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.