If homebrew is to be introduced

[Vorpalchicken]

It should only be brought in by the DM to better represent their world. It should never ever be brought in at the request of a player who spotted something they like on dandwiki (for example.)
The sooner players and DMs realize this, the better off we will all be.

[strangebloke]

Making absolute rules for all tables is usually going to be wrong. I actively encourage players to find Homebrew, and I will usually say, "yes, but..."

Or I'll just Homebrew something on the fly if a player has a concept not handled by the rules. I've made a "resourceless ranger" (this was pre scout) and reworked twf to work with the berserker path.

It's all contingent on how much you trust your players, and how much work you're willing to do.

[randomodo]

Translation: you're having fun the wrong way?

I'd say it all depends on the nature of the campaign. Some games have a pretty fair amount of player agency in terms of coming up with a collaborative sense of what the game world is like. In that sort of game, homebrew stuff can be potentially appropriate in a way that it isn't in other campaigns .

[Kadesh]

It should only be brought in by the DM to better represent their world. It should never ever be brought in at the request of a player who spotted something they like on dandwiki (for example.)
The sooner players and DMs realize this, the better off we will all be.

This is nonsense. It is a game for everyone, and if a?player wants to play homebrew then they should be able to, with the proviso that it doesnt ruin the fun for all involved, and that the person who is running the game should feel free to impart their rulings on homebrew much as the same why they might otherwise interpret with regards to overpowering combinations, such as 'Coffeelock'.

If you are the one person in the group upset about homebrew inclusion, then find a different group.

[Ganymede]

Making absolute rules for all tables is usually going to be wrong.

I don't like this rule of yours.

[Vorpalchicken]

Making absolute rules for all tables is usually going to be wrong. I actively encourage players to find Homebrew, and I will usually say, "yes, but..."

Or I'll just Homebrew something on the fly if a player has a concept not handled by the rules. I've made a "resourceless ranger" (this was pre scout) and reworked twf to work with the berserker path.

It's all contingent on how much you trust your players, and how much work you're willing to do.

This is a fine approach. You are in control. I'm just tired of games ruined by disgusting powergamers enabled by soft DMs. It is especially disheartening when the game was previously enjoyable. Good bye challenge. Good bye relevance of the other players. Good bye congruity, story and setting.

[Kadesh]

This is a fine approach. You are in control. I'm just tired of games ruined by disgusting powergamers enabled by soft DMs. It is especially disheartening when the game was previously enjoyable. Good bye challenge. Good bye relevance of the other players. Good bye congruity, story and setting.

The problem is the DM, then, not the use of homebrew.

[randomodo]

Now, for what it's worth, in most games I run, I've put enough work into the world that I'm not keen on considering homebrew (other than, in my current game, Mercer's gunslinger, but that was my idea rather than a player input). I generally don't even allow some races (nothing with flight, no drow, for example).

[Lunali]

A better rule would be that if homebrew is to be introduced to make the PCs stronger, it should only be by the DM. If it is to make the game more fun or interesting, taking player requests is reasonable.

[Nifft]

It should only be brought in by the DM to better represent their world. It should never ever be brought in at the request of a player who spotted something they like on dandwiki (for example.)
The sooner players and DMs realize this, the better off we will all be.

Avoiding the garbage on that particular wiki is orthogonal to players making homebrew.

I usually try to run collaborative settings, where players contribute to the world-building, so from that perspective it's fine for a player to suggest some sort of homebrew.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This is nonsense. It is a game for everyone, and if a?player wants to play homebrew then they should be able to, with the proviso that it doesnt ruin the fun for all involved, and that the person who is running the game should feel free to impart their rulings on homebrew much as the same why they might otherwise interpret with regards to overpowering combinations, such as 'Coffeelock'.

If you are the one person in the group upset about homebrew inclusion, then find a different group.
Yes.


This is a fine approach. You are in control. I'm just tired of games ruined by disgusting powergamers enabled by soft DMs. It is especially disheartening when the game was previously enjoyable. Good bye challenge. Good bye relevance of the other players. Good bye congruity, story and setting.
This has nothing to do with the practice of homebrew in general, and everything to do with unhealthy group dynamics. I've used homebrew in plenty of games; when it hasn't worked out, the player has usually realized it at about the same time and we make whatever changes are necessary together.

[DarkKnightJin]

Avoiding the garbage on that particular wiki is orthogonal to players making homebrew.

