I'll copy the post I just made a few moments ago:

RPGs exist for one reason, and that reason is to give everyone at the table a valid language and method of communication to everyone else at the table. Houserules are like slang. Some slang is widely understood. This type of slang is like minor houseruling. Critical hits on a natural roll of 20 doesn't automatically hinder anyone else's understanding of the game.

But there comes a point where the slang becomes it's own language. Have you ever seen one of those humor skits where someone is talking "jive" and another person can't understand what they're saying at all? Excessive houseruling is about the same thing. There comes a point in houseruling a system where you've eliminated the point of using the system in the first place. You've added so much slang, you're talking a different language.

And you can definitely hold that against a game. When a game requires that much houseruling to make it work, it can certainly be attacked for it. A customer should be able to expect a certain amount of functionality "out of the box."

If we were to expand the geek social fallacies, one new entry which would definitely be appropriate would be, "Just because you can change the parts you don't like doesn't make the original product good."

Well, I think it depends on A) How comfortable with and well-informed of any house rules your group is, as well as B) How much houseruling you have to do.  For me, if you're able to take an Ford Edsel and turn it into an amazing machine, that's fantastic.  Hell, maybe you like the basic look of it, or feel there's enough under that hood that's worth saving.  Other folks will not want to work on their vehicle, other than perhaps minor tweaks, and that's cool, too.  Houseruling helps me tweak the game for the group I have, and, so long as it isn't 44 pages of changes, I'll happily do it.

As an example, I believe you and I, Gabriel, are almost completely diametrically opposed on anything to do with Palladium.  You don't like the system, and don't want to mess with it, consider it a total write-off.  For me, yeah, I've got things I'd change about it, but I've been playing it long enough I've made enough of those changes and tweaks to where I'm comfortable with it, it works for me, and has worked for a majority of all my gaming groups.  For me, the rules had functionality "out of the box", but by playing over the years, I've found plenty of variations and changes that have gotten the game to exactly where I like it.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstAs an example, I believe you and I, Gabriel, are almost completely diametrically opposed on anything to do with Palladium.  

Well, duh.  

Quote from: GabrielWell, duh.  

It may have been the most obvious statement of all time, I know.  

.... Crossposted from the Bottom 10 thread.....hope you find it hear jgants....

Quote from: jgants, with my underliningI don't really houserule much of anything.

What I usually do is use GM fiat a lot to know when to bend the rules or ignore them.

I'm confused by these two sentences? Especially given the two words I underlined. Because you don't write it down you think it is something that is different than a "house rule"?  EDIT: I don't mean this sarcastically. I'm just really puzzled about your apparent definition and understanding of "house rule", trying to figure out how and on what grouds you differentiate the two.

To me, GM Fiat is house rules applied sporadically.

Quote from: James McMurrayTo me, GM Fiat is house rules applied sporadically.

That's one way to look at it I guess. I like Balbius' answer too (hope he transfers it). I've always thought of it as a more confusing version of house rules. You've house ruled the portion in question but even you don't know exactly what with (or maybe you do but you've not bothered to tell anyone).

Quote from: RPGPunditWow... what an utterly remarkable lack of creativity this displays, not to mention a connection from how most normal kids I've seen use Lego. It sounds almost autistic.

Autistic?  Or brain damaged?

Pretty much every kid I've known that owned lego built the set to instructions first.  Usually followed by a couple of the alternative designs included in the instructions.  Then the set gets cycled into their collection of lego to be used for all sorts of wonderous creations.  Which is pretty much what I was saying... I prefer to at least see a system in action, as intended by the designed, before I start to tinker.

QuoteWhy? Did the game designer go to the Game Designer university? Is there some kind of accreditation I haven't heard of that insures that absolutely no RPG game designer will be utter and absolute shitheads; and does guarantee that they'll be smarter or better than the rest of us? And I'm particularly amazed by the rigorous, MIT-like program they must go through to be able to actually know more about my gaming group than the GM does! Amazing!

You're ability to completely miss the point is what is amazing.  I'm not suggesting a game designer knows better about your gaming group than you do.  I'm suggesting they know more about their game than you do.  I like to give them the benefit of the doubt over that first.

QuoteYou git.

Fuckknuckle.

