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.