You could argue that not introducing new RPG players to the concept of Rule Zero is unfair to them.
Is house ruling fair to the game or gamers when first introducing it?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
You could argue that not introducing new RPG players to the concept of Rule Zero is unfair to them.
Cor_Malek
First Post
You could argue that not introducing new RPG players to the concept of Rule Zero is unfair to them.
In fact, I would.
IronWolf
blank
These days I try to keep house rules limited, but there are always occasions where a couple may be needed or simply clarifications of often debated rules that are listed as a house rule to avoid confusion.
I don't think it is a problem to use house rules when introducing new players to the game. Just make sure to clearly state what the house rules are and if the player has interest, possibly how it differs from the RAW or what void it is filling. I would base the explanation on whether the new player was interested, no point in overwhelming them with analysis.
I don't think it is a problem to use house rules when introducing new players to the game. Just make sure to clearly state what the house rules are and if the player has interest, possibly how it differs from the RAW or what void it is filling. I would base the explanation on whether the new player was interested, no point in overwhelming them with analysis.
Erekose
Eternal Champion
Hmm . . .
While I'd have a need to be honest and transparent so that any new players know that the game they are playing has changes I've made rather than being "by the book" I think my need to keep things simple would negate the detail of I've change x rule to this and y rule to that, etc. etc. as this would be pretty meaningless to someone new and really confusing.
On the whole, I suspect if I've changed the game to be more fun for me and my existing players this would engage new players much more than playing the game strictly by the written rules which would limit our fun and send out the wrong signals . . .
While I'd have a need to be honest and transparent so that any new players know that the game they are playing has changes I've made rather than being "by the book" I think my need to keep things simple would negate the detail of I've change x rule to this and y rule to that, etc. etc. as this would be pretty meaningless to someone new and really confusing.
On the whole, I suspect if I've changed the game to be more fun for me and my existing players this would engage new players much more than playing the game strictly by the written rules which would limit our fun and send out the wrong signals . . .
IronWolf
blank
Yeah, I wouldn't go into detail unless the person seemed interested in the detail and it wasn't slowing the game down too much. In most case a simple, this is different than the RAW is likely to suffice.
Oryan77
Adventurer
If you're DMing only people that are not familiar with the rules, I don't think house rules matter much. My experience shows that new players focus more on the game world than rules. They aren't having fun because of the rules. If the rules are more fun to players than your game world, you have a problem. Most new players are probably pretty lenient even if they find out you house ruled after reading the rulebook themselves.
But DMing for experienced players is another matter. I was forced to learn the rules and not use house rules when I first began DMing 3.5. I wasn't a rules guy then, and I house ruled some things whenever I didn't know the exact rule & it was easier to make up than look up.
But I was playing with strangers I met from internet ads. And I learned quickly that even though an experienced player says, "I don't mind house rules", that's BS. Everyone I would game with seemed to be a rules lawyer even if they didn't exactly know the rules. And I can't stand having rules discussions via emails between games (they'd email me all the time about any little ruling). So I stopped house ruling and stuck by the book. It made it much more easy to defend my rulings during the game and I was able to explain rules in my email replies a lot faster.
I do house rule a couple of things, but it is nothing major that would cause a player to raise an eyebrow.
But DMing for experienced players is another matter. I was forced to learn the rules and not use house rules when I first began DMing 3.5. I wasn't a rules guy then, and I house ruled some things whenever I didn't know the exact rule & it was easier to make up than look up.
But I was playing with strangers I met from internet ads. And I learned quickly that even though an experienced player says, "I don't mind house rules", that's BS. Everyone I would game with seemed to be a rules lawyer even if they didn't exactly know the rules. And I can't stand having rules discussions via emails between games (they'd email me all the time about any little ruling). So I stopped house ruling and stuck by the book. It made it much more easy to defend my rulings during the game and I was able to explain rules in my email replies a lot faster.
I do house rule a couple of things, but it is nothing major that would cause a player to raise an eyebrow.
ExploderWizard
Hero
It depends entirely on what you are setting out to do. Is the point of the exercise to show some friends a new way to have a good time or is it to instruct them on the finer points of [game company] gospel?
Decide on your objective and the answer is easy.
Decide on your objective and the answer is easy.
Sylrae
First Post
I have a mountain of changes I put in. lots are variant rules I've seen in one place or another, that I use to replace the standard mechanics.
Is it "fair" to the players: Yeah, I think so, I tell them I have alot of houserules, and if they don't like it they can find another game. Plus, if I have to play in people's games using the core rules with lots of mechanics I *DONT* like, then I'm going to at least run my games with mechanics I *DO* like.
A much harder thing, is trying to convince other GMs to run games and include your houserules. Trust me, I've tried. I few houserules catch on, but not all of them.
Almost all the d20 GMs I know use a few alternate rules I came up with for character generation and leveling, but they scrap alot of the other things I change. Most of the time because they don't want to try to remember what is in the published core book and what's been changed.
Is it "fair" to the players: Yeah, I think so, I tell them I have alot of houserules, and if they don't like it they can find another game. Plus, if I have to play in people's games using the core rules with lots of mechanics I *DONT* like, then I'm going to at least run my games with mechanics I *DO* like.
A much harder thing, is trying to convince other GMs to run games and include your houserules. Trust me, I've tried. I few houserules catch on, but not all of them.
Almost all the d20 GMs I know use a few alternate rules I came up with for character generation and leveling, but they scrap alot of the other things I change. Most of the time because they don't want to try to remember what is in the published core book and what's been changed.
Better to try to trick them - makes you look SUPER smart and doesn't create ANY ill will at all..
Similar Threads
