Testing a theory

[Black Knight Irios]

Given as it's in theory a role-playing game and that people are aware of this going in, any limits on what type or personality of character a player can play are - let's face it - self-inflicted. And asking the game to fix this only ends up putting rules-based limits on those who otherwise might be able to role-play what they want, how they want.

I rather have a less charismatic player be able to play a character that is somewhat out of his league than having the charismatic player always doing exceptionally well in social encounters. Because if the charismatic player wants to he can put points in the relevant skill and his char ist up to his social skills, the less charismatic player has no so easy solution.

Hyperbole
It's like telling a crippled person in a wheelchair 'get up and run, your sitting there is only self inflicted and you can do it if you just wanted'.

In a mixed group (RL social skillmonkeys and introverted/etc. players) I rather empower the "weaker" side than giving yet more power to the "stronger" side.


BTW, we are off-topic...

 

[Ahnehnois]

OK. I tend to disagree with this. And not only in principle - I'm pretty sure that I've played systems that work "RAW" - Pendragon and Cthulhu come to mind, and probably also classic Traveller.

I'm skeptical. Sure you can play any system strictly RAW for a while, but I'm not seeing that one is so smooth I wouldn't ever see problems coming out of it or a need for change.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK. I tend to disagree with this. And not only in principle - I'm pretty sure that I've played systems that work "RAW" - Pendragon and Cthulhu come to mind, and probably also classic Traveller.

lol. Yeah, I hate to break it to anyone but I ran 1e, 2e, and 4e (Basic and OD&D were literally impossible to run by 'RAW' as there was none really) and didn't house rule any of them. In fact I don't write house rules. I think once I wrote a house rule for 2e to use always high checks, it lasted a couple weeks before we decided it was TME.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of DMs, even many highly experienced ones, have no interest in keeping track of house rules and such. All the theorycrafting and over-analysis is great, but we PLAY, and we really don't care much about all that. If people don't want to toss checks for some things or if they want to let the glib player get all the CHA checks for free that doesn't require house rules, you just do it. That's just 'table technique'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm skeptical. Sure you can play any system strictly RAW for a while, but I'm not seeing that one is so smooth I wouldn't ever see problems coming out of it or a need for change.

I think you'd best accept that your experience and opinions does not define reality. Again, 35 years of running and playing games of all types, mostly GMing. No house rules. I have MUCH MUCH better things to do than try to keep explaining my mutant variation of whatever game everyone knows every time some new player comes along, or argue with them about how the book does it better, or keep track of all the ramifications of changing things. I'm at the table to PLAY.

I'll go further. There have never been house rules in my friends campaigns either that I can recall. We did lots of mixing of stuff and messing around with our own home brew things, etc. If we played D&D then by gosh it was D&D, lets play.

I HIGHLY suspect from my own observation that this is vastly the most common situation, and I don't think it is really limited to newbs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of DMs, even many highly experienced ones, have no interest in keeping track of house rules and such. All the theorycrafting and over-analysis is great, but we PLAY, and we really don't care much about all that. If people don't want to toss checks for some things or if they want to let the glib player get all the CHA checks for free that doesn't require house rules, you just do it. That's just 'table technique'.

I'm skeptical of that too. You seem to be using a rather narrow definition of house rules, whereas I define it as any time the book says to do things a particular way and you don't, or you do something completely outside of the book. Very simple things understood between players and DMs can still be houserules without a laborious analysis behind them or a huge compilation document behind them.

I think you'd best accept that your experience and opinions does not define reality. Again, 35 years of running and playing games of all types, mostly GMing. No house rules. I have MUCH MUCH better things to do than try to keep explaining my mutant variation of whatever game everyone knows every time some new player comes along, or argue with them about how the book does it better, or keep track of all the ramifications of changing things. I'm at the table to PLAY.

I'll go further. There have never been house rules in my friends campaigns either that I can recall. We did lots of mixing of stuff and messing around with our own home brew things, etc. If we played D&D then by gosh it was D&D, lets play.

Sounds like you enjoy mixing of stuff and homebrew things but not houserules. I'm guessing you also like having your cake and eating it too. Not that this is a bad thing; cake is delicious and if you enjoy a free-flowing style that's fine. But the sense that you've conveyed is that you do not limit yourself to using just the RAW at all, whereas you're claiming that you do.

That said, I'm guessing there are more DMs out there that use explicit, systematized houserules than not, and that with experience this percentage goes up sharply.

You might start a poll on the subject. I'm sure there have been some before.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm skeptical of that too. You seem to be using a rather narrow definition of house rules, whereas I define it as any time the book says to do things a particular way and you don't, or you do something completely outside of the book. Very simple things understood between players and DMs can still be houserules without a laborious analysis behind them or a huge compilation document behind them.

Sounds like you enjoy mixing of stuff and homebrew things but not houserules. I'm guessing you also like having your cake and eating it too. Not that this is a bad thing; cake is delicious and if you enjoy a free-flowing style that's fine. But the sense that you've conveyed is that you do not limit yourself to using just the RAW at all, whereas you're claiming that you do.

That said, I'm guessing there are more DMs out there that use explicit, systematized houserules than not, and that with experience this percentage goes up sharply.

You might start a poll on the subject. I'm sure there have been some before.

Sure, run a poll. I think you'll be surprised. I've run and played in a wide variety of games over the past 35 years. I've seen basically none with systematized house rules. Obviously they exist, but I think they are mostly restricted to the type of people that post here. Very few players post, and by my observation only a fairly small number more DMs. For instance I think 1 other person from my state has posted here since I've been active that I've seen. Yet I easily know 10 other active GMs, there are plenty of people playing RPGs.

