It really comes down to how fit for purpose the rules deviation is, and how radically it moves away from RAW.
I might be missing something here but surely the ability to compare and analyse two interpretations of a specific rule (i.e. RAW and Houserule) can only properly be achieved through experience of the system as a whole and the specific rule in relation to it.
If the above is true then I don't think it really matters which version of the rule is presented first. As long as the rule does not seem suspicious or inappropriate at the time it will be accepted readily as a "rule of the game". At a later point an interested participant might come across a different interpretation of the rule that might lead to a rules discussion. But this is surely a good thing, all rules are open to discussion (out of game) and any such discussions are a good sign that a player is invested and involved with the campaign.
One interesting thing here is that many things that are technically house rules come from either not reading a rule or power correctly or just assuming a particular element works in a specific way. Later (sometimes much much later) the RAW is stumbled upon and a decision is made to either stick with the initial interpretation or revert to RAW, I cannot see how these sort of mistakes can be classified as unfair, but under the tenant of this thread they may be perceived as giving an unfair introduction to a system.
examples:
Warlord - Commanders Strike - somehow (like many people) we thought this was a line of sight effect so that the warlord with a standard action could make an ally take an immediate basic attack. This was completely wrong and the power states that it is an adjacent ally that can make an attack.
In this case we had it wrong, discovered the fact, had a brief talk about it and prefered it the way we had been running it so didn't revert back to RAW.
Grapple - you are meant to use a minor action to maintain a grab, I have never bothered doing this with monsters partly through ignorance and then through simplicity. When we discovered I was doing it wrong we had a brief discussion then carried on.
I might be missing something here but surely the ability to compare and analyse two interpretations of a specific rule (i.e. RAW and Houserule) can only properly be achieved through experience of the system as a whole and the specific rule in relation to it.
If the above is true then I don't think it really matters which version of the rule is presented first. As long as the rule does not seem suspicious or inappropriate at the time it will be accepted readily as a "rule of the game". At a later point an interested participant might come across a different interpretation of the rule that might lead to a rules discussion. But this is surely a good thing, all rules are open to discussion (out of game) and any such discussions are a good sign that a player is invested and involved with the campaign.
One interesting thing here is that many things that are technically house rules come from either not reading a rule or power correctly or just assuming a particular element works in a specific way. Later (sometimes much much later) the RAW is stumbled upon and a decision is made to either stick with the initial interpretation or revert to RAW, I cannot see how these sort of mistakes can be classified as unfair, but under the tenant of this thread they may be perceived as giving an unfair introduction to a system.
examples:
Warlord - Commanders Strike - somehow (like many people) we thought this was a line of sight effect so that the warlord with a standard action could make an ally take an immediate basic attack. This was completely wrong and the power states that it is an adjacent ally that can make an attack.
In this case we had it wrong, discovered the fact, had a brief talk about it and prefered it the way we had been running it so didn't revert back to RAW.
Grapple - you are meant to use a minor action to maintain a grab, I have never bothered doing this with monsters partly through ignorance and then through simplicity. When we discovered I was doing it wrong we had a brief discussion then carried on.