Quote from: JimBobOzBecause maybe you want something like the boat, but not exactly. Maybe what you want, they don't make. You want to make a change which is so minor, they never thought to produce a set for it. But that small change is important to you.

For example in GURPS the game's random dice rolls can be pretty harsh on PCs. Hell, I heard a rumour about this one game where a PC cut his own arm off due to a combat fumble roll. That's pretty random. Now there's random, and there's random-stupid. Most gamers like random, it's why they roll the dice. Random-stupid, they're not so fond of. So what can we do about that? Well, PCs get awarded xp, maybe 2-7 a session, and they use those to improve their characters. So how about we take those xp, and say, "you can spend them as hero points - use them to turn a critical failure into a plain old failure, or a failure into a success, or a success into a critical success."

Well, with that we've lowered the chance of the "random-stupid" from happening. The player gets to decide - something just happened, was it just random, or random-stupid? If they think it was stupid, they can spend that xp as a hero point, and voila, stupidity gone. We just changed the game.

Ahh... I'm perfectly aware of why people implement houserules.  And your example above actually fits my original assertion pretty well, which was:

1. I don't really like houserules, unless they are fairly minor (your example was a minor one).

2. I prefer houserules to be implemented after trying the game (I'm assuming you implemented the rule after a little bit of familiarity with GURPS 4th... or at least GURPS 3rd).

I also go back to my belief that houserules are symptomatic of the GM maybe wanting to play another system.  You've said yourself that you weren't really enjoying GURPS much.  Maybe instead of houseruling GURPS, you should have been playing a different system?

QuoteThere's the thing. We can be forever searching for the One True Perfect System. "This one, if you follow the rules exactly, doesn't do what I want. This other one, if you follow the rules exactly, that's fucked, too. Better keep searching..." How long we going to search for? John Kim lists 1,101 different roleplaying games published for money, and over 500 free ones. There's got to be another 400 he never heard of, or which were only published as pdfs and he never noticed. So that's over 2,000 published rpgs.

So you're trying to tell me out of 2,000 rpgs, I'm never going to find a system that suits my needs without houseruling it?  What a depressing thought!

Ah, ok, in this case I apologize.  Funk, from the way you phrased your "lego" comment, it really sounded like:

a) you believed Lego should ONLY be used to build to the blueprint provided
and
b) you believed Houserules should never be applied.

Your subsequent statements have made it clear that what you were really saying was that you should get familiarity with a game first, before implementing houserules, which is in fact eminently sensible. Was anyone really arguing against that though?

RPGPundit

Mostly my houserules tend to be just further elaborations of the already existing system, based on the suggestions in the game itself: for instance, as seen here. They aren't necessary as much as... convenient.

Quote from: RPGPunditYour subsequent statements have made it clear that what you were really saying was that you should get familiarity with a game first, before implementing houserules, which is in fact eminently sensible. Was anyone really arguing against that though?

Well, JimBob is here;

Quote from: JimBobOzWhy not give it a go as is before changing it? Well, I think I've enough experience of different game systems to have a fairly good idea how they'll turn out in play

Quote from: RPGPunditAh, ok, in this case I apologize.  Funk, from the way you phrased your "lego" comment, it really sounded like:

a) you believed Lego should ONLY be used to build to the blueprint provided
and
b) you believed Houserules should never be applied.

Your subsequent statements have made it clear that what you were really saying was that you should get familiarity with a game first, before implementing houserules, which is in fact eminently sensible. Was anyone really arguing against that though?

@TF
This is not to pile on, just to let you know I took your posts almost the exact same way (why else would I toss out the story of my son )...

So it looks like, for the most part, it's a misunderstanding. Especially since the one thing that stuck out in JimBob's stuff was the very thing you point out.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk1. I don't really like houserules, unless they are fairly minor (your example was a minor one).

So that's just a personal preference, like, "I like toast." There's no arguing personal preferences.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk2. I prefer houserules to be implemented after trying the game (I'm assuming you implemented the rule after a little bit of familiarity with GURPS 4th... or at least GURPS 3rd).

