Is there an amount of house ruling for a game at which point it becomes intellectually dishonest when teaching new players? If so, where is that point reached?
Edit: For instance, let us say that I am ostensibly running B/X, but I use either a three-save or single-save system and an ascending AC model, bring in classes from other sources (perhaps of my own invention, perhaps taken from a fellow retroclone), swap out Snake Charm and Sticks To Snakes because those spells bother me on a conceptual level, and allow a few certain houserules like shields shall be splintered and things like that. At what point am I lying to my players when I call such a game B/X?
Seriously?
"Intellectually dishonest"? Huh?
About halfway to the Moon, but before the Cottage Cheese horizon.
If you're claiming to teach them how to play dungeons and dragons, and you've changed everything about DnD, then yes, but players aren't looking to learn the game most often, they're looking to play. And regardless of how modified the system is, they're still learning how to play table top games. If you're worried about not teaching players skills that are transferable to other games, I don't think that kind of teaching is the responsibility of the game master.
As for at what point you are nolonger playing DnD (for example), I don't think you can draw a line in the sand with issues of identity when you start imagining transitions between things. Unless it is entirely DnD, or entirely your own creation, you're playing both.
Don't claim to teach people DnD. Claim to play DnD with them.
Quote from: Piestrio;687481Seriously?
Duh, that's why I asked.
Quote from: Benoist;687483"Intellectually dishonest"? Huh?
In the sense that you're not teaching them to play the game that they assume they're being taught, you're just teaching them your own ridiculous house rules.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687489In the sense that you're not teaching them to play the game that they assume they're being taught, you're just teaching them your own ridiculous house rules.
It's probably a good idea to explain the concept of houserules to new players and maybe point out the ones you use (or say we use a bunch of them). But I wouldn't characterize it as dishonesty unless you are deliberately trying to give someone a skewed view of the rules (for example trying to color someone's opinion of a particular edition by changing the rules and leading them to believe those are the RAW).
Ok. "Ridiculous house rules", heh? At least you're making your bias clear from the start.
I can't be arsed to argue about the value of making the game your own, or its value as a framework for actual play, as opposed to a rigid set of processes set in stone, nor the inherent value of RPGs as products empowering their users to use their imaginations, as opposed to passively consume whatever is handed down to them by the designers who "obviously" would know better what would catter to their immersion processes than they would themselves. Moving on.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687479Is there an amount of house ruling for a game at which point it becomes intellectually dishonest when teaching new players? If so, where is that point reached?
As I always tell potential players upfront that the rules used are effectively Randall's Own Highly Modified Version of
, I don't think it is ever dishonest in any way to teach new players my game.
Of course (and IMHO), I'm under no obligation to teach any game "rules as written" unless it is part of my living-wage paying job to do so, so the whole idea of it somehow being "dishonest" not to do so in any other case makes little sense to my heavily house ruled mind. :)
Quote from: Benoist;687493Ok. "Ridiculous house rules", heh? At least you're making your bias clear from the start.
On the contrary. I'm being self-effacing in my choice of words. At least when it comes to D&D, there are a
lot of houserules I like, to the point that I'm concerned that using all the ones I might be tempted to turns my game into a Frankenstein's monster of a system that, were I to run a game for completely new players, would give them a lot of mistaken expectations were they to game with somebody else.
Regarding "ethics" of houserules: Starry sky above me, houserules within me.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687495On the contrary. I'm being self-effacing in my choice of words. At least when it comes to D&D, there are a lot of houserules I like, to the point that I'm concerned that using all the ones I might be tempted to turns my game into a Frankenstein's monster of a system that, were I to run a game for completely new players, would give them a lot of mistaken expectations were they to game with somebody else.
I always assume "cuius domus, eius lex", as per the Peace of Gencon in 1987.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687489In the sense that you're not teaching them to play the game that they assume they're being taught, you're just teaching them your own ridiculous house rules.
You are aware that the original games were just the most basic of frameworks filled out by the ridiculous house rules of whomever was running right?
I mean, under the umbrella of "D&D" there are going to be differences depending on whether you are playing in Bob's game, Dave's Game, Sharon's game, etc.
The whole point of D&D was to take that skeleton of a familliar framework and make
your game with it. Differences among DMs is a big part of keeping the game interesting over a long time. If you are getting the same canned experience no matter who is behind the screen the game is gonna get stale a lot faster.
