“Game design (related) pet peeve: imho, homebrew is game design that individual GMs make for their groups and/or share online. Homebrew is awesome and how many professional designers get their start, and it’s not necessarily lesser in game design quality. However, a product that’s the work of a larger team, with editors and five-figure art budget and dozens of playtesters, is NOT homebrew. Homebrew isn’t a catch-all term for anything not published by the company that made the base game. To call all third-party TTRPG products “homebrew” is dismissive of the massive amount of work, expertise, experience, and collaboration that goes into so many of them. Again, homebrew is awesome, but these are two different things.” – Hannah Rose, Cofounder of Wildmage Press

So I had an experience recently that made me fall back to this Bluesky post from Hannah and want to write a blog about it. Someone in our local LFG forum posted, “I am looking for players for a homebrew campaign.” This is confusing as a player: does homebrew in this case mean there will be 3rd party character options, custom changes to the base system, or a completely original setting? This brings me to my main point:

The term “homebrew” is used too broadly and can be confusing to prospective players.

Homebrew – Game material made by players of a game, rather than by an official or third-party publisher.

The main issue is that people stray from the original definition often and use it to describe 3rd party products. This mislabeling blurs the line between custom, group-specific creations and professionally published content, leading to misunderstandings about what each entails.

I speak from a DM’s perspective here. Due to the muddled aspect of the term, I do not think a lot of players understand the amount of work that goes into 3rd party products, and I have had experiences in the past where players see 3rd party options and believe that gives them the opportunity to create their own subclass or find one without any playtesting. This confusion can lead to misaligned expectations at the table and, in some cases, unbalanced gameplay.

How can we be more clear?

Use “3rd party character options” instead of “homebrew character options” when telling players what they can choose from.

This does a couple of positive things. First, it gets eyes on 3rd party publishers. If you tell players the company their options are coming from—like Ghostfire Gaming, MCDM, or Sly Flourish—and they really love it, that player might turn around and support that publisher. In an environment where WOTC holds so much sway, it’s important to drive up competition and make their products better.

Additionally, clearly labeling 3rd party options helps set expectations for players. Without the playtesters or design teams that publishers have, real homebrew can sometimes cause issues in a game. By distinguishing between professionally published 3rd party material and homebrew, players will know that homebrew options might need some slight tweaking.

Describe your setting with what inspired it rather than as “homebrew”

This is more a missed opportunity than anything else. Describing a campaign setting as “homebrew” tells me nothing about it. For the setting mentioned earlier in the blog, it turned out to be very similar to and inspired by Oz, which would have piqued my interest much more. Even a short description like “a setting inspired by the land of Oz, but with darker twists and a steampunk flair” paints a much clearer picture and gives players something to latch onto.

Hannah’s argument from a 3rd party publisher’s perspective is absolutely spot-on, and it’s something we all need to consider. However, as a DM, I also believe that being clearer with terminology benefits the entire table. Mislabeling or overgeneralizing terms like “homebrew” can lead to misunderstandings that ultimately hurt the player experience. Clear communication is the most important skill as a DM so this could help.