Quote from: jgantsGM Fiat - Something comes up that isn't 100% clearly answered by the rules, and I have to decide what happens in this particular circumstance.

But that isn't what you initially wrote. You were talking about "ignoring" rules...sometimes. That is one of the things that "house rules" do ('ignore' is change and/or delete), only in this case worse because it is becomes even less predictable.

As well, that's been mentioned above (I'll have scroll back and see who) as a house rule. I usually refer to it as a "soft" house rule, depending on how obvious an extention from the rules and whether or not the rules give specific guidelines for the judgement made.

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

Well to look at it.

Quote from: BalbinusA house rule is a standing change to the rules, that persists over time.

GM fiat is an ad hoc change to the rules, that may or may not be followed on future occasions.

Yeah, see. That amounts to the same thing. Still changing the rules. Only more complex and/or less organized.

House Rules: Luck Chits

At the beginning of each session the Players draw randomly one Luck Chit from the Bag. Player Characters with the Luck Power randomly draw an additional Luck Chit for every d6 of Luck.

At the End of each session all Players return any unspent Luck Chits to the Bag. Sometimes you want Quantity, sometimes Quality. The Luck Chits go away at the end of the game, no carry over. Use 'em or lose 'em... which encourages interactive use and not hoarding.

White Luck Chits: x 30 [1W = 1W] Allows a Re Roll of any one roll you control. Or allows an Abort Maneuver (to Dodge, Block, Dive for Cover, etc …) without using an Action. It also allows a single Recovery, without using an Action. It also allows Players to modify the Hit Location Chart (Defensively) and move the hit location by One (up or down).

Green Luck Chits: x 30 [1G = 2W] Same as White, plus you can spend a green to take away a single die in a "to hit" or "skill" roll, to gain a success. Rolled a 15... Spend a Green, take away that 6, now you have a 9! Success! (The GM randomly draws a chit for the villains, if you spend a Green) It also allows Players to modify the Hit Location Chart (Defensively) and move the hit location by Two (up or down).

Blue Luck Chits: x 30 [1B = 3W or 1G & 1W] same as Green, without any benefit to GM. Blue is also a way to "flex" powers in a supers game. It allows a power to be used in a way that fits the SFX, but they haven't paid points for. [Ex: Flame character... wants to reduce the fire in a room to save a child... but doesn't have this power. Spends a Blue for this one action, his EB (or whatever) becomes Suppress normal fires, and he can do it.]

Blue also allows for "dramatic editing" so that the character can simply say, "I grab the broom handle and snap it off, so I have a stake to fight the vampire!" rather than asking, "Is there anything wooded around?" In the case I highlighted in the last Secret Worlds adventure... on PC was way out of the combat, and spent the Blue to come up with a creative way to get his character there "right now!". It also allows Players to modify the Hit Location Chart (Defensively and Offensively) and move the hit location by Three (up or down).

Yellow Luck Chit: x 1 [1Y = 2B or 3G or 6W] There is only one in the bag, but if drawn, the player can become GM for a scene. They get to create and event or subplot or something along those lines, that fits with their character concept and long term goals. I've had one person spend it so his character finally got his Thesis on Paranormal Gestation Theory published, and to wide acclaim, so he became famous in those circles as THE expert on metahuman bio-genesis.

Another spent it, so that during a mission, he accidentally stumbled across some critical information about villain financing... this changed the entire SHAPE of the campaign, as the villains funding was exposed, and they had to come out of the shadows, rather than manipulate from behind the scenes.

The Yellow Luck Chit is usually just one "scene" or "event" They don't tend to really run the game in terms of controlling NPCs... They just say, "Ok... here's this cool thing that I want to have happen, with this or that character..." They often don't force a certain outcome, they just want to have something that really shows off their character, or allows their character to have a really big impact on the plot. (I guess it could be abused, but I've got great players. They tend to enhance the story and the world... not control it.)

Luck Power: [ each d6 Luck = 1 Luck Chit ] Drawn randomly and still allows the Player Characters to use the Luck Power as written in HERO System 5th Edition .

It's a great system ... players seem to really love it ... and it gives flexibility within limits. I've been doing it for probably 6 years or more at this point. I'd never go back. .

I'd created a generic "luck roll" to help determine random events. Roll 3d6... sixes good, ones bad. So if a player asks something like, "I need a rock to throw at the wild dogs making off with the baby!" I'd say, "Roll a luck roll," to determine if there just happened to be a rock around. Good luck, there is a perfect throwing rock, right at your feet. Bad luck... no rock to be found. Neither/nor... there is a rock, but its’ 20 feet away, and will take a turn to get it.

Luck (the Talent back then, now a Power) allowed characters to roll an extra die for each luck die they had... and that die could only be good for them (ones didn't count.)

