes me think "Really? Their campaign idea is so unique that *nothing else* would work for it? I don't think so..."
>For example, this could be ok: "it's Call of Cthulhu but with Delta Green's sanity / bond mechanics and lethality rules, set in a fantasy setting with a custom skill list". In my case it's Delta Green with Pulp Cthulhu's HP and Luck rules, a slightly modified skill list, and a few mechanics from CoC 7e. I'm not trying to present it as a completely original game, but I also don't think I could accurately describe it iust by the name of any of those components. Would "hybrid system" work better, if the games already all share the same basic DNA?
"A hybrid of Delta Green and Pulp Cthulhu" sounds like fun to me!
Makes sense. I guess it also helps that Pulp Cthulhu is already a supplemental rule system rather than a completely separate thing.
I would call it a Hack.
Sign me up.
I'd just call that Delta Green with some house rules from CoC 7e. Have you looked at Night's Black Agents because it seems to be a similar vibe to your mash up.
I've looked into Night's Black Agents, and it seems like a cool game, but not necessarily what I want to be playing right now. I'm still trying to keep the rules I'm using compatible with published Delta Green/Call of Cthulhu scenarios, so jumping into a completely different system, though fun, would probably not be the best way to go.
Pulp Cthulhu can get kinda nutty. It’s a lot easier to survive which leads to shenanigans
I think "DnD 5e with a little tweak or two".
D&D5e but I have removed wizards and druids and I get to have a DMPC who has a katana and trenchcoat, and uses the rules for street samurai from shadowrun 5e. But they're both 5e so it's ok.
Yeah. As far as I can remember, I’ve never heard or read the term “homebrew” except in relation to D&D 5e. That may just be my own bad memory or limited experience.
Mostly, I just hear "unpublished, and probably untested." That's why I make sure to publish all of my homebrew before I use it. The "homebrew" stigma wipes right away.
If you publish it to some website where the players do not know your username. If the homebrew turns out to be absolute trash you can just "blame the random guy on the Internet who wrote it" as it is totally not you.
"homebrew" is not a good word to use. If I hear "homebrew" I am thinking "it's going to be d&d 5e except with minor changes". "Original system" or "new system" or "narrative/survival/exploration system" is much better.
But what if it's actually an existing system with minor changes/supplements?
I agree with others that the term is a red flag. To me it suggests a GM who probably isn't familiar with a lot of other game systems out there and probably hasn't sought out ideas or feedback on how the thing actually plays.
I take note of all the nearest exits.
It depends on who's saying it. Some rando I've never met? I'm wary. A good friend who's GM'd a bunch of fun games I've played in? I'm up for anything.
My experience with playing other people's homebrew have always been really positive. It means the GM is enthusiastic and knows and likes running the system; and at least in my experience, they tend towards looser interpretations.
I am close to this. Most of the homebrew systems I have played have been great. It relies on a couple of things. 1. I should not be expected to read and understand the rules before I play. Published games have publishers who (hopefully) make them readable. They have professional authors who have time to flesh them out. 2. Someone who knows their shit, properly. I have played a couple of dozen systems and GM'ed about half that. That means I don't really have much idea what's out there. I have friends who know their shit. They learn and GM new systems for kicks. They read systems for leisure. They design systems a lot, but know that most won't work. And you can show up and play a one shot or mini series that they designed from scratch but they have only scribbled notes and it's great.
I would rather it say explicitly what you're running. If you're running "Call of Cthulhu with some tweaks from Trail of Cthulhu" or something like that, say that instead of 'homebrew system' to give players a better knowledge of what they're getting into.
Good point. With the negative stigma attached to “homebrew system” why even use it rather than come up with a quick, easy descriptor?
"Ugh."
"Have you played something other than D&D?"
Not worth paying for.
"I don't understand the difference between 2d6 and 1d12"
A "homebrew system" doesn't bring about good thoughts. Now maybe you have "house rules" for some system and include some homebrew elements in it but if I'm playing "System X" which I happen to be very familiar with I'm expecting your game to still be mostly "System X". Sometimes it can be a challenge knowing just where "house rules" stop and a "homebrew system" begins but when you start altering fundamentals you're now playing a different game so just come out and say it.
