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

[Aus_Snow]

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?

Of course.

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

Of course.

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?

Buh?

Oh wait, it's "controversy" day again. . .

 

[billd91]

Fair or unfair would depend an awful lot on the rules themselves, so I don't think the term has any inherent meaning here. But I would say that any house rules should be disclosed. Players have to know about them up-front rather than have them sprung on them.

 

[Sunseeker]

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 these are people who have NEVER played a tabletop RP before, then I think a house-rule is the least of their concern. Considering that any house-rules would likely be for increased ease and simplification, it would probably make the game easier for them to comprehend and better liked.

If we're talking about someone who is new to this particular game but familiar with tabletop RPs, then I think they're going to appreciate the logic behind the house rule more than it's outcome.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Except that's not really analogous at all, is it? In this scenario, I'm showing them two different things, and I'm (intentionally?) skewing the samples. In the original example, I'm just showing them one thing - I am not specifically trying to contrast good of one against bad of another.

You'd be okay with this? The TV show isn't a sentient being, so you have no moral or ethical obligations to it.

A friend comes to me and says, "I've heard about this 'urban fantasy' fiction. What would you recommend?" I'm going to list the things that I think are good (say, Charles de Lint), and the things I think are bad (say, the WoD Changeling novels), and tell them so. I wouldn't think there's anything unfair there at all.

But, more analogous: I'm introducing someone to RPGs. Is it fair for me to only teach them only one game? The game they play with me, even if I run strictly by the published rules, will not look much at all like all the other games on the market they might run into.

Is it fair to them to have them run under only one GM? The experience with one GM running published rules can be very different from running under another GM.

Is it fair for me to not also take these people out LARPing?

There is no clean place to draw the fair/unfair line, I think, because it isn't in what specific ruleset or style you introduce them to, but in what perspective you give them while introducing them.

 

[Cor_Malek]

I'd say it's irrelevant. Yeah, sure - player's are going to love or hate a game based on whether their cleric can buy nightsticks, 2 banned feats and how wildshape and item creation exactly works.

They're going to judge the game and fun they had. If some rules are bothering DM and cause his narrative to be erratic, or himself bothered - that's what they might notice. Whether it will play any role is a completely other thing.
Now, I know there's a certain feel to every system - but I honestly cannot think of any houserules, I or any DM I played with, used that would change this in any noticeable way.

I'd say that not using houserules you'd normally apply might be unfair to the players, as apparently you think something should be changed, but don't do it because of the noobs.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Could be. If that is the case, you'd have to ask what form of judgment they are supposed to be passing before you can tell if you'd given them enough of the right information.

 

[coyote6]

Also, if I were running a demo at a con or a game shop or the like, I would try to run the game as-is, with no house rules.

 

[billd91]

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

While I think fair would depend more on the specifics, I don't think sentience is necessary to have moral or ethical obligations toward something.
I would consider it being not particularly fair to the game to encounter a rule, say "That's stupid", and change it without really considering it and how it fits with the rest of the game.

 

[MortonStromgal]

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?

Yes, but you need to state the house rules upfront, to be fair.

 

[the Jester]

It's as fair to house rule a game when introducing people to it as it is at any other time.

I have no problem with it, provided the house rules improve the game in some way.