RDU Neil’s Dark Champions: Secret Worlds Thread http://www.herogames.com/forums/show...1&page=3&pp=30

This worked pretty well, but for years there was a need to open up Champs/HERO System, to allow some flexibility with powers and give players a little more control over their characters destiny and story.

Then I played Deadlands. (Original Deadlands, when it first came out.) They had chips (poker chips) that you could spend to soak wounds, or make rolls better, or whatever. It was a great mechanic. After only one session, I realized that this was a way to make Luck in Hero very viable.



Cheers

QM

"I wrote this game as I did to fit my conception of what an RPG does best. I wrote it to be comprehensive, allow for a wide range of play and play styles, and to be, as the saying goes, grim and gritty. I present a world that can be harsh, unfair, and most certainly unbalanced. A world that calls upon one's resources, native wit, and the willingness to dare even though things are stacked against you.

"It's a game where the player cannot make it on his own, or even with a small group of friends. It's a game where your character will need friends and acquaintances; contacts he can call upon for aid, and who will call upon him when they need something done. It's a game where you need to know the world to some degree if your character is ever to better himself and those he knows.

"I have no doubt there will be parts you don't agree with. Parts that don't do what you think they should, or don't do them as well as you think they could. When you find yourself disagreeing with one of my design decisions, change the rule. If you'd rather have ablative hit points than the wound system, then house rule ablative hit points. It'll give a different feel to the game, and it might be the feel you want.

"The game is now in your hands, it's your game. I will no more tell you how to run your game than I would tell a cat how to raise her kittens. What comes after in the body of this work can be no better than my advice. You can follow it, change things to better suit what you want to do, or ignore it entirely. The success of your adventures is entirely up to you, all I can do is provide you with a toolkit that helps more than it hinders. The only true measure of how well you do is when your players look forward to the next adventure."

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?

[SNIP]

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!

We're blessed with a pretty wide selection of roleplaying games indeed. But there are so many components to an RPG that it is easy to prefer some parts but not others.

If you go just by genres, your selection of games drops pretty fast. Then there's support and all that stuff. I think it's not a given that there's surely a game for every situation.

Our last D&D adventures were played mostly by the 3.5 books but with some classes dropped, some classes tweaked and a re-tooled combat system using ICE's 10Million Ways to Die for crits. Even if there was a game that could fit what we are looking for, none are going to give us 100% straight-away-compatible support like d&d does anyway.  

My Story Engine houserules are much more massive, probably adding 30% volume to the rules as written and there's no way any game on the market looks like it. Same with Everway, a fairly unique game.

It's pretty easy to imagine that some components of a game just aren't going to fit some gamers. I don't know where you got the impression that tweaking with systems "doesn't bode well". I have failed to see any link between tweaking and being an asshole in my decades of gaming. You are as likely to hit a moronic DM playing it straight by the book than a moron who tweaks stuff.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWe're blessed with a pretty wide selection of roleplaying games indeed. But there are so many components to an RPG that it is easy to prefer some parts but not others.

The reason for my "mortal rules" in Nobilis is simple enough. In the game, the rest of the universe only has relevance in relation to a fairly small number of empowered beings: there are roughly about two thousand Nobles on Earth, a few hundred Imperators, and perhaps a handful of Excrucians at any given time. Only these characters are statted out when necessary. Everyone and everything else, including the rest of the human species, is at best a difficulty modifier to their actions or else utterly insignificant, and so even the system revolves completely around the PCs and their peers. Yes, that is very much in keeping with the setting, and yes, it doesn't in any way cause problems during actual play. But sometimes it's nice to have a bit of mechanical support for the little people, too.

Quote from: blakkieBut that isn't what you initially wrote. You were talking about "ignoring" rules...sometimes.

That was handled in the next paragraph I wrote:

Quote from: meAnother 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.

Quote from: blakkieThat is one of the things that "house rules" do ('ignore' is change and/or delete), only in this case worse because it is becomes even less predictable.

I don't agree with the use of "worse".  Mainly because I think changing the rules to fit your needs is an important part of playing the game.

In fact, I think that making small, ad hoc adjustments to the rules is a fundamental part of playing RPGs.  I would argue that anyone who plays RPGs like a boardgame and only ever follows the rules 100% of the time is doing it wrong.

Furthermore, I would argue that such a playstyle is actually impossible for playing traditional RPGs.  There is no set of rules that can answer ever single situation that comes up in play.  Everyone will end up making some adjustments during play.  The only way you could avoid it (maybe) is by playing very, very rules light/Forgey stuff where everything is sufficiently abstract.

Quote from: blakkieYeah, see. That amounts to the same thing. Still changing the rules. Only more complex and/or less organized.