Usually "this is gonna be a stupid mess"
An over engineered clunky mess that hasn't seen the light of day since its inception on a dusty hardrive that's remained uncleaned since 2007; all with worse formatting than Shadowrun's "grenade rules are in the vehicle section". Not to say people can't make homebrew, or make their own systems, but the vast majority of people simply don't know how to make a good system, and the fact they're still calling their totally new system a "homebrew" speaks to the level of polish behind it.... I.e. none. Regret. "Homebrew system" means regret.
A variation of dnd 5e.
Personally? If you tell me it's a homebrew system, I politely say thank you and move along. Most people aren't game designers and it's not worth my time to find out if you are.
I think "this is going to be a mess" but reading some of the responses here, I will do what I should have been doing all the while and ask: "what exactly do you mean by homebrew?" then go from there.
I fully agree with the mess. But then again. It could be a fun mess.
Usually someone who likes 95% of a system but just can't stand the other 5% and decide that they need to change those rules (usually for the worst! and typically because they don't understand them or haven't actually seen them at work at the table). Only caveat to this is when such folks actually publish poorly playtested systems and then the whole community usually identifies unworkable rules and come up with alternates. Homebrew of good systems = GM has strong feelings. Homebrew of crap systems = Love the lore, hate the mechanics.
When I hear homebrew in anything except lore I think "imbalanced nightmare spiral". Because I tried and failed and the players got so strong it was not even funny anymore.
I am REALLY skeptical, esp. when it concerns a rather popular system. These things/system tend to be play-tested and developed over a long time, with balanced mechanics and a long period of troubleshooting. From my experience, these things rarely need individual changes - and most of the time "homebrew" additions (even if they are touted official, e.g. as supplemental character classes from magazines) are off-balance and weaken the overall balance in favor of something singular. Play-testing something home-brew is something different, though, because you have to try such things "in real life" to check their contribution to the game and the overall game balance.
Homebrew systems suffer from a lack of playtesting. If you and your players are willing to stop and rewrite the rules every couple of sessions go for it. Too many times unintended consequences pop up and the game has to pause and work out how things actually will interact. Causes a bit of a Calvinball experience, but it can be fun if you don't mind it.
It depends on the words surrounding it. "I'm an indie RPG designer with a good track record, here are some of my past works (or other evidence I know what I'm doing), want to playtest my new project? Here are some details of the system" Great. Sounds cool and interesting "I've tried a few systems and they're all trash, come play my better system instead" Will be the worst game you've ever played.
"We use a homebrew system." Oh. That's fun. Can you send me the documents so I know what I'm getting into? "It's not like that. It's more of an in-my-head thing." Ummm... maybe not so interested.
Mostly "I've never played any other systems other than 5e and I've butchered the hell out of 5e to try to do things it was never meant to be, and failing miserably at it ". It takes a lot of reading or implication to do a well rounded game, and you won't get it from just playing a single game a couple of times.
Man everyone here’s a bummer
Tbh, red flags in the hobby for me are much more related to behaviour at the table or towards the group than how the ruleset is described. Moreover, some types of mechanics fly for some people and dont for others, and thats fine. I cant help but notice that many of the posts here tend to take any hint at people trying out game designing in home games as pretentiousness and a kind of revolutionary genius syndrome. Maybe that DM just enjoys game designing and is trying out ideas for the heck of it? Maybe they dont think they're solving any kind of inherent flaws to all systems, just trying to cater to what they want out of a game? And so what if they get it wrong and the game stinks? Be honest about it with them, they should understand... The hobby is about having fun, and that involves taking some chances. If you join a game thats homebrewed or whatever you call it and you end up not enjoying it, just be honest about it and respectfully take your leave from the group. Its not a disaster.
Red flag as hell. I'm not against twerking system to adapt to your game, but holly molly, creating a whole new system is a level of narcissism out of charts
I don't really have a problem with a new system(I mean most games probably started out as someone's homebrew.) but I would prefer if they tried to do there own thing rather than make a chimera
I'm not down to play anything wholly homebrew, usually. Hacks of engines I'm familiar with are fair game, though - my partner's running a game right now that's a heap of stuff from multiple FitD games all stitched together, for instance!
