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

[Mallus]

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

Yes.

In the same way it's fair for a reader to have their own interpretation of a novel or poem. Or a listener to have their own interpretation of a song.

 

[Umbran]

Not really.

Maybe not intentionally, but it does seem pretty implicit.

Turn the question around for a moment - is it fair to teach them only the rules as written? Or only the rules in your print version and not with all the errata included? Because they might not like something in there, and it might be fixed by a common house rule or one of the errata. Or maybe the errata-version is what causes their issue.

If we take as granted that the first introduction must be with some specific set of rules, and it is fair to star them with something, then which set it is isn't really can't be the issue. The real meat is in what perspective on gaming the players are given - "this is what all gaming is" or "this is just one variation".

So, the question isn't the rule set, but in how much other talking gets done.

Heck, I'm not even limiting the discussion to a type of game -- this post is the first time I've even mentioned an RPG.

Context matters. You aren't in a vacuum. You're in a particular place and time, speaking to a particular audience. You are posting on a site that bills itself as "D&D / RPG News", in the "General RPG Discussion" forum. When you mention "game" assuming the "role playing" is reasonable.

Context matters further, in what RC mentioned as well.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Because you're changing the rules to suit you and to give you the best advantage for yourself and nobody else. (General you not specific).

And it doesn't make any sense to change them when the rules are fine as is.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Yes.

In the same way it's fair for a reader to have their own interpretation of a novel or poem. Or a listener to have their own interpretation of a song.

Actually, in some cases it's not fair. For example, sometimes the creator wants to have a certain message in their work. For example, Sting's Every Breath You Take is often misinterpreted as being a very romantic song when Sting himself has said it's about stalking. That's not really a different creative take. However, that's just coming to the wrong conclusion by mistake. Some people will actively change the meaning of some work to suit their own interests or just to be an arse.

Then there's changing the work in order to deconstruct it. For example, Fahrenheit 411 is a strong message about censorship on a massive scale. But people will often omit something from the book because they find it too upsetting or can't understand it. And that quite simply is not fair at all.

Another example of deconstructing is the Star Trek 2009 movie. In which before Spock was always trying to embrace logic and get away from emotions while humanity embraced emotions. Yet in the 2009 movie he was encouraged to embrace his human side while the humans were actually doing their best to keep their emotions in check (the rule if you're emotionally challenged you can not command a Starship) which is the opposite of what the original star Trek was about.

An example of a different creative take would concern the character of the android Data in Star Trek TNG. Before he installed his emotion chip in the movie, he often though of himself as having no emotions. But I disagree. He has a strong sense of curiosity about things and that kind of curiosity can only be brought about through desire, and desire is a need which is an emotion. If he had no desire to learn and improve himself, then he's nothing more than a toaster with the only way to improve himself would be to change his software.

So basically I'd say it would depend upon the individual circumstances, but I just don't like changing rules just because. It makes no sense to me when the rules are often just fine as they are written.

 

[coyote6]

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?

I'd say "sure". After all, I already paid them for their writing & creation, and since I'm introducing their game to people new to it, I'm even trying to get other people to pay them. So I've already done enough to be "fair" to them; I can personalize the game.

(Of course, I suppose if you say things like, "Yeah, the guys that wrote this are idiots, so I'm changing it", you might be unfair to 'em. But any unfairness wouldn't be coming from the house rules, but from being a jerk about it.)

 

[Odhanan]

So basically I'd say it would depend upon the individual circumstances, but I just don't like changing rules just because. It makes no sense to me when the rules are often just fine as they are written.

But whether you like changing the rules for the sake of it or not, or whether said changes are warranted or not, make sense or not, isn't the question here. The question as you reformulated it is whether it is "fair" to its authors/creators to modify their rules at the game table.

That isn't the same question at all, to me.

In one case we go on a tangent about whether houserules are needed, when they are needed, for whom and how, and in the other, we have a notion of "fairness" to the creators of the game, and this notion that changing their rules is somehow "unfair" or "disrespectful", that it is very puzzling to me indeed.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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

Yes I do and have for many years, ever since I first started using a computer. How can players play the way you expect them to if you don't either explain all your house rules at length before you start the game, or else provide them with printed copies? How can you expect them to not get annoyed if you end up informing them at crucial points in gameplay that, "Oh, that doesn't work that way, I have house rules for that?" It's my estimation that 90% of ALL disagreements in D&D are simply because DM's and players are not communicating with each other - and it starts with DM's needing to communicate to players what house rules they have.

Way, way too lazy to do that much work. I'd rather switch systems to something that doesn't require me to tinker that much.

What? Tinkering is your JOB as a DM! Why else would anyone do it?

 

[Rel]

It makes no sense to me when the rules are often just fine as they are written.

If I'm bothering to change the rules it's because they are not "just fine as they are written".

 

[pacdidj]

Actually, in some cases it's not fair. For example, sometimes the creator wants to have a certain message in their work. For example, Sting's Every Breath You Take is often misinterpreted as being a very romantic song when Sting himself has said it's about stalking. That's not really a different creative take. However, that's just coming to the wrong conclusion by mistake. Some people will actively change the meaning of some work to suit their own interests or just to be an arse.

The premise that expressive works (of art, music, literature, or any other type) have an inherent meaning, or are unambiguous conduits of the "intent" of their creator/performer, is at best highly contested, and regarded by many in the humanities as fallacious. Meaning is dependent on perception, and most readers, audience members, and museum patrons don't know the creators of the works they perceive or what their intentions might be/might have been. Thus, whatever a particular "work" means to someone is just that and nothing more: what it means to them. There is no guarantee that it will mean the same thing to anyone else.

There may be widely perceived associations, discourses, or themes within some works, but trying to identify say the primary theme within the Brothers Karamazov, the representative content (if any) of a Jackson Pollack painting, or what Jimi Hendrix was getting at in his cover of All Along the Watchtower is an exercise in futility.

Furthermore, even in the case where someone knows that Sting said that he wrote a particular song about stalking, but chooses to interpret it differently, that can hardly be called unfair. The average CD/ticket buyer doesn't know Sting personally, and is under no obligation to take Sting's opinions into account, or share his interpretation of an ambiguous creative work (even if he did write it). Interpreting it some other way doesn't hurt Sting in any way, especially if that alternate interpretation leads to the purchase of CDs/songs/tickets. Same thing with games IMHO. Nothing you do with a game you bought could really be said to be unfair to its creators. Change the rules however you want, you're still buying and playing their game, and they've got nothing to complain about.

Now bad-mouthing someone's artistic creation (or game) sight unseen, unlistened-to, unpurchased, or unplayed is another thing entirely, and could perhaps be called unfair.

 

[Hussar]

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?

The only way I would see this as unfair is if you also informed your kids that this was the proper way of playing and that other forms of chess are inferior.

Extrapolate from that what you wish.