Hang-ups about Homebrewing
To Brew or Not to Brew: That is the Question
Yesterday I got a chance to talk with my good friend, GMing accomplice, and personal co-DMing referee, DM Starhelm regarding his stance on homebrewing for a roleplaying game, predominantly in the instance of homebrewing in D&D. So before those of you that adore homebrewing whip out your torches and pitchforks, wait 'til the end of the article, please.
He and I agreed on 99.97% of the issue of homebrewing. While I often approach homebrewing from a stance of "Let's all be creative", he remarked that homebrewing isn't a bad thing, but when poorly handled it detracts from the base game. D&D specifically is about a scope of limited creativity and then using story to bring those rules to life. For instance in 3.5 people often said fighters were boring. Well, if the fighter class was boring, then perhaps one wasn't being truly creative; not the design team, but the player. He reminded me that the more open a system becomes, the harder it is to not only govern the system, but the harder it is to actually create something in D&D because the openness becomes paralyzing. I entirely agree with him in that regard. Some games have a principle of "you can make whatever", like my favorite example of my least favorite game, Mutants and Masterminds. In Mutants and Masterminds, there are no classes. Through some odd number of points you buy the entirety of your character. I can't stand that about a game. I like being shown where something can go, and on top of that, it leaves less to GM intervention. For example, there is a time travel power that in my most recent play of the game, the GM would not let anyone take it. As a principle time travel is a huge mechanic that leans entirely on the support of the GM. To DM Starhelm and I, that violates some of our major philosophies (strong word, I know), concerning the relationship between players, the GM and the rules. Character abilities shouldn't make more work for the GM. Ever. Things like 5e's Know Your Enemy, the legend lore or commune spell, are about communication with the GM. It invites the occurrence of more players being told no when the player rules are supposed to be an inclusion of what is possible for the players outside of DM intervention.
What Starhelm finds most entertaining about a system like D&D 5e is that the focus is on creating things with the tools provided. "If a player wants something too far outside those parameters then they may be looking for a different game entirely," he said. He isn't wrong. Let's get that out of the way. He is not wrong. Especially in regards to 5e, 5e scaled back the vast expansion of what not only were constant exceptions to the rule but constant re-explanation (in the form of Prestige classes or variants). The system is no no longer breakable, you can't have an overpowered character because of some ridiculous clause in the rules that is exploitable due to a massive oversight in design.
Starhelm also would prefer to have fully explored what a game has to offer before turning to an alternative method, rule system, or class and subsequent features. His love of gaming is a perfect example of truly loving tabletop gaming and respecting the initial vision of that system. That stood out to me as something I often miss; roleplaying games aren't different implementations of the same method, they are vehicle to explore a type of game and the stories that can be told with those systems specifically. He quoted one of our favorite tabletop-centric bloggers/writers, the Angry GM. "Roleplaying games are not so much a game but a console. The stories told with them, those sessions are the game." In other words, it is how you use the capabilities of that console to make and play the games that are available or that you create. In real life, I own three modern video game systems, a Wii U, a 3DS, PS4, and a gaming computer. There are definitely different things that I set out to play each one for. I am more likely to play my Wii U with friends over, my 3DS when I am out and about or bed ridden, my PS4 for single-player games, and my computer when I am playing something that requires me to have more precise control through mouse and keyboard. I have a purpose for each one. With each one, I prefer different types games. Table-top gaming is no different. I love D&D and I probably like it the best because I am most familiar. For an overall swashbuckling adventure I'd prefer 7th Sea, Super heroes, I'd prefer Cold Steel Wardens, and futuristic roleplay I'd definitely say Numenera. Starhelm, I believe is right. I do have preferences when it comes to gaming. So that being said, why do I bother with homebrew?
First, I am not stopping, so don't worry about that. My opinion hasn't changed, if anything as I tend to have Starhelm do, I drew my guidelines from what he said and refined them along side my already existing guidelines. So I present to you The Starhelm Homebrewing Protocol that I name after my dear friend that I now use as a guide and cautionary measure.
The Starhelm Homebrewing Protocol
Can what you want flavor-wise be achieved through archetypes, multiclassing, or simple flavor changes or interpretations?
Does what you want conflict with the setting for the game you are trying to play and is more suited to be created in an entirely different game?
Does what you want make another player option obsolete, or too heavily overlap with another player option?
Do the requirements of what you want put too much stress on the game's system?
Does what you want slow the game or detract from the fun of other players?
If you answered all of these questions with a no, then go right ahead. Question 1 is hard to get past because with some instances you may get close but not where you want something, maybe it doesn't suit how you'd like to play or it doesn't work like you hoped due to strain on the rules. (such as Multiple Ability Dependency) However, if you answered yes to any of them, you have your answer.
Special thanks to DM Starhelm for his time, input, and continued effort to help me be a better GM.