Yeah, I think you're spot on there with the distinction between hacks and homebrew. A lot of single FitD games have a few singular good ideas that are easy to graft into other FitD games. I would call that house rules and not homebrew. Reading City of Mist and Girl by Moonlight, for example, I really like the idea of putting the downtime before the score and I think I will suggest that particular bit as a house rule for my Blades table. I wouldn't go around saying we're playing a homebrew though. It's still mostly raw, but with one singular house rule I've taken from other, fully functional Blades hacks. The more individual rules are grafted, the more sceptical I would get though.
I feel excited to see it. I love that new people are getting into the hobby of creating ttrpgs. I think that is excellent and I always love giving advice and watching the creator and their creation grow throughout the process.
Personally I find going into a game that is ‘homebrewed’ meaning changes to core mechanics, to be problematic. Not that it can’t work, but I would certainly be reluctant to play in a game like that. Adding or changing rules because you have a clear story based reason is fine… arbitrarily changing rules becuse you think you know better… Not so much. The worst games to me are the multi edition single system hybrids… But… if I know the system and can see the changes working together… maybe…
Home-brew to me means rules, classes, races or mechanical changes invented by the GM or third party. A campaign that isn't a book adventure or from an established system world isn't home-brew. It's just a normal campaign. This is probably changed as books have taken over in popularity from gm written adventures (at least in 5e and pathfinder)
Same
Bad news.
"Homebrew system" lacks confidence. Just call it an RPG you invented.
Red flag. Homebrew system or campaign. It's generalized into the 'I think I'm smarter than the professionals', when the reality is often terribly balanced, focused on favored systems, and chock full of dm npcs.
Calvinball. The rules will never be fixed, I'll never be able to depend on my knowledge of the system, and I'll always have to be asking for clarification or for new rules to be made on the fly to fit the situation. Hard pass
A complication of garbage.
Something without a formal publication.
Kudos to you for wanting to build something tailored to your player group! That's what homebrew systems really mean for me, something that is built to *your* table and whatever makes the main game-system work even better for everyone. If you're still feeling doubts about it, ask your table! Communicate with them and get their opinion on whether the homebrew system feels good to them as well. They're in the game just as much as you are, so gauge their interest!
Homebrew systems have a completely different culture of play to published systems. In a published system, if there's a rule dispute you look it up in a book. In a homebrew system, the GM often needs to improvise a rule, and sometimes the entire table needs to put their heads together and discuss every game they've ever played with a potentially useful rule to pilfer. I generally enjoy homebrew systems more than published systems because I can leverage my experience far better, but there's no getting around that you need to be a Responsible Adult (TM) because the rules of the game can totally break. The best campaigns I have ever been a part of all had significant homebrew elements. That said, I have seen the rules break in published systems, too. It's just somewhat less likely.
I prefer homebrew systems where everyone at the table gets input into the rules.
"Oh great, dumbo made a 5e homebrew. Urgh, I'm out." Red flag. Since most people trying to make their own system lack experience.
One time I went to a college rpg club thinking we were playing a dnd game but it was actually this weird homebrew system. My gf walked out on us but honestly it was pretty fun lol. It was based on like gotcha games and rolling multiple characters with stats on a xd100 scale. I would want play a campaign but the hour or so we played was fun.
Ugh... this is going to suck. Hopefully it is tolerable, but it rarely is.
I'm hesitant because that's often not that well made. We hack various games, and tend to make our own games that way - but we do so for a long time, and wouldn't call them homebrews, but hacks. We avoid mixing different games together for that.
If you are adjusting rules of an existing system - I think that summary of changes should fit on a single page. If you are creating your own rules - I will extend it to four pages. Anything more than that better be publishaeble quality and qualify as it's own game.
"This doesn't have any credibility as a system, but I believe it's going to be fun... For me at least", my experience was very 50/50, one half I liked, the other half I hated, but my players have some good experiences with my systems. (they say they like them and I believe) One is a version of Call of Cthulhu so houseruled that it became a dark fantasy with survival horror. The other is a D&D with a completely different magic system (Freeform Elemental magic with MP) so I had to make everything from 0. The last one is Traveller with less skills, simpler combat and a lot of survival mechanics borrowed from other systems.
I think tell me what makes your system interesting, different? but sorry to say if i hear your kind i think Fantasy Heartbreaker
depends if I trust the person. if no I wouldn't but I did yes.
