Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5285360" data-attributes="member: 55271">Presumably the house rules exist because I believe they make the game better. So, yes, it's fair. If anything, it would be unfair to my friends to force them to play through a less fun version of the game before allowing them to play the improved version.For example, I would never force someone to play through Munchkin Quest without the much-needed <a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2009-01.html#20090126" target="_blank">house rules we use at our table</a>.Now, I might be wrong about the house rules making the game better. But that's largely irrelevant: If you start making ethical choices on the presumption that you're wrong if you don't think that you're actually wrong, then you're going to end up taking some really horrible actions.With that being said, I also tell new players that we're using house rules and what they are and even why we're using them (if they're interested).Roleplaying games do present a bit of a corner case: I have house rules for RPGs which aren't designed to actually &quot;improve&quot; the game in a general sense, but merely to match the content of a game world or the personal preferences of my gaming group. When teaching new players the game, I often won't burden them with these types of house rules. OTOH, the typical roleplaying game is so complicated that I'm usually not burdening new players with about 90% of the rules. I give them the 10% they need to start playing and then we add more rules expertise as the situation in the game calls for it. (This works largely because there is no true competitive element in the game.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5285360, member: 55271"] Presumably the house rules exist because I believe they make the game better. So, yes, it's fair. If anything, it would be unfair to my friends to force them to play through a less fun version of the game before allowing them to play the improved version. For example, I would never force someone to play through [i]Munchkin Quest[/i] without the much-needed [url=http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2009-01.html#20090126]house rules we use at our table[/url]. Now, I might be [i]wrong[/i] about the house rules making the game better. But that's largely irrelevant: If you start making ethical choices on the presumption that you're wrong if you don't think that you're actually wrong, then you're going to end up taking some really horrible actions. With that being said, I also tell new players that we're using house rules and what they are and even why we're using them (if they're interested). Roleplaying games do present a bit of a corner case: I have house rules for RPGs which aren't designed to actually "improve" the game in a general sense, but merely to match the content of a game world or the personal preferences of my gaming group. When teaching new players the game, I often won't burden them with these types of house rules. OTOH, the typical roleplaying game is so complicated that I'm usually not burdening new players with about 90% of the rules. I give them the 10% they need to start playing and then we add more rules expertise as the situation in the game calls for it. (This works largely because there is no true competitive element in the game.) [/QUOTE]

Verification