The "expectation" of house rules

[Quasqueton]

This is the one thing I've never completely understood about RPGs. Any game I play other than an RPG, I expect to play the game [the game designer's/company's] way. Even if someone plays Monopoly and they are only the banker, I expect them to play fair and not make up their own rules.

I've never gone into any other game EXPECTING that the rules will be changed from the standard ones. Sometimes I do run into people who have a Monopoly House Rule, but very rarely. That's because when I play Monopoly, I expect to play the game Monopoly, not Risk with the rules of Monopoly, and not a game of stock market prices, that's not what I'm there for.

To me, when I got into a D&D game, I expect that it will be a [current edition] game with no house rules that takes place in a Greyhawk-like world unless I'm told otherwise. The more changes from this, the less like D&D it feels to me. Just like when playing Settlers of Catan, I expect we are playing the basic game unless someone says we're playing with expansions, however.

People are right, D&D has a lot of core assumptions and some setting elements built in. If your campaign is far enough way from the core assumptions, it may be better to just use a more generic system like Fantasy Hero or GURPs. D&D is more setting specific.

This is an interesting post that I thought worthy of a discussion of its own. I've bolded the part that particularly stood out to me.

Are RPGs truly unique in how often [and sometimes drastically] the rules are changed (house rules) from the core rule book? Are house rules now an "expectation" rather than an exception?

Quasqueton

 

[Jdvn1]

Some card games have a lot of house rules and variations. Other than that, I can't think of any other sort of game where the rules are often changed. Then again, I prefer to play D&D with few if any house rules as well.

 

[Psion]

Are RPGs truly unique in how often [and sometimes drastically] the rules are changed (house rules) from the core rule book? Are house rules now an "expectation" rather than an exception?

Pretty much.

MY only hope is that the house rules are what I consider reasonable.

In the nWoD game we are starting, the GM house ruled botches back into the system. I made my case that would be a collossal step backwards.

I played Sunless Citadel under a GM who gave all clerics spontaneous casting with no compensation for this immense boost in flexibility.

DnD is a toolkit RPG afaiac, and expect GMs to tweak it to taste (as well as to get some things working smoother.) But I feel some tweaks make the experience worse instead of better.

 

[The Shaman]

Are RPGs truly unique in how often [and sometimes drastically] the rules are changed (house rules) from the core rule book?

Customization is a built-in assumption of the core rules of the game - contrary to the quoted poster, I expect house rules because the core rules provide for their development.

 

[Chaldfont]

There are tons of card games where you have to start by asking everyone what rules they are used to using. Euchre, gin, and poker are just a few. The incredibly fun and terrible hang-over inducing drinking game a**hole is another.

How about Axis & Allies (the old school, pre-revised edition)? I think I've played without house rules only once.

But you are definitely correct. There's no game other than RPGs I can think of where house rules are so heavily used.

 

[Crothian]

All those games do not have the commitment and length of an RPG. More goes into an RPG, they last a lot longer, and its more about the people playing it then the game. Where those are more about the game.

 

[S'mon]

RPGs are a completely different sort of game from a card game or minis war game or Monopoly. In these 'normal' games, everyone is competing to beat everyone else within the rules framework. This means that any changes to the rules require a consensus agreement from all the players that the rules as written don't work - rare, if the game is successful. In an RPG everyone is on the same side - RPGS are fundamentally cooperative, not competitive, in their design. Furthermore many people play RPGs in an explorationist style - exploring a simulated world. This means that where the RAW as written conflict with the presentation of that environment, the RAW need changing. Even in a pure-Gamist game the RAW may need amending to deal with situations the designers didn't foresee, because playing an RPG lets you attempt to do anything you can imagine. Whereas a regular game has no world outside the RAW; play exists purely within the RAW-box, in an RPG players always have the potential to step outside the box of written rules and try something unforeseen.

Otherwise you're playing an odd sort of wargame in disguise.

 

[tetsujin28]

Otherwise you're playing an odd sort of wargame in disguise.

Which is what rpgs are.

 

[Crothian]

Which is what rpgs are.

When they started, but there are a lot of RPGs and a lot of groups out there that don't look anything like war games.

 

[Mallus]

Which is what rpgs are.

You mean 'were'.... right?