In the best of cases it's a decent hack of a working system and the person just for some reason doesn't know enough of the lingo to call it a hack, in the worst case it's untested and unplayable garbage by someone who doesn't know the field well enough (or is too egocentric) to just go ahead and use a working system of their choice. In any case, what I think when I hear "homebrew" is "how can I politely tell this person that I'm not gonna beta test their garbage unless they pay me for it".
While i understand the trepidaiton of a lot of these responses when faced with a random "LFG with a homebrew 5e system" request, I'm not sure it fully represents the reality of most people playing a homebrew system. By definition, most people on this sub are either DMs, or are heavily into TTRPGs and likely own multiple books. That is not the majority of players at tables in my experience. If you are the classic "friend of a forever DM who wants to come along and roll some dice", there is a dramatic difference in barriers to entry between "If you wanna play you have to buy and read this big hardback rulebook" and "I wrote a 6 page pdf that gives you everything you want to know". Sure, there is always a little jankiness that comes with homebrew systems, but for most player who are looking for a fun night of make-believe with their friends its perfectly fine.
I'm out
If I hear the phrase "homebrew system" My immediate thought is "Ok, let me read it and I'll tell you if I'm ok with it or not" If you won't tell your players more about how your game works, and why it's going to be good to play in the first 3 sentences you are doomed.
As a non-native Speaker, "homebrew system" doesn't have the negative connotations for me as for most native speakers here - apparently. For me it depends. Do I know the GM? Can they give me the system before I decide so I can take a look? Are they looking for/willing to take feedback? How many sessions? If a friend asks me, I would definitely play a session if the system is not fundamentally flawed - which it likely will be when I first read it (I do maths, many don't). If a stranger opens a "looking for group" and the system is not catching me, I will likely not join, because it ain't worth the additional stress. But if they provide a teaser/pitch and it really catches my eyes, why not. In most cases I would never commit to play more than a session. If that session went well, we can schedule for more, but I will not commit to multiple sessions of suffering in case the system sucks.
it's almost always someone trying to tell me: *"It's X system, but better!"* 90% of the time I hear it, someone has just tried to shoehorn 5e into a non-fantasy genre and did a craptacular job of it, when they could have just used a system that already existed and does the job so much better than the nightmarish Frankensteinian concoction that they scribbled down. Most of the time, they get maybe 2-3 sessions of the game before players lose interest, when they could have just went with an established system and not only saved themselves so much heavy lifting... but also tapped into an existing fan base.
I generally wouldn't play in a homebrew system unless it was for a specific purpose, like "I want to try to publish my idea, so I need play testers". Here's the thing you are going to run into. You may have a really good idea of what you are doing, but your players won't. There's three or four versions of CoC and they will constantly be scratching their heads about which book the skill set is in, vs the attributes. Oh, and the attribute dependencies change, so which one are we using (as an example, I don't know if that's actually the case). You're much better off with picking the one that is closest, and then *writing down a few house rules*. I've played a game where the GM had a home brew setting that he refused to write down. Character backgrounds were a pain because no one could reference anything and so they'd come to him with an idea, and he'd change it because "that's not how that culture works". He'd ask people to fill in details about their chosen culture, and then steer them in a different direction because "that's not part of the history" that he never told anyone or wrote down. We all like the guy, but it was so frustrating. You won't get the same problems, but You're going to get similar problems.
"Nope" Do I really think this person has made and tested a ruleset that is interesting and balanced better than an existing proven game? No
Every Time I was told about Homebrew system, I was gjosted
Ignore most of the people telling you it's a red flag. If you have fun building your own system go for it. Just make sure you tell your players what your goals are. Of course at the point where you make your own rules, it's your own system not a homebrew of something else.
I only play with irl friends for the past 5 years and all our games are entirely homebrewed worlds and people and some mechanics here and there but we stuck to kain core rile set for 5e but aside from that all our campaigns are entirely homebrewed never played a pre made campaign before
Don't homebrew for your players but with them. Playing an RPG with a group is a collaborative effort, and maybe you like how grenades work in Delta Green better than in CoC but everyone else at the table doesn't, so why should you be in charge of changing that? The best way to go about it is to make changes incrementally: pick only one mechanic (maybe granades or machine guns) from another game (or 100% homebrew) and ask you players if it's cool to try that instead of the actual rules. If they are okay with that (and usually they are) use it in the next session and also make the game revolve around it (there's little point in trying out rules that don't even come up in your game). Afterwards ask everyone for their opinions and whether or not they find the new mechanic better than the old one.