Tournaments and organized play have done so much to fuck this up that few remember it anymore. Everyone is obsessed with
winning and ensuring their mechanically based strategies are solid that they forget the simple joy of
playing.Perhaps its just an extension of our ever-more self-centered culture at work here.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687495On the contrary. I'm being self-effacing in my choice of words. At least when it comes to D&D, there are a lot of houserules I like, to the point that I'm concerned that using all the ones I might be tempted to turns my game into a Frankenstein's monster of a system that, were I to run a game for completely new players, would give them a lot of mistaken expectations were they to game with somebody else.
I learned to play Monopoly using the "free parking" gets the pot of cash houserule. For the longest time in numerous later games, that's how we played Monopoly. Such games could last for hours and hours on end. (Later I found out we didn't ever use the "auction" rule).
It was only a few years ago that I came to the realization that the official rules as written for Monopoly, were somewhat different. Awhile ago we decided to try playing the game RAW, where it lasted less than hour until there was a winner.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;687500Tournaments and organized play have done so much to fuck this up that few remember it anymore. Everyone is obsessed with winning and ensuring their mechanically based strategies are solid that they forget the simple joy of playing.
Perhaps its just an extension of our ever-more self-centered culture at work here.
This one can't be blamed on WotC though, and must be rendered unto the proper Caesar.
Damn, I'm on fire tonight.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;687500You are aware that the original games were just the most basic of frameworks filled out by the ridiculous house rules of whomever was running right?
I am, but as you yourself say, time has wrought changes.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687503I am, but as you yourself say, time has wrought changes.
Yes, like most GMs realising they didn't want to be part time game designers, so you had the rise of full blown rulesets. This convenience then ran into those GMs who
had the time and inclination to be part time game designers, and a controversy was born. Well not really, but I got sick of trying to fix the warped conundrums I kept encountering so I went ahead and made my own ruleset.
Is there a number to put on this, 10% of the rules being changed makes a different game? 20%? And by volume or importance, ditching THAC0 might only change a tiny rule but it has large consequences. I don't see how honesty comes into it one way or the other though, players can read rulebooks too.
Another game I unknowingly learned with some significant "houserules", is chess.
Amongst the people I played chess with, we used (or ignored) various "houserules" like:
- ignored the rule that the king is not allowed to "castle" through check (or while in check)
- pawns reaching the other side can be turned into multiple "queens"
- ignored the en passant rule
- the king cannot be taken off the board, and can be moved into a vulnerable space checked by an adjacent piece without consequence (such as by a pawn)
- etc ...
Years later I found out the fourth houserule was completely the design of the person who first taught me chess. (This particular person hated losing in chess).
EDIT: At the time, I didn't know any better and thought the fourth rule was actually a legitimate official rule of chess. It was only years later that I came to the realization that it was complete BS fabricated by the person who first taught me chess. (Years later, I found out if this guy hated a particular rule in any game, he would completely ignore it outright and/or make up his own "rules" on the spot. If somebody called him out on it, he would either try bluffing his way out or he would physically assault the other person for calling him out).
Does it matter?
There'll be those who castigate you from the moment you breach "canon."
And the rest of the people with well adjusted lives will cope, play, and move on.
Quote from: Opaopajr;687508There'll be those who castigate you from the moment you breach "canon."
The most annoying were the Forgotten Realms "canon lawyers" during the 3e/3.5e era.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687503I am, but as you yourself say, time has wrought changes.
It hasn't really wrought many changes in the way I run my games. I'm very clear and up front about how different my games are from what people may expect from other games.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687489Duh, that's why I asked.
Sorry, the premise of the thread is so odd that I wasn't sure if it was meant to be satire or not.
Thanks for clarifying.
As long as the majority of your house rules are "behind the screen", you're matching what everyone did in D&D back in the day and not affecting the people you're teaching at all. The important thing is not to teach people the *rules* of D&D, but how to think like a character in a D&D world (check for traps, track your resources, worry about your maps, be paranoid.)
One example you mention: saves. Teaching players "you get a saving throw" is part of teaching players how to play D&D. The exact way you get target numbers can be different. You can also have house rules that modify saves in various ways, like "double target number when saving against divine effects" or "add bonuses based on astrological sign or time of day", but it's best to keep that stuff behind the screen, rather than train players to figure out the best way to stack modifiers for specific challenges, because then you're teaching players a non-D&D-relevant skill.