IMHO there's a very big difference between house rules and home brew. I think it is also pretty dubious to say that because a DM happens to say use a particular style of interaction in say 4e with skills which is different from yours that either of you are using a house rule. There's a WIDE amount of latitude in using the rules. In any case some particular quirk of a DM is hardly systematic.

The reason I make this kind of distinction is for instance I don't believe most players and DMs expect a game these days to be a 'kit', they expect it to be a game they can play, and that works. Clearly RPGs require some input from the people using them, but MANY people just want a clear set of rules that they can follow and have a good game. Even with all my years of play experience and undoubted ability to make up house rules or entire RPGs I would much rather pick a set of rules that works well and spend my time on other things.

 

[Dausuul]

Sure, run a poll. I think you'll be surprised. I've run and played in a wide variety of games over the past 35 years. I've seen basically none with systematized house rules. Obviously they exist, but I think they are mostly restricted to the type of people that post here. Very few players post, and by my observation only a fairly small number more DMs. For instance I think 1 other person from my state has posted here since I've been active that I've seen. Yet I easily know 10 other active GMs, there are plenty of people playing RPGs.

IMHO there's a very big difference between house rules and home brew. I think it is also pretty dubious to say that because a DM happens to say use a particular style of interaction in say 4e with skills which is different from yours that either of you are using a house rule. There's a WIDE amount of latitude in using the rules. In any case some particular quirk of a DM is hardly systematic.

Like Ahnehnois said, if you're going against what's written in the book, on an ongoing basis--that's a house rule. When I run 4E, I don't give XP and the players just level up when I tell them. I also disallow resurrection magic. Those are house rules, even though I don't have them written up in a binder. (Homebrew is when I make up a new class or monster or something; adding to the book instead of altering what's there.) If you played 1E and ignored the weapons versus armor table... that was a house rule.

The Big Binder o' House Rules is just taking this to the extreme.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, run a poll. I think you'll be surprised. I've run and played in a wide variety of games over the past 35 years. I've seen basically none with systematized house rules.

Where I have yet to meet one that did not house rule, to a greater or lesser extent...

IMHO there's a very big difference between house rules and home brew.

Home brew is merely taking house rules up to 11, isn't it?

Tweak the 3e skill system by removing some skills and combining others, that's houseruling.

Strip out the skill system entirely from 3e and replace it with something else that dovetails with a pile of other changes you've also made, now you're into the realm of homebrew.

I think it is also pretty dubious to say that because a DM happens to say use a particular style of interaction in say 4e with skills which is different from yours that either of you are using a house rule. There's a WIDE amount of latitude in using the rules. In any case some particular quirk of a DM is hardly systematic.

However, the definition of RAW is just that: as written. To the letter. Deviating from the letter of the rules becomes a houserule the minute you as DM decide that deviation sets a precedent for how any future occurrences of the same situation will resolve.

The reason I make this kind of distinction is for instance I don't believe most players and DMs expect a game these days to be a 'kit', they expect it to be a game they can play, and that works. Clearly RPGs require some input from the people using them, but MANY people just want a clear set of rules that they can follow and have a good game. Even with all my years of play experience and undoubted ability to make up house rules or entire RPGs I would much rather pick a set of rules that works well and spend my time on other things.

I think we'd all prefer this.

I also think most of us are well aware that no publishing company* is ever going to put out exactly the game system we want.

And so we kitbash, and houserule, and staple, bend and mutilate, in order to get that game.

* - exception: the publishing company you start in order to publish your own rules system.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]
Also, a quick google search reveals a variety of old ENW polls on the topic, indicating that at least on this site, playing strictly by the RAW is a minority. I do agree that ENWorlders may be more houserule-inclined than the average gamer, but I also think that strict-RAW play is pretty rare and almost everyone uses some form of houserules, even if informally or covertly.

To play RAW, for instance, would indicate that you would use the XP/leveling system as written. A large portion of people don't use XP at all, and many people modify it substantially.

Link Link Link Link

The reason I make this kind of distinction is for instance I don't believe most players and DMs expect a game these days to be a 'kit'

This is exactly what an rpg system is: a set of tools that an individual DM and his players use to create a game.

 

[Elf Witch]

Given as it's in theory a role-playing game and that people are aware of this going in, any limits on what type or personality of character a player can play are - let's face it - self-inflicted. And asking the game to fix this only ends up putting rules-based limits on those who otherwise might be able to role-play what they want, how they want.
No doubt an issue in some circles; this one comes down to the DM being able to recognize button-pushing and - while still happily accepting bribes - not allowing them to have any effect.

Lan-"the player who bribed me tonight ended the session with his MU in mid-melee, completely cut off from the rest of the party"-efan

I don't buy this argument at all. I have a player in my game who is in a wheel chair he often plays rogues and loves to tumble should I say to him no you can't because in real life the only tumbling you do is if someone pushes you out of your chair?

There should be a mechanics to allow people to play different types of characters this is a game and it is supposed to be fun.

I never seen skills stop role paying what they do is allow the DM a tool to help players with social skills. I really disliked back in the old days the player who was naturally charismatic being able to use charisma as a dump stat and yet outshine everyone else at the table. Especially players who wanted a charismatic PC and had actually put a decent roll into the stat the same with intelligence there was always one at the table who was a expert in everything and even though he had a 5 intelligence he never let him stop from knowing what the monsters did figuring out the puzzles.

Skills can help stop this and even the playing field. If we are not going to have skills then I say just dump all the stats for it because they don't matter. Why do we need an intelligent stat for anyone who is not a wizard.