Yes.Is it fair to the writers and creators of the game to change their rules?
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.
Yes.Is it fair to the writers and creators of the game to change their rules?
Not really.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.You write out your house rules in a format that you can hand to your players?
What? Tinkering is your JOB as a DM!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.![]()
It makes no sense to me when the rules are often just fine as they are written.
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.
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?