I usually try to run collaborative settings, where players contribute to the world-building, so from that perspective it's fine for a player to suggest some sort of homebrew.

I got to play MFoV's Warmage class in a one-shot. Another player was allowed to play a 'Shadow Assassin' from dandwiki.
I literally turned to the DM and went "..And you were concerned about *MY* character being OP?!"

[Davrix]

It should only be brought in by the DM to better represent their world. It should never ever be brought in at the request of a player who spotted something they like on dandwiki (for example.)
The sooner players and DMs realize this, the better off we will all be.

If this is how you wish to run your table, all the more power to you, please enjoy.

This is not how I run my table, would never run my table and find it completely backwards and almost borderline dictatorship DM status.

You as the DM can offer any homebrew you wish but that doesn't always make it good or smart to do so. Any player can ask for any home-brew they wish, doesn't mean its good or smart to do so. The key is listening to both sides. If the Dm adds something all the players players don't like, remove it or change it. If a player wants something but you feel its a bad fit either tel them no or work with them to create something that you both can enjoy. The key term here is both parties can enjoy as its a game for everyone to enjoy.

[MrStabby]

My rules are:

Player homebrew should be lead by a concept not mechanics.

Homebrew should be developed at a table, no third party stuff.

Homebrew should be something that includes the whole table, not just the DM and player. Everyone needs to know that if there is going to be an introduction of something new to the table that it won't step on the toes of the concepts they want to play.

Any homebrew should not be better than any other class at the thing that that class is good at. No class better than paladins at single target damage for example

[Nifft]

If this is how you wish to run your table, all the more power to you, please enjoy.

This is not how I run my table, would never run my table and find it completely backwards and almost borderline dictatorship DM status.

You as the DM can offer any homebrew you wish but that doesn't always make it good or smart to do so.

I dunno, I feel that recognizing garbage (like dandwiki) is everyone's job, and disallowing garbage (like dandwiki) doesn't in itself make the DM any kind of dictator.

[Requilac]

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I DM and I am comfortable with my players using homebrew. There are a variety of reasons why one might use homebrew, one of them is just to play a class which is closer to their character’s desired concept. I would of course check it too make sure it’ acceptable, and I would give them a warning that if it the other players start having trouble with it then they would have to change. In truth, I have found very few homebrew things to be unexpectedly overpowered. In fact for the most part all the “power player” builds at my table have been made using entirely core rules.

It is your job as a DM to keep the table balanced. If you think the best way to do this is to completely ban homebrew by players, then go with it. I personally would rather give my players more freedom by only restricting homebrew I believe to be unbalanced. If you are experiencing situations where a player with homebrew content is ruining the game, than it is a problem with the DM or table to deal with. The player should have admitted their mistake and revoke that decision or the table should talk to them about it. It is the responsibility of a gaming group to do what maintains entertainment/the mood for the group, regardless of whose fault it is. If they aren’t doing that, then unbalanced homebrew is the least of your worries.

Your complaint is more of a problem with “soft” DMs and power players (who are both entirely unaware of the problems that they may cause) than it is if homebrew. Not that the actual content itself isn’t a contributing factor, but it doesn’t seem like the direct cause of the problem.

[Aaedimus]

Instead of complaining it's done wrong how about introduce a guide on how to do it right, dangers, pitfalls, and good examples?
... although that's about 1/2 Of what I see in this forum anyways so...

[strangebloke]

I don't like this rule of yours.
Well, I said 'usually.'

And anyway, it isn't a rule for your game it's a rule for setting rules for how the game should be played.

This is a fine approach. You are in control. I'm just tired of games ruined by disgusting powergamers enabled by soft DMs. It is especially disheartening when the game was previously enjoyable. Good bye challenge. Good bye relevance of the other players. Good bye congruity, story and setting.

So, you're getting bullied into allowing broken nonsense into your game?

Yeah, don't get bullied. But that has nothing to do with homebrew. Getting bullied will cause problems whether or not homebrew is part of the bullying.

"I use an acrobatics check to jump up and hit him in the eyes and blind 'im!"
"Yes, you can temporarily blind him. Mechanically, that's the equivalent of taking the help action."
"What? I should deal extra damage and blind him permanently. I'm hitting his eyes!"
"oh, fine, roll an attack."

See? You can get bullied just as easily even if homebrew is not on the table.