You could argue that not introducing new RPG players to the concept of Rule Zero is unfair to them.
Oh yeah! Can't give you XP.
Is house ruling fair to the game or gamers when first introducing it?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Oh yeah! Can't give you XP.
Lord Captian Tobacco
First Post
Not really sure that this is an issue with some of the games...when you are digging for some calling on an activity and have to dig through 15+ books, you may be better off making a call and researching later.
Mostly, I tell the new player "Ask me. I'll tell you." It's not an Easter Egg hunt. I don't do 'gotcha' games. We're all here to have fun.
Mostly, I tell the new player "Ask me. I'll tell you." It's not an Easter Egg hunt. I don't do 'gotcha' games. We're all here to have fun.
Hussar
Legend
Like most things, honesty is the best policy.
If you play (oh noes, I'm going to use an older version example, get out the pitchforks) AD&D without the Weapon vs Armor rules, that's fine. If, after the first session, during the second session, Joe the Newbie says, "Hey, I was looking through the PHB and I saw this table, what's this?" then explain what it is and why you're not using it.
I find that the issue doesn't come up with new players, because they just don't know the questions to ask. It also doesn't usually come up with long time players, because they tend to realize that DM's do this all the time and roll with it. But, I do find that there's a large segment in the middle where problems do arise - where the players have some experience with the system, but not enough to really know it, and then get confused by the conflicting rulings.
A perfect example was from a recent game I played. The Dm ruled (4e) that a 1 always fails on a skill check. I asked him about it because, even though I'm pretty new to the 4e rules, I knew this wasn't true in 3e. He gave his reasons and we moved on, realizing that he had made a house rule. I honestly did find it a bit offputting, since the ruling came out as a bit of a surprise and occured during an encounter. I think I would have preferred to know about the house rule before play started.
If you play (oh noes, I'm going to use an older version example, get out the pitchforks) AD&D without the Weapon vs Armor rules, that's fine. If, after the first session, during the second session, Joe the Newbie says, "Hey, I was looking through the PHB and I saw this table, what's this?" then explain what it is and why you're not using it.
I find that the issue doesn't come up with new players, because they just don't know the questions to ask. It also doesn't usually come up with long time players, because they tend to realize that DM's do this all the time and roll with it. But, I do find that there's a large segment in the middle where problems do arise - where the players have some experience with the system, but not enough to really know it, and then get confused by the conflicting rulings.
A perfect example was from a recent game I played. The Dm ruled (4e) that a 1 always fails on a skill check. I asked him about it because, even though I'm pretty new to the 4e rules, I knew this wasn't true in 3e. He gave his reasons and we moved on, realizing that he had made a house rule. I honestly did find it a bit offputting, since the ruling came out as a bit of a surprise and occured during an encounter. I think I would have preferred to know about the house rule before play started.
Sure!
I make sure to mention any house-rules I'm using before using them, though.
I'd also like to note that for some/most/all rpgs/editions playing with RAW is impossible because RAW doesn't cover situations that come up from time to time.
Personally, I think it's impossible to play an rpg using RAW only. Or, rather, It's impossible as long as the rpg allows players to do whatever they can think of with their pcs. That's also the reason why rpgs require a GM. If it could be played using only RAW, you wouldn't need a GM.
DrunkonDuty
he/him
My group has a couple of players who are very new to RPGs. We use house rules. We've had no problem.
DragonLancer
Hero
That's what I would say/do when teaching the game. There is no point teaching the newbies the basic game if when they come to play with you long term you then spin the house rules in. Best to start them with the house rules but point out that another group may play differently.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Depending on the game or rules in question, I might do exactly the opposite. Some games are designed better for campaign play and a house rule when running a one shot game (perhaps to reduce some complexity in favor of getting to sample more of the game in a 4 hour slot) will improve the experience for everybody.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
What if your friends end up disliking the game as you introduced it? Especially what if their complaints seem to revolve around your house rules, but not so much around the rules you played straight from the book?
"I don't like Monopoly. The game was going well, Tom looked like he was going to pull off a well-played victory, and then Jim landed on Free Parking and got that huge jackpot. That completely turned the game around on just pure luck. And then the game went on for another two hours."
"I don't like Monopoly. It takes too long as no one buys any of the first lots they land on."
Or, even what if your friends end up liking the game mostly for what is actually your house rules?
"I love Risk. The different modifiers and abilities of the various army colors is really cool. I want to try the blue army next time, with its +1 to a defending die roll."
Bullgrit
"I don't like Monopoly. The game was going well, Tom looked like he was going to pull off a well-played victory, and then Jim landed on Free Parking and got that huge jackpot. That completely turned the game around on just pure luck. And then the game went on for another two hours."
"I don't like Monopoly. It takes too long as no one buys any of the first lots they land on."
Or, even what if your friends end up liking the game mostly for what is actually your house rules?
"I love Risk. The different modifiers and abilities of the various army colors is really cool. I want to try the blue army next time, with its +1 to a defending die roll."
Bullgrit
Raven Crowking
First Post
"Those are house rules."
That was easy.
That was easy.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
If the game is to be a one-off then it's irrelevant. If it's going to be an ongoing game to be played - why would the players not be given copies of the rules or obtain copies for themselves? And also if the players can be reasonably expected to go off and play this game with others where they might be expected to know and abide by rules as written would you not merely be telling them what you're changing and why?
I played Monopoly for DECADES before I bothered to read the rules and learn that Free Parking is actually FREE; that UNmortgaging property costs you interest; that selling back houses/hotels is not done AT COST; and perhaps a few other niceties. This did not mean that those who taught me to play it were being UNFAIR to Monopoly. It didn't mean that they were being unfair to me or others who were playing. For all I know they themselves had been taught to play it that way and knew no better. And none of that means I enjoyed the game any less while I was playing it, although I suppose it could have.
But the object in playing was not a critical evaluation of the rules - the object was to have fun. If someone teaching me a game genuinely believes that more fun can be had by changing the rules why should I substantially object. I might object if I then go to someone elses house to play and they laugh at me for my ignorance of the rules. But then that's hardly my fault, nor is it really even cause for embarrassment on my part - unless I've brought my own copy of the game rules with me and I simply haven't bothered to read them.
I played Monopoly for DECADES before I bothered to read the rules and learn that Free Parking is actually FREE; that UNmortgaging property costs you interest; that selling back houses/hotels is not done AT COST; and perhaps a few other niceties. This did not mean that those who taught me to play it were being UNFAIR to Monopoly. It didn't mean that they were being unfair to me or others who were playing. For all I know they themselves had been taught to play it that way and knew no better. And none of that means I enjoyed the game any less while I was playing it, although I suppose it could have.
But the object in playing was not a critical evaluation of the rules - the object was to have fun. If someone teaching me a game genuinely believes that more fun can be had by changing the rules why should I substantially object. I might object if I then go to someone elses house to play and they laugh at me for my ignorance of the rules. But then that's hardly my fault, nor is it really even cause for embarrassment on my part - unless I've brought my own copy of the game rules with me and I simply haven't bothered to read them.
Similar Threads
