Tony Vargas
Legend
Nothing can stop a DM from house ruling, or, y'know, just running a different system, but a system might not present as much perceived need or opportunity to do so.Does the existence of rules or mechanics -stop- GM A from creating their own house rules? I don't see why it would...
And, a system can set the stage for players to enthusiastically accept or violently resist outright house-rules or even any deviation from RAW orthodoxy.
Objectively, sure, but when are these things ever objective?IN post 2e games, GM A is as free as ever to house rule, but GM B is also accommodated within this system, right? Doesn't that make it a better system (preferences aside)?
Subjectively, DM A will feel constrained by a more technically consistent, balanced, clear, and/or polished susyem; subjectively his players may feel more comfortable with and invested in that system, and resist changing or overruling it.
Its not even as simple as good systems are bad and bad systems are good (though that's a claim with some solid history behind it), DM A can be bent out of shape by technically-broken systems, too, if his players are invested in leveraging that brokenness in their favor, he has the perceived need to fix it, but faces resistance to his fixes, however well-intentioned they may be.
Not to let DM B off the hook, either. As long as a system doesnt crash and burn on him, he's inclined to leave systemic problems in place, even entirely unquestioned, and, if they're pointed out, rationalize excuses for them rather than come up with a fix, or even just adopt a well regarded alternative.
Heck, A&B are probably more common as hypothetical examples, possibly stuffed with straw, than as actual DMs. A lot of people who game actually /arent/ jerks.
I know, you could never tell from how we sound on-line. Hazard of the medium.