Similarly, a lot of specific house rules like "shields shall be splintered" are best presented not as a rule on a list of "rules we use at my table", but as an offer made when necessary: "I'll let you sacrifice your shield to avoid damage from this hit." Don't make players learn how "shields shall be splintered" works, just teach them to think of possible things they could do with shields.
Allowing new classes isn't house ruling; from the very first, you could let players play anything they wanted. Changing the way classes in general work is another matter.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687479Is there an amount of house ruling for a game at which point it becomes intellectually dishonest when teaching new players?
If there's a reasonable likelihood that they will mistake your game for this or that strictly codified Official Tournament Rules Set X, then I guess that issue could arise. From my perspective, that's a pretty strange thing to expect in "D&D" or such, as I'm accustomed to personal tailoring being the rule -- to the extent that any books or other such materials are not definitive, merely resources for the DM (and possibly of several brands).
However, my view was formed back in the 1970s, and I am aware that it's at odds with expectations in many quarters today.
If these are people new to the hobby, who cares? Get them into character, ask them what they're doing, have them roll and adjudicate.
If you're getting a bunch of narrative gamers together to repeat the Luke Crane Experiment then run it as is.
If these are modern gamers unfamiliar with older games, then they probably won't like houserules, they've been brainwashed to think Designer Uber Alles. Use the word "Optional Rules" that still carry the weight of the Designer. Maybe you can deprogram them.
They're your players, so you should know their asshat level. If it really bothers you, you're playing "Houseruled B/X".
Quote from: Piestrio;687520Sorry, the premise of the thread is so odd that I wasn't sure if it was meant to be satire or not.
Thanks for clarifying.
Is that not a point of the finest satire? ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;687527They're your players, so you should know their asshat level. If it really bothers you, you're playing "Houseruled B/X".
Yes, I can live without +5 points to SWAG from playing unhouseruled Warhammer .
Quote from: ggroy;687509The most annoying were the Forgotten Realms "canon lawyers" during the 3e/3.5e era.
You ain't seen nothing until you have had an arguement with
Traveller canonista over dumping a ship's septic system while in jumpspace.
As far as houserules go. As long as you differentiate between houserules and the Actual Rules, then there should be no problem.
It's a fairly clear point of etiquette that you make your players aware of all the rules in play, between house and book rules. Maybe the OP raised eyebrows because it's a clear "yes" to that parsing of the question and a clear "no" to the misunderstanding, "is it unethical to use house rules?" While the question "to what point can I house rule and still call it the base game?" is unanswerable and somewhat moot.
At last count, I've got 236,000 words of OSRIC house rules. Do I qualify for some kind of award?
Quote from: P&P;687544At last count, I've got 236,000 words of OSRIC house rules. Do I qualify for some kind of award?
That is like 400 printed pages.
It's longer than the Fellowship of the Ring.
Quote from: P&P;687551It's longer than the Fellowship of the Ring.
Christers, man.
Quote from: P&P;687551It's longer than the Fellowship of the Ring.
That's what
she said!
...yeah I've already called a taxi thanks...
Quote from: P&P;687551It's longer than the Fellowship of the Ring.
That sounds like a porn advertisement.
Question for you on OSRIC, since we are talking houserules, why did you decide to not include XP values for magic items in the rules?
Quote from: LibraryLass;687495On the contrary. I'm being self-effacing in my choice of words. At least when it comes to D&D, there are a lot of houserules I like, to the point that I'm concerned that using all the ones I might be tempted to turns my game into a Frankenstein's monster of a system that, were I to run a game for completely new players, would give them a lot of mistaken expectations were they to game with somebody else.
It isn't complicated.
The referee's table, the referee rules.
It is the referee responsibility to explain clearly the rules of his game.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687479Is there an amount of house ruling for a game at which point it becomes intellectually dishonest when teaching new players? If so, where is that point reached?
No, not really.
To avoid intellectual dishonesty, you should explain that there are house rules that you use, so if your players are familiar with the 'standard rules' they may notice some differences. If your players are unfamiliar with the 'standard rules', once they're familiar with them, you can offer to explain your house rules and what benefit you think they provide over the standard rules.
Most players won't really care as long as they're having fun.
But if you have players that are interested in why you do things differently, providing your reasoning may help inform the thinking of the next great game designer.
