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

[Diamond Cross]

Well, it all depends on how the house rules are implemented. Here's a great example of the wrong way to implement them:

YouTube - Knights Of The Dinner Table: Episode 5

The best way is to discuss things before the game is in session. If the players agree to try it then it's fine.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As for assuming things, it looks to me that more people assumed something in answering my question than I assumed in asking it.

People look for patterns. I suspect that this is the reason why people are making assumptions here.

They probably noticed the strong correlation between your OP and the 1e Tournament thread. Having noticed similar strong correlations in the past (and having heard the same sorts of denials about said correlations in the past), they probably drew conclusions based upon what seemed, to them, to be most likely true.

Which doesn't mean those conclusions are correct, of course. But, as people become used to patterns, they are likely to use those patterns to determine what seems more believable: That this question (and wording!) comes up as mere coincidence to the other thread, or that the two are related.



RC

 

[Odhanan]

You write out your house rules in a format that you can hand to your players?

I do. It's important to have this level of consistency so that the players know what the houserule is or isn't. That's what differenciates a ruling on the spot from a house rule to me, with repetitive rulings on the spot spawning the need for a written house rule in my game.

As for the OP, I'm sorry for Bullgrit, but his questions actually do not make any sense to me.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Perhaps a better way to phrase the first question could possibly be:

Is it fair to the writers and creators of the game to change their rules?

 

[Odhanan]

Is it fair to the writers and creators of the game to change their rules?

What do writers of a game have to do with me playing the game in my home? How is changing rule X or Y "unfair" to them? Is not playing their game at all more or less "fair" than changing this or that rule?

The question still doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Diamond Cross]

What do writers of a game have to do with me playing the game in my home?

First of all, if they didn't create the game it wouldn't be in your home to play.

Secondly, I wasn't addressing your post.

It's not truly your game, it's their game, it's just your style of play.

 

[Odhanan]

First of all, if they didn't create the game it wouldn't be in your home to play.

Secondly, I wasn't addressing your post.

It's not truly your game, it's their game, it's just your style of play.

First, maybe you took my comment as snarky, in which case I have to apologize, because that's not the feeling I wanted to convey.

Second, this is a message board, and just as you may not want to answer my responses, you could just as well have sent a private message if you didn't want me to be given the occasion to comment on it?

Just joking mate. No big deal.

In any case, just like them creating the game gave me the opportunity to play it in my home, me buying their game also provided me with this opportunity, and also gave me the right to do whatever I want with said game, even throw it in a fire if I want to, or use as a cup holder, or whatever else would come to my mind. I paid for this game, I do with it as I want. It isn't "fair" or "unfair" to the writers of said game. They don't even own the content they write in most cases. The publisher does.

Really, no matter how I turn the question in my head, I just can't understand it, especially when talking about role playing games, which basically form a hobby of proactive imagination and creativity on the part of their users. It'd be completely out of place for me to not even consider any rules change during actual play because it might not be "fair" to someone I don't even know in real life. This is really interesting that some RPer might actually think that way, to tell you the truth. It's really puzzling to me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps a better way to phrase the first question could possibly be:

Is it fair to the writers and creators of the game to change their rules?

Sounds edition-warrish to me. Is 2e fair to Gary Gygax? 3e? 4e?

It is as fair for me to change the rules in my home game as it is for TSR or WotC to have changed the rules of the original. And vice versa -- WotC putting out 3e is as fair to Gygax as my changes to the SRD are fair to WotC.

But this is not a good road to walk down, IMHO.


RC

 

[Diamond Cross]

It was not for edition wars, it is generic enough to apply to any game other than D&D. For example, how fair would it be to Traveller writers of the 1st Edition? Then TNE? So no, it is not a specific enough question to create edition wars. If it was, then it would be for a specific game, not generic. There are a lot of rpgs out there.

And secondly, consider this, would you change the rules of games like football or other sports games, or table games like pool, just to suit your style of play? What about games like backgammon, or chess, or Monopoly? Or tabletop hockey? Why not just change the rules to suit your style of play in those games?

How would that be fair?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would feel comfortable changing the rules of any game I wanted to play. When teaching my older children chess, for instance, I changed the rules to begin with fewer pieces, teaching the relationship between pieces before teaching the whole.

How would that be unfair?