Is house ruling fair to the game or gamers when first introducing it?

[Bullgrit]

Say you are going to introduce your friends to a new game. You've played the game many times, and you know what parts may be wonky or difficult or complicated or just not as fun.

Is it fair to the game -- since you are introducing it -- to house rule parts of the rules as written?

Is it fair to your friends -- since you are introducing them to the game -- to house rule parts of the rules as written?

Especially if you end up house ruling a lot of stuff. After the game play, your friends may say, "I love this game," or "I hate this game."

What if your friends pick up the rule book and read for themselves, and they find the text doesn't mesh with (or even contradicts) how you taught/showed them?

Then you later want to introduce your friends to another game. You play it straight by the book. Again, your friends may say, "I love this game," or "I hate this game."

Now, say the group is going to decide which game they want to continue playing. If they hated the first and loved the second, or loved the first and hated the second, is this all fair to the respective games and to your friends?

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

Is it fair to the game -- since you are introducing it -- to house rule parts of the rules as written?

"The game" is not a sentient, or even semi-sentient being. I have no moral or ethical obligations to it.

Is it fair to your friends -- since you are introducing them to the game -- to house rule parts of the rules as written?

What do you mean by "fair"? I'm not sure how teaching a person a game can be "unfair" to that person.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I think it's fair if you tell them you're doing it.

And I would use as few house rules as possible.

"Hey guys, I'd like to teach you this new game. Over the years I have developed a few house rules which I'm going to include silently when I teach you."

I don't think many people would object to that.

I also think it's pretty common to ignore or to downplay certain rules when in teaching mode.

In fact, a lot of Euro-style board games specifically have a beginner setup/rules which you're expected to use the first time you play (or teach) the game. You then follow that by moving up to the full rules.

 

[Dausuul]

"The game" is not a sentient, or even semi-sentient being. I have no moral or ethical obligations to it.

Agreed.

What do you mean by "fair"? I'm not sure how teaching a person a game can be "unfair" to that person.

Well, presumably the (potential) issue is that you're teaching them a nonstandard way of playing, which can create confusion and false expectations should they then play the same game at someone else's table.

My solution is to teach them the house-ruled version, but state clearly which parts are house rules. "Under the standard rules, your initiative is calculated based on Dexterity, but at this table you can use Dexterity or Intelligence, whichever is better."

 

[Bullgrit]

"The game" is not a sentient, or even semi-sentient being. I have no moral or ethical obligations to it.

What do you mean by "fair"? I'm not sure how teaching a person a game can be "unfair" to that person.

Say you're going to introduce your friends to the Star Trek "universe."

You start by showing them only the very worst episodes of the original series. Then you show them only the best of the Next Generation series. Then you show them the entire run of the Enterprise series.

"I love the Next Generation! The older series sucks! The latest one kind of hit and miss."

You'd be okay with this? The TV show isn't a sentient being, so you have no moral or ethical obligations to it. And you introduced a new viewer to the show, so there's nothing "unfair" towards that person. The Next Generation has a new fan. So all is okie-dokie.

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is it fair to the game -- since you are introducing it -- to house rule parts of the rules as written?

Umbran covered this very well, IMHO.

Is it fair to your friends -- since you are introducing them to the game -- to house rule parts of the rules as written?

Yes. It is probably a good idea to be honest about doing so, though. Esp. as they can then import the same house rules when playing with others, should it turn out that the house rules are a major factor in their enjoyment.

Which, BTW, answers your next question:

What if your friends pick up the rule book and read for themselves, and they find the text doesn't mesh with (or even contradicts) how you taught/showed them?

Now, say the group is going to decide which game they want to continue playing. If they hated the first and loved the second, or loved the first and hated the second, is this all fair to the respective games and to your friends?

Again, you cannot be fair or unfair to games, and if your friends are chosing what they enjoy, you are hardly being unfair to them.

Your friends, however, may be wrong in their accessment of how fun a game is -- or even how much they enjoy it -- based on a limited trial set.

EDIT: Likewise in your Star Trek example. You are not being unfair to TOS; you are being unfair to your friends. And that is only because you are intentionally skewing their perpective. If you were showing what you thought were the best TOS epsiodes, or that both the TOS and TNG episodes were representative, you wouldn't be unfair. Your friends, however, would still be left with a false impression.


RC

 

[coyote6]

Showing my friends "Spock's Brain" isn't fair to my friends, nevermind about ST:TOS.

If I'm teaching my friends a new RPG, and I don't like a rule, I tend to go ahead and house rule it, tell them that, and explain why I changed it (briefly). I don't care whether it's fair to the game or not, frankly.

For example, if I ever get around to starting a Savage Worlds campaign, I'll probably house rule character creation, because I think starting Novice characters are a little too gimpy (there are "average guard" stats that are as good or better than starting PCs). I will explain how I'm changing things.

 

[amerigoV]

Lets take a D&D n00b, what are they going to remember about the mechanics after the game? "Roll the funny looking die and add something to it." There is a pretty steep learning curve that buries the detail that most house rules address.

So unless you are doing something like "switch character sheets with a person next to you if you roll a natural 1", I would not worry about the sanctity of the game or the integrity owed to the new player about the rules.

(hmm, I kinda like that house rule....)

 

[HoboGod]

When I learned Checkers, the house rule was that you weren't required to jump an enemy piece if presented to you. When I learned Monopoly, the house rule was that money taken from players via community chest and etc was pooled and given to players landing on free parking.

No house rule has ever corrupted my love of a game. I picked up later what the actual rules were and never felt slighted by the difference. The same is true of all games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Giving this more thought, I think what Bullgrit might have wanted to know is, "Does this give your friends a fair ability to judge the game?", not in an ethical sense, but in an evidenciary one.

If this is the case, it depends upon the game. If the game is intended to be house ruled (frex AD&D 1e), then it might not be a fair impression without house ruling! If the game is intended to be playes as is (frex chess, D&D 4e) then house ruling may skew impressions, one way or the other.



RC