As a GM, you shouldn't feel constrained by a particular ruleset. To be fair to your players, when you alter the ruleset, you should be prepared to explain the differences. If you give a player the books and they decide to make a character that relies on 'stick into snakes' and 'snake charm' as the basis of the character, it's unfortunate when you have to explain that isn't available because of your house rules. But for new players, you'll be guiding them through the options, so it should be only a minor issue. For experienced players, having a list of house rules is extremely helpful.
If you don't have one handy, try to make notes when you hit a house rule during the game and add it to the document.
Quote from: P&P;687544At last count, I've got 236,000 words of OSRIC house rules. Do I qualify for some kind of award?
Rust Never Sleeps, with oak cluster. And I thought Mythmere was the indefatigable one!
Quote from: jeff37923;687555That sounds like a porn advertisement.
Question for you on OSRIC, since we are talking houserules, why did you decide to not include XP values for magic items in the rules?
They are included in version 2.2 and later, if I'm not mistaken, and thus Black Blade Publishing's second printing and later. P&P?
Well, the paradigm under which I learned to play was "Tell me what you want to do. If you need to roll some kind of dice I'll tell you what to roll." Not having to know the rules to play was a huge part of the appeal. "Just sit down and start playing!"
Or as Dave Arneson said, "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Roll the dice; I'll tell you if you it or not."
Or "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity"
Dungeons and Dragons, Volume 1, "Men and Magic", page 4. (TSR, 1974)
"If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!),
Ibid.
"There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" (emphasis mine)
Dungeons and Dragons, Volume 3, Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, page 36. (TSR, 1974)
Quote from: Benoist;687564They are included in version 2.2 and later, if I'm not mistaken, and thus Black Blade Publishing's second printing and later. P&P?
I've got one of the first copies, I will have to download again I guess.
I am upfront with my players that they are playing "My D&D" and the game rules in the book may be different and their experience with othe DMs may be different as well.
This was an issue at cons in the early 80s. We had lots of people who showed up whose home game was a WTF amalgamation and they swore they were sure they were playing RAW.
On the flip side, we had DMs who confounded players by expecting them to accept WTF houserules when they signed up for a 6 hour slot expecting a game of AD&D.
And then there were the Explainer DMs who spent 30-60 minutes of a 4 hour session trying to explain their byzantine house rules. At the Northern California Cons, I pushed for GMs to try to play RAW at cons because then both DMs and players would know what to expect. For several years, PacifiCon had GMs list a % of houserules to be used. Thus, you could decide if you wanted to play D&D with the 0%, 20% or 80% house rule people.
The house rule issue mostly died out in the 2e days, at least from what I saw at conventions. I think Living Campaigns being RAW only had an effect as did the "gamer as consumer" culture than took over the hobby.
BUT most importantly, fuck the rules. Spend your brain power making your game table's fun more awesome, not conformed to somebody else's standard of fun.
Quote from: Spinachcat;687581BUT most importantly, fuck the rules. Spend your brain power making your game table's fun more awesome, not conformed to somebody else's standard of fun.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
(I must be drunk)
Quote from: Rincewind1;687485About halfway to the Moon, but before the Cottage Cheese horizon.
We can't stop here, this is bat country.
Quote from: J Arcane;687585We can't stop here, this is bat country.
We're going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Century of the Fruitbat.
Quote from: Benoist;687564They are included in version 2.2 and later, if I'm not mistaken, and thus Black Blade Publishing's second printing and later. P&P?
Correct. It was a screwup on my part that took much too long to fix.
Quote from: Old Geezer;687565"There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" (emphasis mine)
Dungeons and Dragons, Volume 3, Underworld and Wilderness Adventures, page 36. (TSR, 1974)
"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do."
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters Guide, afterward (exact page no. varies by printing revision)
...which is not to disagree with you; quite to the contrary, both quotes are accurate and complimentary.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687607"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you
This is why we can't have nice things >_<
Quote from: LibraryLass;687495At least when it comes to D&D, there are a lot of houserules I like, to the point that I'm concerned that using all the ones I might be tempted to turns my game into a Frankenstein's monster of a system that, were I to run a game for completely new players, would give them a lot of mistaken expectations were they to game with somebody else.
Everything I run is a Frankengame (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/frankengame.html).
Perhaps you could teach new players that every campaign is unique.
Quote from: J Arcane;687585We can't stop here, this is bat country.
Quote from: Old Geezer;687591We're going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Century of the Fruitbat.
