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

[Mesh Hong]

It really comes down to how fit for purpose the rules deviation is, and how radically it moves away from RAW.

I might be missing something here but surely the ability to compare and analyse two interpretations of a specific rule (i.e. RAW and Houserule) can only properly be achieved through experience of the system as a whole and the specific rule in relation to it.

If the above is true then I don't think it really matters which version of the rule is presented first. As long as the rule does not seem suspicious or inappropriate at the time it will be accepted readily as a "rule of the game". At a later point an interested participant might come across a different interpretation of the rule that might lead to a rules discussion. But this is surely a good thing, all rules are open to discussion (out of game) and any such discussions are a good sign that a player is invested and involved with the campaign.

One interesting thing here is that many things that are technically house rules come from either not reading a rule or power correctly or just assuming a particular element works in a specific way. Later (sometimes much much later) the RAW is stumbled upon and a decision is made to either stick with the initial interpretation or revert to RAW, I cannot see how these sort of mistakes can be classified as unfair, but under the tenant of this thread they may be perceived as giving an unfair introduction to a system.

examples:
Warlord - Commanders Strike - somehow (like many people) we thought this was a line of sight effect so that the warlord with a standard action could make an ally take an immediate basic attack. This was completely wrong and the power states that it is an adjacent ally that can make an attack.

In this case we had it wrong, discovered the fact, had a brief talk about it and prefered it the way we had been running it so didn't revert back to RAW.

Grapple - you are meant to use a minor action to maintain a grab, I have never bothered doing this with monsters partly through ignorance and then through simplicity. When we discovered I was doing it wrong we had a brief discussion then carried on.

 

[Hussar]

Warlord - Commanders Strike - somehow (like many people) we thought this was a line of sight effect so that the warlord with a standard action could make an ally take an immediate basic attack. This was completely wrong and the power states that it is an adjacent ally that can make an attack.

Heh, totally made the same mistake. We did switch over to the RAW when we discovered the mistake.

But, yeah, lots and lots and lots of house rules are simply mistakes or misinterpretations of existing rules. That pretty much characterizes my entire 1e experience. Which in turn led to a lot of misunderstandings discussing the game later with people who actually did play by the rules.

I've now learned to never discuss actual specific 1e rules. I always lose.

 

[Mesh Hong]

I've now learned to never discuss actual specific 1e rules. I always lose.

The amount of times I have been burnt of the bonfire of the 4e Rules discussion forum when giving what I thought was a sound judgement is quite embarrassing.

But do I ever learn.........of course not!

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I would agree -- intentionally lying is always a problem.

But, if I honestly believed that all other forms of chess were inferior to, say, Hussar's Drunk Chess, then I wouldn't be unfair if I said "There are other ways of playing, but this is the best way." I would be wrong, of course. And since I am teaching to at least one minor, I would probably be arrested as well.

But the minute you acknowledge that there are other ways of playing, you tacitly acknowledge that some people like those ways better than yours. Even if you do not mean to, or do not want to.

IMHO, anyway.

EDIT: About 1e rules questions: If your position improves during any discussion, even if that means you had to shift from your original opinion to that of your "opponent", you can't lose. You can only lose a discussion by holding onto a position that is shown to be irrational.



RC

 

[Umbran]

You can only lose a discussion by holding onto a position that is shown to be irrational.

I'd take it a half-step farther back, and say you can only lose a discussion if you view discussion as something you can win - a competition or game. If you view a discussion as a chance to learn and inform, there is no winning or losing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd take it a half-step farther back, and say you can only lose a discussion if you view discussion as something you can win - a competition or game. If you view a discussion as a chance to learn and inform, there is no winning or losing.

Nah. So long as you learn something, or help someone else to do the same, you "win". It isn't a zero-sum game; everyone can "win". Keep an open mind, and it is easy to avoid "losing".

But, for the record, I was just using Hussar's terminology to point out that when, over the course of a discussion, a person learns more, he doesn't "lose". Even if he has to change his initial opinion. Learning more is always a "win" in my book.

I really don't think that observation requires nitpicking, but if your opinion differs from mine, nitpick away.

Just don't expect me to respond. Responding to that sort of thing is just another way to "lose", something I have learned the hard way.


RC

 

[Hussar]

That's all well and good RC and Umbran, but, getting my ass handed to me over and over again does not do well for my ego.

Like I said, I'll leave the rules specifics to those that know them better than me.

I would agree -- intentionally lying is always a problem.

But, is it lying? Ok, maybe "proper" is the wrong word, but, if I insist that my way of playing X is better than any other way of playing X and everyone else who plays it differently is just playing it wrong, am I lying? Or just mistaken?

 

[Umbran]

Nah. So long as you learn something, or help someone else to do the same, you "win". It isn't a zero-sum game; everyone can "win". Keep an open mind, and it is easy to avoid "losing".

Fair enough. Much the same end result.

That's all well and good RC and Umbran, but, getting my ass handed to me over and over again does not do well for my ego.

I think of it this way - you don't learn nearly as much from being correct as from being incorrect. You're (hopefully) gaining more from the experience than the people handing your posterior to you.

But, is it lying? Ok, maybe "proper" is the wrong word, but, if I insist that my way of playing X is better than any other way of playing X and everyone else who plays it differently is just playing it wrong, am I lying? Or just mistaken?

There's probably three different states: Lying, honestly mistaken, and that fiddly middle-area where others figure you should probably know better, but you don't seem to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's all well and good RC and Umbran, but, getting my ass handed to me over and over again does not do well for my ego.

Perhaps not, but being adult enough about it to allow your horizons to expand should not only do well for your ego, but make your ego well balanced with a speck of humility. That's what it does for me.

But, is it lying? Ok, maybe "proper" is the wrong word, but, if I insist that my way of playing X is better than any other way of playing X and everyone else who plays it differently is just playing it wrong, am I lying? Or just mistaken?

Now on to the interesting stuff!

Saying something you believe to be true is never lying, although it might be mistaken.

Whether or not there are objective criteria for valuation is, AFAICT, not something that we can know...but I suspect that there are. I suspect that the writing of Shakespeare is objectively better than my own, and that the painting of Rembrandt is objectively better than my own.

So, when we say "It's all subjective" or "It's all a matter of personal preference" we might also be mistaken.

There is no great sin in being mistaken, IMHO. Being mistaken is not lying. And we are, AFAICT & IMHO & IME, mistaken so often in real life that there is no point on jumping on anyone for making an error.....assuming no malice is involved, the error is not caused by/does not cause failure to meet an obligation, and no one is unduly harmed.

The fact is, people are often in error. Even when making statements about their own experiences. That goes for me as much as for anyone else. Well, barring an "anyone else" with a medical condition that makes such error more common.

IMHO. IME. AFAICT. YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's probably three different states: Lying, honestly mistaken, and that fiddly middle-area where others figure you should probably know better, but you don't seem to.

This is well put, and that fiddly area is part of what I meant by "caused by/does not cause failure to meet an obligation". If you should know better, that is a sort of social obligation.


RC