QuoteBut 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, but we tend to keep a book handy and look things up when we're unsure.

We also have a group of people with a good memory for rules, so it never takes long to find anything.

Missing the point, McMurray. If your game book doesn't have a great index or contents listing, and if you've not got a great memory, then...

Your response isn't helpful. It's like I'm saying, "when you're learning to drive," and you say, "oh but I already know how to drive! It was easy to learn!"

I'm talking about the time when you're learning a new rpg, and for lots of people, that doesn't go super-smooth. Maybe it does for you - mazeltov! But not for all.

Quote from: JimBobOzNow, 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?

You're making it into too much of a dichotomy. It's not that house rules are 'bad'. Funk doesn't like them (for example); most other people seem to be saying that they like to understand the rules before house-ruling. Similarly, it's not a matter of getting every element of the rules learned before you embark on a game. It's about having an idea of how the system fits together and knowing where to look things up.

Nobody's saying you can't make house-rules, they're saying they like to play the RAW first. You can handwave all you like, depending on how the people you play with take it.

On that issue of following rules, it really depends on the game. If you can't follow the rules of Trollbabe or Primetime Adventures, even on your first go (assuming you've actually read the book), there is no help for you. Not being able to follow all the ins and outs of D&D 3.5 on your first go might be more understandable. There's a lot more reading required.

So the extent to which you follow the rules on the first few passes might be limited, depending on just how crunchy the rules are. That doesn't mean you're not trying to follow the rules. That's another needless dichotomy.

You can house-rule more effectively if you understand how the game works as a whole. Most games produce some kind of emergent behaviour that isn't always apparent from reading them.

All I can speak to is my own experiences. If you're not interested in what others have to say I'd suggest avoiding internet forums.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf your game book doesn't have a great index or contents listing......

...and it is a largish game? I find a better book. Seriously.  I also keep the book open and handy. Preferable a couple copies open around the table. Often people will know some sections of rules better than others, particularly subsystems like magic and such.

Also knowing the letter of the rules or remembering where a section is located (but not necessarily all of it's contents) doesn't always give a clear picture of how it works.

EDIT:

QuoteThere'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.

If it really was such an issue I'd likely find better rules (and a constant one). To reasonably determine whether it is there or not. And I'd look at myself and wonder if I'm gronking things. If I'm using the tool for what it is intended to do.

And yes, occationally it will come down to just calling it.  Although usually it isn't GM fiat. If it's fiat at all instead of judgement.  And then it gets marked down as something to look up later after the session to get clarified.  Did I mention that the Internet rocks for gaming?

EDIT2: I will say that some games are tougher is this way than others and need more pre-reading.

Quote from: JimBobOzNow, 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?

I think there is a big difference between improvising rules because you're not familiar with them, versus reading them (presumably understanding them) and then changing them.  Besides, you were originally arguing that it was perfectly reasonable to alter the rules of game you had never actually played... not a game you'd been playing for ten sessions.  

FWIW, when playing (or running) a system for the first time, I don't like my lack of knowledge of the rules to get too much in the way of the game.  But I do make my best effort to play them as written.  Even if that means looking stuff up.  As long as it doesn't take too long.  How else will you ever learn the rules if you just make things up as you want?  Or, for that matter, what point are the rules if you ignore them the moment it becomes inconvenient?  

After I've had time to digest the rules... and seen them in action, then I might consider houserules for situations that didn't work according to my tastes (and those of the group).