I, for one, AM our new overlords! :D
-clash
I have never, ever, run a game RAW, not even the first time I ran an RPG. Not even my *own* games.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;687635I, for one, AM our new overlords! :D
-clash
Sic semper tyrannosaurus.
Come to think about it, that quote could make an interesting setting - an alternative history where dinosaurs returned from hiding somewhere, say, around the fall of Rome and took over the world/Western hemisphere.
Quote from: Rincewind1;687637Sic semper tyrannosaurus.
Come to think about it, that quote could make an interesting setting - an alternative history where dinosaurs returned from hiding somewhere, say, around the fall of Rome and took over the world/Western hemisphere.
I am NOT listening! I am NOT going to be tempted! I have ENOUGH ridiculous hyper-niche game ideas! LALALALALALALALALA!
-clash
Quote from: Black Vulmea;687629Perhaps you could teach new players that every campaign is unique.
And that that is, in fact, the point.
If I ever, EVER run D&D again (as opposed to "a limited time dungeon crawl" or "hey let's play D&D for a night at a convention) the FIRST thing I'm going to do is come up with entirely new creatures.
There will be some names in common, of course... gargoyles, basilisks, etc, are actual creatures from medieval mythology... but the statistics will not be the same.
Quote from: Rincewind1;687637Sic semper tyrannosaurus.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loz6w4QIVD1qdj4sio1_400.jpg)
QuoteCome to think about it, that quote could make an interesting setting - an alternative history where dinosaurs returned from hiding somewhere, say, around the fall of Rome and took over the world/Western hemisphere.
Dr. McNinja did it!
Quote from: thedungeondelver;687648(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loz6w4QIVD1qdj4sio1_400.jpg)
Venture Bros. had some really nice RPG hooks, even for mini settings, so to speak.
QuoteDr. McNinja did it!
Did he now? I must catch up, I left around the time storyline with the unicorn and King of Awesome (or however was his name) ended.
Quote from: flyingmice;687642I am NOT listening! I am NOT going to be tempted! I have ENOUGH ridiculous hyper-niche game ideas! LALALALALALALALALA!
-clash
Truth be told I was more musing for myself, you know, another mini - project I'll never get to starting let alone finishing ;).
Eeesh.
Sorry, but the whole premise that there's something "ridiculous" about house rules sticks in my craw. These game systems weren't revealed by winged seraphs bearing golden tablets down from the heavens. They were written by gamers, who brought their own experiences and fetishes in to the draft. Heck, I played in the campaign of one of the fellows who had one of the first house rules that was adopted into the D&D game system, and as far as I could figure, he was a mortal man like any other. (Also not very good a DM, but that's another tale.)
For my part, I play GURPS. I have a number of house rules, which I have on a handout so people aren't bushwhacked. While I have a long term, stable player base (the player of mine with the least seniority has been in my campaign ten years), I'm blissfully unconcerned that someone new might walk in and cry out "OMG you're not playing GURPS," or that someone might try another GURPS campaign and be horrified that the rules aren't quite the same. I presume that my players are grownups, who can handle the fact that the world isn't a cookie cutter environment. If a prospective player proves not to be a grownup, I'd much rather know that up front.
The only ethical thing to do is to buy an RPG product produced by a corporation, and follow the letter of the text. Creating a group credo where the corporation and designers are ritually praised is optional, but clearly more intellectually honest than to omit it.
Quote from: Ravenswing;687651Eeesh.
Sorry, but the whole premise that there's something "ridiculous" about house rules sticks in my craw.
In the quantities that I, and allegedly P&P use them? It starts to get a bit silly.
I think people are being too quick to take offense here. The OP is an advocate of houserules and characterizing her own use of them.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687654In the quantities that I, and allegedly P&P use them? It starts to get a bit silly.
Well, the truth is - does it bother you or your players on anything else than some "moral" level?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;687656I think people are being too quick to take offense here. The OP is an advocate of houserules and characterizing her own use of them.
I'm more of a piss - taker here.
When I play in Mike's D&D game I want it to be different from Todd or Larry's D&D game. That kind of ... "Auteur-ism" (For want of a less pretentious word) is a big part of what makes RPGs as a hobby special compared to more passive, uniform entertainments like TV.
Quote from: LibraryLass;687479Is there an amount of house ruling for a game at which point it becomes intellectually dishonest when teaching new players? If so, where is that point reached?
The question of 'how many houserules does it take until it's not the same game anymore?' is valid, but, all your houserules are just taken from other versions of Dungeons & Dragons, it seems.