And I still see them as sufficiently different activities.  Changing a core rule, that appears in the book, for all circumstances, is a pretty big change.  Particularly since no one usually makes house rules unless they think the situation will come up all the time.

Making ad hoc rulings based on stuff that comes up pretty rarely (quite possibly only once) are pretty minor changes.

Quote from: jgantsThat was handled in the next paragraph I wrote:

No it doesn't "handle" it in the original context.

QuoteI don't agree with the use of "worse".  Mainly because I think changing the rules to fit your needs is an important part of playing the game.

Once again going back to the original context effectively "house rules" and "GM Fiat ignoring rules", alot, amounts to the same thing.

The rest of your post misses the point, in the original context....and I'm tired and have other things to do.....

Quote from: blakkieNo it doesn't "handle" it in the original context.

Once again going back to the original context effectively "house rules" and "GM Fiat ignoring rules", alot, amounts to the same thing.

The rest of your post misses the point, in the original context....and I'm tired and have other things to do.....

I get your point, that the underlying result is the same - that all methods of playing a game that deviate from the written rules are, in effect, house rules.

I'm just disagreeing with you.  I'm using "house rule" to designate a particular degree of change to the rules, not just any change to them at all.

The rest of it is just me trying to define the degree, and why I think it is important to differentiate between the two (as one is a much more common part of playing the game than the other IMO).

My answer from the other thread:

A house rule is a standing change to the rules, that persists over time.

GM fiat is an ad hoc change to the rules, that may or may not be followed on future occasions.

Accordingly, I would say there is a difference, and indeed this is why I prefer house rules to fiat.

@jgants

I think the problem is your [initial] lack of differentiation. You're mixing up a lot of different things in "GM Fiat" including:
1) changing rules (ignoring including)
2) making up new rules that have little direct basis in the original rules
3) obvious extensions of existing rules (preferable that have written guidelines given)
4) clear judgement calls (that are largely obvious to everyone at the table) as called for by the rules.

Number 3 is usually optional, although pretty common. Especially for games designed for a wider scope and more flexibility (and flexibility definately has it's upsides). Definately 4, IMO, is pretty much a requirement for all but the most narrow scoped of RPGs, and even then I can't really imagine avoiding it. Having #1 and #2 required is where I take issue and is not my experience.

P.S. I don't even include #3 and #4 in "GM Fiat" since the arbitrary and relatively unbased nature implied in "fiat". At least in contrast to the word "judgement", which I do use for the #3 and #4.

EDIT: I should add that same game rules have Options that make "ignoring" more choices within the rules. So that's not really a #1 anymore, at least if it is consistant.

I house rule when I find something in the system I don't quite like or doesn't quite work as expected. For me, it's a normal part of running any game system. Saying, "I might as well play a different game" is kind of disingenuous - I mean, there's not likely to be any game that is like the houseruled version of the game I'm already playing, right? I examine every change I make to a system carefully to make sure that it has the effect intended.

Some games, like Exalted, I don't know well enough to house rule so I play them RAW. Others like SilCore, I know very well and have house ruled to one degree or another. A perfect example is the Complexity rules. I don't really like how they were implemented, so I changed them. I have extremely solid reasons for changing them the way that I did. I'm neither a frustrated game designer, nor do I believe that that what game designers do is magic that they only they can work - but I know what works best for myself and my players.

I suppose I should throw in my attitude to houseruling, given that this snowballed out of the Bottom 10 Games discussion I started. I am going to use Balbinus's excellent distinction between houseruling and GM fiat - house rules are consistent additions to the rules, preferably written down, which are applied consistently, GM fiat is an on-the-spot judgement by the GM.

In general, I much prefer to houserule as opposed to using GM fiat to cover a rules situation, unless it's a one-of-the-kind situation which is never likely to happen again. Also, I normally try as much as possible to make my houserules consistent with the core mechanics of the game in question (assuming the game even has a core mechanic). I won't, for example, suddenly ask for Fudge dice rolls in a BRP game, or ask people to roll 2D10 instead of 1D20 for a roll in D&D 3.X.

As far as covering ground which the main rules don't allow for, I'm perfectly happy to houserule. Adding extra spells and monsters and whatnot to a game is part of the fun, and sometimes to do that you *have* to houserule. (For example, I've never found the formula that Wizards use to balance character classes in D&D - if indeed there is one. Therefore if I'm adding a new class to D&D 3.X I *have* to houserule and make my own judgement call on where the balance lies.)

As far as the core mechanic of a game goes, I tend not to houserule those, because once you do that you're effectively playing a whole different game. Rolling 2D10 instead of 1D20 for everything in D20, for example, would alter things so drastically the game would change beyond all recognition. On the other hand, the various subsystems of a game are fair targets for houseruling... so long as I don't feel compelled to houserule too many of them. If I have to give one or two subsystems major overhauls to get the game I want to run, that's cool. More than that? Then clearly the designer and I don't see eye to eye on a good many things, and my time would be better spent researching alternative games. Minor tweaks to the rules I can live with, on the other hand.