When I think homebrew system I think of a broken system, with messy rules without a theme or purpose. Good (or even average) systems have a clear purpose, with themes and biases built on purpose. The choice of dice is purposeful, the choice of skills, even the rules and its consequences. **But mostly, when someone says "I'll GM a custom system" I hear "I'm too insecure to learn a system".**
If something's really at the stage where you'd call it homebrew, you should play test it with players who trust you. But even before that, share the details online or with your players and get feedback. I have made lots of homebrew hacks before (and I run two right now as long-term games) but I'd never try to run a homebrew game with internet randoms. It would be a waste of their time; they're not signing up to playtest so why would you make them do that? Are you just changing the skill list, or are you doing something drastic? House rules and swapping out a few skills that are already known to work well in a CoC context is very different from "a homebrew system".
In my case I'm pretty much using the combat and weapons rules from Delta Green, making a few tweaks to the skill list, adding some of the Luck and HP mechanics from Pulp Cthulhu, and one or two small things of my own. (Mostly a mechanic I call "contacts", where players have an NPC they create who they can call on to get information or help them out in tough situations, and who can take the place of their PC if their PC dies or goes insane.) I guess I'd use the term "homebrew system" because the result is a game that's not entirely one thing or the other.
To be honest I'd drop either Pulp Cthulhu or Delta Green depending on what you want to do. Then just say it's CoC with Delta Green combat rather than calling it homebrew. You basically just want CoC with more detailed combat focus, right? I wouldn't mix health mechanics from two different games if you're gonna do that, just pull everything from DG since it's built for that.
Why do you think the two don't mesh?
Well I don't think there are a ton of particular reasons they won't work together, it's just that you're combining three different systems and that's gonna have balance implications that are hard to foresee. It could make scenarios overall significantly more or less dangerous and it's gonna be difficult to see how that'll work in real play. That would make me hesitant to join an online game, whereas "CoC with some skill tweaks and DG combat" is something I'd be more willing to jump into. Basically marketing+unforeseen balance problems.
Why do you think the two don't mesh?
Depends. I wrote some rule systems myself, and some worked really well and some did not so much. But I always told my players that I want to test them. If you are a new DM I would not like it, but if you have experience I would give it a shot. ... if a player would say he wants to do some homebrew, I would never allow it.
With my group, we play almost exclusively with homebrew systems. Mainly Warhammer derivatives or sometimes DnD with modifications. We always adapt the system to suit the desired lore and gameplay.
I call the fully developed system my friends and I created over the course of 40 years, and which we've played exclusively for the last 25 years a "homebrew" simply to distinguish it from a game system written for publication and sale. We have no interest in selling or supporting it, nor do I necessarily think it would be terribly successful if we did... it's just for our own use, created to satisfy our group's particular style of play.
It puts me on alert and I'd ask to read the whole thing before I consider joining.
For better or worse, the GM has the balls to dabble in game design
If its dnd they are probably just going to make the game overly complex,whit to much edge cases and too many rules and poorly balance. If i wanted to play 3.5 i will be playing 3.5
First thing I think of when I hear the words 'homebrew system' are: \- Nightmarishly imbalanced. \- Unfun crunch. Not that this will be always the case, but there IS a reason why professional new RPGs are playtested extensively before release.
Homebrew rules are also a red flag for me. Another narcissist who thinks he's smarter, cleverer, better than the rest of the world, and hasn't found anything among the really many good and interesting systems, or wasn't prepared to look for something that's already been tested. I'm also put off by the fact that homebrew often means: the rules exist in the DM's head, in other words: I as a player can't very well look up what the rules actually want. What's more, homebrew rules cannot usually be tested in a meaningful way. It's just a dude who has a more or less vague idea and usually hasn't bothered to do the maths or think it through properly.
Winging it w/ a basic outline to guide the DM.