Just tell them you're playing Dungeons & Dragons. That's not dishonest, that's a damned retrospective. If they care enough, they'll find out the differences. What the players really care about when learning a new game is having a fun time, not edition wars.
//Panjumanju
That is a good point. I want the rules to reflect the campaign needs. Thus I expect restrictions upon what is allowed into the campaign, such as class or skill limits, relevant monsters in a random encounter table, etc.
However, for new players? I don't see how teaching players a variant somehow "breaks" them from learning any other RPG, including a version of the same game without such house rules. Besides, there's countless games structured as toolkits, which means variant game builds are the norm.
Unless organized play is some sort of play benchmark, and goal for the new player, there is no real ethical 'there' there. It only matters for mutually intellgible grasp of the play pool options. But that's only necessary for some sort of competitive parity, of which chargen metagame is the only reason why this could ever matter. RPGs are not about organized play's chargen metagame; that's a separate game entirely with its own context and lens with which to read the RPG text.
Yeah, I agree. Players are learning how to play you're campaign, not the system, and it doesn't stop them from learning other RPGs later. Houserules are there because they need to be to make the game more playable or fun generally, and this is never a concern that should lead to dropping them.
With new players? I think it'd be important to sit them down outside of the game, make sure they grasped the rules-as-written, and then explain how things were different for the game on hand - and more importantly why those changes were made.
With experienced players? Same thing, only less carefully. I'm personally 100% cool with house rules so long as they're completely explained and the GM has made certain that they're understood. I don't expect perfect felicity with a text, but there should be a serious effort made to ensure that everyone is on board.
Quote from: Doccit;687671Yeah, I agree. Players are learning how to play you're campaign, not the system, and it doesn't stop them from learning other RPGs later. Houserules are there because they need to be to make the game more playable or fun generally, and this is never a concern that should lead to dropping them.
D&D is kind of weird in that people often seem to expect to be able to slot into any D&D game anywhere, hence (doomed) projects like Living Greyhawk. But my experience in the rest of the RPG world suggests that houserules are the norm, not the exception. Games like Fate, nWoD and GURPS all highlight these to the point where two of my own GURPS campaigns don't play alike, never mind the GURPS campaigns of two different GMs.
Rulesets are suggestions and guidelines that are interpreted differently by every GM who gets their hands on them. Sometimes those interpretations are "wrong," sometimes they are purely for thematic reasons, but sometimes they are improvements, or just adaptions to the peculiarities of the GM ("I can't remember all those modifiers, so I have this simplified, streamlined system.")
You might not be "teaching them D&D," but I'd argue that's rather irrelevant, as even if you ran it "Rules as Written," their next D&D game with someone else won't be, and they need to have fun with your game. It might be nice to make sure they have access to those houserules somewhere, if they want to "read along" and have a consistent rules-environment, as some players really value that and dislike feeling like they're playing by GM-fiat, but other than that, no, house rules are not "intellectually dishonest."
I actually find house rules kind of fun, now that I think of it. Like GM: "Hey, bud: This is what Celerity Three means as written. But we've tweaked it so that it means this when it comes up against Auspex Two. But don't worry; things won't get fucked up - check out how we've rewritten Potence Four." Me: "Oh, okay. Can I rewrite my character accordingly?" GM: "Yeah, sure, we're not in game yet." Me "Awesome. Pass the pretzels."
For a player new to the game it gets even simpler: "Hey, so, yeah, you've read how Celerity, Potence, and Auspex work, right?" Newb: "Of course." GM: "Well, just so you know they work in these specific ways in our game." Newb: "Oh, alright. Can I restat my character before we begin?" GM: "Absolutely." Newb: "Cool, thanks." GM: "Would you like some pretzels?"
Quote from: LibraryLass;687654In the quantities that I, and allegedly P&P use them? It starts to get a bit silly.
Well, considering that we're all indulging in a baroque explosion of kiddie "make-pretend" games, at which 90% of the adults in the world would laugh at us, "silly" is a bit misplaced.
But jocularity aside, that's like saying it's "silly" to have seven players in your campaign, or "silly" to have a 80% RP/20% combat ratio of play, or "silly" to play
TFT instead of D&D, or "silly" to use minis and a battle mat. This is a game. You play in the style you want, with the game system you want, in the milieu you want, in the venue you want, with the players you want, using the rules you want. If the way you do those things suits you and suits your group, who cares?