Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="karlindel" data-source="post: 5308252" data-attributes="member: 27103">I don't think that I owe the game itself anything.&nbsp; However, I do believe that I owe something to the players to make sure that they can properly judge the game.&nbsp; This does not mean that I should not house rule the game, but it does mean that I should try to keep house rules limited at first, and should mention ahead of time that I have made some changes to the rules.&nbsp; In general, house rules should be mentioned ahead of time, but I may just mention that I have house rules and explain what they are as they come up, depending on how complicated the original rules are and how likely the change is to come up.&nbsp; For example, skill rolls fail on a 1 is a house rule that should be explained from the start as it is easy to understand and likely to come up, a modification to the 3.5 grapple rules should be explained if it comes up as this may be hard to understand and is unlikely to come up (and probably not bother explaining what the actual rules are other than that they're different and somewhat complicated).I do not believe that house ruling is a problem when introducing a new game to players, as long as the house rules are laid out from the start.&nbsp; &nbsp; Personally, when introducing a new system to players, I usually do not use any house rules, or stick to very minor things that will simplify the game to make it easier to learn or to speed up play.&nbsp; For example, I ran a Champions game, and so I started out using only some of the rules, and slowly introduced more complexity as the campaign progressed, so that the players who were all new to the system would not be thrown into the deep end before learning to swim.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="karlindel, post: 5308252, member: 27103"] I don't think that I owe the game itself anything. However, I do believe that I owe something to the players to make sure that they can properly judge the game. This does not mean that I should not house rule the game, but it does mean that I should try to keep house rules limited at first, and should mention ahead of time that I have made some changes to the rules. In general, house rules should be mentioned ahead of time, but I may just mention that I have house rules and explain what they are as they come up, depending on how complicated the original rules are and how likely the change is to come up. For example, skill rolls fail on a 1 is a house rule that should be explained from the start as it is easy to understand and likely to come up, a modification to the 3.5 grapple rules should be explained if it comes up as this may be hard to understand and is unlikely to come up (and probably not bother explaining what the actual rules are other than that they're different and somewhat complicated). I do not believe that house ruling is a problem when introducing a new game to players, as long as the house rules are laid out from the start. Personally, when introducing a new system to players, I usually do not use any house rules, or stick to very minor things that will simplify the game to make it easier to learn or to speed up play. For example, I ran a Champions game, and so I started out using only some of the rules, and slowly introduced more complexity as the campaign progressed, so that the players who were all new to the system would not be thrown into the deep end before learning to swim. [/QUOTE]

Verification