I happen to have played the game before GMing it. So we never got to find out if I'd have houseruled it before the first session or not. The first significant play exerience, from my point of view, doesn't really count as "playing GURPS," because that GM didn't know the rules. He said, "why do I need to know the rules, mate? I have you and A. who can tell me them." My next experience of GURPS was playing it under W., and he introduced the same house rule I mentioned above, "xp as hero points". He introduced it after discussion with me, that is, I persuaded him it was a good idea. Then when I GMed, I introduced that and other house rules.

I'm fairly confident that if my first experience with the game was GMing it, I would have brought in the exact same house rules in the first session. But we can't know that for sure.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI also go back to my belief that houserules are symptomatic of the GM maybe wanting to play another system.  You've said yourself that you weren't really enjoying GURPS much.  Maybe instead of houseruling GURPS, you should have been playing a different system?

On reflection after that time, no. GURPS wasn't the problem, one of the players was the problem. This person insisted on slowing the flow of the action by talking about minor rules details. They gamed partly because they loved the rules themselves, all their details - the rest of us weren't as interested as them in the rules. Since they're a likeable and decent person, we didn't just tell them to shut the fuck up. Instead we sought to avoid the problem by changing to a set of rules they weren't interested in.

It wasn't really a system problem, it was a people problem.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSo you're trying to tell me out of 2,000 rpgs, I'm never going to find a system that suits my needs without houseruling it?  What a depressing thought!

I've no idea if you would or not. What I'm saying is that you might like to write down how many systems you've ever played, and think about how each was imperfect and didn't suit your desires. From that, consider the odds of running into the One True Perfect Game for you. Consider how many more you want to try. Is it better to quest eternally for natural perfection found without any extra work, or to search until you find something pretty good, and then tweak it a bit to make it better, even if not perfect.

I want a good game now. I don't want a hundred or a thousand crap or mediocre games, and then finally find the One True Perfect Game. I'd rather just take a Pretty Good Game, then tweak it a bit until it's a Damned Good Game, and then it can help us have at least Pretty Good Sessions.

I think the search for perfection can make you miss a lot of pretty good things, whether it be game systems, jobs, people, houses, cars, or whatever. I also think the search for the perfect game system is a particularly wasteful one, since it's a lot easier to get the people, snacks and setting right, and those are more important to how much fun you have in a session.

Quote from: blakkie.... Crossposted from the Bottom 10 thread.....hope you find it hear jgants....

I'm confused by these two sentences? Especially given the two words I underlined. Because you don't write it down you think it is something that is different than a "house rule"?  EDIT: I don't mean this sarcastically. I'm just really puzzled about your apparent definition and understanding of "house rule", trying to figure out how and on what grouds you differentiate the two.

Balbinus pretty much got it spot on. But I'll give an expanded argument anyways.

House Rule - Something that is a codified change that is intended to be applied regularly throughout the campaign, and the circumstances of which would commonly occur.  For example, I've tried two different house rules in my Rifts campaign.  The first one was an armor-piercing type rule to speed up combat (which I've since abandoned because the extra complexity wasn't worth the hassle).  The second one was how quickly spells could be learned (which I added because if you go by the book, no one would ever be able to learn a spell in my campaign because there are never any break periods in the storyline).  Adding a house rule is something people do because something doesn't quite work for them the way they'd like (but the rest of the game does).

GM Fiat - Something comes up that isn't 100% clearly answered by the rules, and I have to decide what happens in this particular circumstance.  It isn't really a house rule because I'm not modifying or greatly expanding the current game, basically just interpreting the rules.  Because this kind of thing happens all the time and is usually pretty specific to a particular circumstance, I don't generally write it down as a bona fide rule.

Another type of GM fiat is when something happens in game that is covered by a rule, but where following the rule by the book doesn't really make sense in a particular circumstance.  In this case, I make a decision based on the particular circumstances and common sense - even if it directly contradicts what is written in the book.

These kinds of actions used to be one of the default roles of the GM in a game, though the newer generations of games seem to scoff at this idea (whether you are talking about highly-codified games like D&D3 that don't leave enough room for interpretation, or arty Forge crap that actively tries to limit what the GM can do).

Or, to put it a different way:  A house rule is like a legislative action (passing a law).  GM Fiat is a combination of judicial actions(interpreting the law, including the spirit of the law) and/or executive actions (handling circumstances not covered by the law).