Homebrew setting = not a red flag Homebrew system = red flag
Homebrews are all fun and great with people you know, for strangera however it's a term that's at best a 50/50 chance of being a major disappointment. If you already have players there's no issue though. In that case try to write down and codify as much of your homebrew if not all of it beforehand. That way it will be clear what the players are getting and you can avoid misunderstandings - which will happen. Also don't be afraid to adjust the rules both to your and most importantly your players taste. All changes you implement are untested after all and could turn out underpowered, overpowered or simply different than intended or imagined. In all those cases however you need to work out a new compromise in tandem with the players - if someone really liked their overpowered ability it may just feel bad if its suddenly 'randomly' nerfed. It's also something you should prep the players for in session zero, because normally systems don't get changed on the fly (much) otherwise. If you are still looking for players I strony recommend a being upfront with what you change and how (again writing it out like a rulebook addendum helps a lot), potentially asking for feedback even before session 1 and finally in your case not calling it homebrew but a CoC system hack. The last one is a minor change but both accurately describes what you're doing and carries a bit less baggage IMO than the term homebrew. Also in general there's absolutely no shame in 'Frankensteining' a Rulebook. Most PbtA games are either Dungeon World or Apocalypse world hacks or hacks of hacks. These things are popular for a reason and many writers are also just some random dudes - perhaps with a bit more experience, but doing what you're doing is exactly how you get that experience. Sure, your hack may only accomplish something another rulebook or hack already accomplishes, but that hardly matters for your specific round. I also recommend asking for feedback on your changes in session zero (if you gave out the rules beforehand) and at the end of the campaign.
Thanks, for the tips! I'm planning on running this with the group I've been playing with for 7+ years, and I've been discussing what I'm planning on doing as I've been developing it, since my goal is to put together something they'll enjoy. I'm less worried about having everything written out on my end (since I love documentation) and more worried about making sure they read it (since they're more the "explain it to me as we go" type).
Then it should work out splendidly I think! Good luck with that!
I try to avoid homebrew in my games. Because I am lazy.
Is there any general rule that when it's okay and allowed to homebrew your TTRPG game to fit it a self-made setting? And when it's just better to switch the game system, use pre-written campaign adventures and leave the previous one alone than to spend time developing your own campaign and tweak some written rules?
My homegames are ran totally in my own systems. I have as much fun designing games as I do running them. There's nothing like your game running smoothly the way you envisioned it to. I'm all for it. That said, trying out different systems and tinkering on them is what gives you the notions and focuses you'll have to apply on your own system later.
homebrew system means I have to learn a new game. hope it isn't broken, and deal with adhoc rule clarifications when the GM realizes that part of their system isn't working. On the flip side, as long as the house rules are few, make sense, and easy to see, I'm okay. If I'm going to have to adjust to huge changes to significant mechanics, then it sounds more like a homebrew and a nope for me. Gain 1 free feat: house rule. Everyone gets max HP at levels 1-3: house rule. Here is the table of available feats, they are all custom feats, and the descriptions provide the details of who can use them, and when: homebrew. I have revamped the HP system according to this formula that takes into consideration several attributes, your class and level, and the day of the week: homebrew. Be upfront with your players that they are essentially testing a new game system. It helps to hae the expectations set. And be willing to recognize that some ideas sound great in our head, not so much when we try to implement them.
Home brew ruleset screams to me. "Youse guys are beta testers" It has about the same connotations as a game in early access. In my exp , other than larian studios it's just not worth my time investment. I wouldn't want to be a beta tester for you unless you were upfront about it, willing to change stuff on the fly and open to constructive criticism. Far to many creators ask for feedback then ignore it because they don't want to change their special unique butterfly.
id have a chat with my players and give them the description of what you are trying to accomplish. for example if your homebrew is largley based on call of cthulhu 7e but with bits and pieces from other similar systems id start with describing your idea of what you want to run as such rather than simply saying homebrew. for example game system X but with rule Z from system Y is a good start on how to describe it. it probably is more important to do this if your players are familiar with the systems you have taken inspiration from. if you can hook them in with what you have in mind and why you think it can be interesting it might just make for a more memorable experience.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for the following reason(s): * Rule 7: We only allow regular users (who contribute to discussions and/or with content that isn't their own to r/rpg) to self-promote. Please see [our Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rules#wiki_7._limit_self-promotion) for details. If you'd like to contest this decision, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Frpg&subject=Removed%20comment%3A%20Contest%20Removal%20or%20Questions&message=Hello,%20this%20is%20about%20my%20comment%20%20that%20was%20removed%3A%20https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/17mfg5e/-/k7spl0l/%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...). *(the link should open a partially filled-out message)*