As far as running games as written goes, I do find it helpful to go through things before I start thinking of ways to houseruling them, even if it's just me on my own running through a few mocked-up combats or something, because a) it can help me get a grip on what exactly I don't like about the rules, and what exactly I want to change about them, and b) it makes doubly sure that I know how the rule in question works, and how it relates to the rest of the rules.

Quote from: jgantsFurthermore, I would argue that such a playstyle is actually impossible for playing traditional RPGs.  There is no set of rules that can answer ever single situation that comes up in play.

Total agreement, except I'd avoid the term "traditional." The important point here, as you say, is that they're not even "house rules," if that word means manhandling The Creator's Vision until it fits my own, lesser one, and in that case why don't I just play another game?

Well, because I'm just fine with the game, very much including its deliberate rules openness that allows me to fill in blanks on the spot.

Example: As we're gearing up for a 2300AD game I noticed that chargen is in some respects a very condensed version of Traveller's--so condensed that there are no separate careers for military officers and NCOs/grunts. In a military-style campaign, which ours is not, I would write up a couple of career paths for added differentiation between (N)PCs.

No designer's vision would have been harmed in the process. Au contraire, if my career paths were any good, I would submit them to Challenge magazine (if that were still around), and who knows, they would even have published them as optional rules. There are bunches of precedents for that.

So these aren't flawed games, they're purposely customizable games.

Quote from: JimBobOzSharing food and drink is a social experience, it relaxes people. When people each bring munchies and share them, the act of sharing and exchanging is a bonding one, building trust.

QFT

That aside, all the house rules I've ever used came into being after I played the game for awhile. Either I made them myself or borrowed them from other GMs that I know.

I don't see it as the system I'm playing as 'being broken' but more a matter of playing style. Both mine and my players. I don't recall anyone ever having a problem with any of the house rules I've used over the years (discussions yes, arguments no).

I don't go looking to make houserules when I get a new game, but I will if it makes the game more balanced/interesting/usable/fun.

I also clearly state any and all rule changes to my existing/new players. I don't spring them on them after the fact. I do it before play starts.

Hang on a minute... something just occurred to me. It was so obvious I missed it before. We've got people here saying, "well, when the game is new to me, I follow the rules-as-written exactly."

But if the game's new to you, then you don't know the rules - so how can you follow them exactly?

I don't know about you guys, but most people I know don't remember rules from reading them, they half-remember them from reading, and then fully remember them from playing them.

So when someone's GMing a game for the first time, if they've never played it before, play goes like... "Okay, now what happens is... shit, what's the rule for that?" The GM then looks it up. Now, we've got two basic kinds of GM at the extremes. There's the kind of GM who keeps looking until they find the rule, even if it means a 30 minute break in the middle of combat. And then there's the GM who looks for 30 seconds, then says, "fuck it - can't waste time - just add one die for now, that sounds roughly right, I'll look it up between sessions to get it exactly right."

That means that either your first few sessions are painfully slow as the GM looks everything up, or else there's quite a bit of what Balbinus calls "GM fiat" - the GM just waving their hand and deciding whatever seems reasonable and good at the time.

So if you're all playing a particular rpg for the first time, those are the choices you have at the extremes, between a slow game looking everything up to make sure you follow the rules exactly, or a quicker game where the rules are only followed if you can find them in the book quickly enough, otherwise it's GM fiat. Those are extremes, of course, but we're speaking generally here.

I wouldn't try to guess which kind of GM is more common. I've seen both. But a significant number will be the "GM fiat" kind. Some of them will do it because they're lazy, and some will do it because they trust their own judgment, while still others will say, "it's a new game, I better keep things moving, if they have to wait while I look up rules then they'll think this new rpg is boring."

What we get then is that a significant number of people playing a new game aren't following the rules-as-written, because they don't know what they are. They can't follow them perfectly until they've played the game for a while.

My guess is that some of these GM fiat rulings at the beginning, when the GM and group comes to read the actual rule between sessions, sometimes they'll say, "wow, that's stupid! Much better is that fiat decision that got made last session." So the GM fiat turns into a house rule.

Now, if what I'm saying is true - if groups new to a game system will rarely follow it exactly, simply because they don't know the rules yet, so they get GM fiat instead - why is GM fiat based on bad knowledge of the rules okay, but houserules based on average or deep knowledge of the rules is bad? If I can handwave the rules in the first session when I don't know much, why can't I alter the rules in the tenth session when I know them well?

How do you manage to follow the rules exactly in the first session? Do you study the book for months, visit other groups playing the same game, to make sure you got it right before you break it out for your game group?