Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just kind of got curious about how other folks approach RPGs. Do you home brew content?Beyond generating your own campaign content adding new rules to the game. To take the generic example of D&D this would be doing things like creating new spells or feats at the low end, new classes with their own sub-systems at the high end.

This is something I tend to pretty often, either to accommodate oddball player concepts, introduce surprises, fill what I perceive as gaps or just plain for the fun of designing something new. Is this something you do as GM? Do you ever request homebrew or custom content as a player? Have you ever asked a GM to introduce content you've created/found?

I've generally got overwhelmingly positive feedback for my custom content. If you've used your own what kind of reactions have you typically gotten? Do you use it for some systems and not others, if so why?

I voted small, but it's been increasing since I've started GM-ing and I think I should do more.

I'll go with a lot. I love to mess with rules, to the point I've tried to make my own game a few times, but I always end up trying to do some kind of system that already exists.

Vastly depends on the game. 2nd Ed D&D is pretty standard with some minor tweaks. Marvel Classic has to be almost completely rewritten to be playable.

Depends on the system. With simpler systems, I often alter things to suit myself. I find D'n'D in it's various forms tends to have too many moving parts for me to feel comfortable messing with anything fundamental, but I do mess around with monsters and stuff quite a lot.

I tend to be more interested in playing with "game structures" than the rules set these days. Experimenting with different ways to run the game that are fairly system agnostic.

I used to homebrew all my setting stuff, now I use a lot more pre-written material because I don't have as much free time or creative energy these days what with being a grown up and all that

I house rule lots of little stuff, when it'll make it faster and/or more fun. Nothing major, though.

I play "modern" license-based RPGs strictly RAW because that is how they are intended (whether the authors understand that or not) but I DM D&D in the OSR style of rulings rather than rules.

I mostly do the 40k RPGs, and often add new stuff to them. Whether it be creatures, weapons, or vehicles.

I homebrew all of my campaigns but that is because I run 1st Ed. Stormbringer and there is almost no material for it anywhere unless you read the books the system was based on.

We're currently homebrewing our game. Our group really likes the FFG Edge of the Empire dice system and it's narrative driven game style.

Since there's no fantasy game with that system, we've made a Elder Scrolls game using those rules. So far we've been doing well.

It really depends on the kind of game i'm trying to DM. More often than not, I'll tweak systems to either streamline aspects, or to simply make the game more fun.
I've also written my own systems and setting from scratch.

Just a few house rules, here and there.

10 coin per pound currency systems are dumb.

I tend to use a few house rules where they would make sense (see Kronk's money weight rule)...

But for the most part the system is DM'd as given, and tend to run premade adventures since 75% of the time I'm DMing for a new group so the less work I have to do on the adventure side of things, the better.

Yes, after a couple games. (i like to test a game RAW before changing stuff)

And that is when I'm an not running my own stuff.

I tend to run rules mostly as is although I do add/subtract some stuff (so option 2),

but actual scenarios/campaigns etc are almost all home brew with the odd bits and pieces of published stuff

Some, though depending on what I'm running that can increase and decrease.

3.5 had a little nwe content- mostly feats and spells. We did tweak how HP worked, and pulled some stuff fro the UA as well. When I ran a 4th edition D&D game, we had fun, but it was a mess mathematically. We used a lot of houserules, most involving monster HP and damage, crits, and other math-related stuff. The math broke so bad (even with tweaks) at mid paragon tier that we switched the games over to 13th Age a few levels into epic.

In 13th Age, a lot of custom content and tweaks get thrown around, but only a handful of rules. The game lends itself to modification well, and the creators go out of their way to encourage it.

When I finally get around to running some 5th edition games, it will have several rules changes isnpired from other games (mostly 13th Age, some Conan), as well as some stuff from the DMG. Also working up some post-apoc stuff for whenver that game happens.

I'm planning to many games...

I read through the books a few times, get a feel for the system, and then play a few games with it as-written... and then see what my players unlock as the most-abuseable, most-broken combinations, then change those.

Then I start making my own stuff up.