S&P Fusion PPs article

[dragoner]

House rules scare off players, also because it says something about the GM; if they are house ruling everything, you actually don't know what you are playing, and have no idea what is going to change when.

 

[Wil Mireu]

House rules scare off players, also because it says something about the GM; if they are house ruling everything, you actually don't know what you are playing, and have no idea what is going to change when.

If you're playing in games where you literally have no idea what the rules are then the GM is quite obviously doing it wrong.

In my experience house rules are defined up-front, so people always know what they're playing when they start a game. They don't usually change mid-game, but if they do (because of some unforeseen circumstance) then they change on the agreement of everyone after discussion between sessions.

 

[dragoner]

Even defined up front, it scares off players, largely because it means learning a bunch of new rules. I think in some ways it also can denote the GM being a rules lawyer, which can also be bad. Changes in mechanics breaks every design as well, for example with ships; but if something is broken and you can fix it by changing a single word or something, usually that isn't a big deal.

 

[Wil Mireu]

Even defined up front, it scares off players, largely because it means learning a bunch of new rules. I think in some ways it also can denote the GM being a rules lawyer, which can also be bad. Changes in mechanics breaks every design as well, for example with ships; but if something is broken and you can fix it by changing a single word or something, usually that isn't a big deal.

I think that's all very much a matter of opinion. I've never seen anyone being "scared off" by house rules, and I've never seen any evidence that it says anything bad about the GM at all. Evidently you don't like GMs who do that, but others may prefer GMs who make the effort to fix holes and flaws in the rules.

Either way, this has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[dragoner]

I think that's all very much a matter of opinion. I've never seen anyone being "scared off" by house rules, and I've never seen any evidence that it says anything bad about the GM at all.

How much have you actually played? Observation is a practical part of empiricism.

Either way, this has nothing to do with the topic.

While anyone can respond to anything, mine was a reply to GypsyComet's post.

 

[Jame Rowe]

As long as the article is up front about it. I cannot count the number of times Traveller discussions have gone horribly wrong because one (or more!) of the participants was using unstated assumptions that were significantly different from the rules baseline and/or the assumptions put down in the opening statements. These assumptions can and have come from a different reading list of SF from which they draw their Traveller experience, to a variant article in a long-dead magazine, to "that's how we've always done it here" that they can't otherwise source, and that assumes they even recognize what they are doing as different.

I thought I was up front about it, but I see how I could have been unclear. I may rewrite it at some point.

 

[Condottiere]

House rules is something to be paranoid about in wargames such as Warhammer (or Trillion Credit Squadron), where you fear that they may be biased in your opponent's favour. In a cooperative game, which is what RPGs tend to be, and there's no contest between the players and the DM in trying to get the best of each other, they're meant to ease flow of play.

Handwavium is easier in fantasy RPG.

 

[Jame Rowe]

House rules is something to be paranoid about in wargames such as Warhammer (or Trillion Credit Squadron), where you fear that they may be biased in your opponent's favour. In a cooperative game, which is what RPGs tend to be, and there's no contest between the players and the DM in trying to get the best of each other, they're meant to ease flow of play.

Handwavium is easier in fantasy RPG.

Exactly. I put this rule in because the rules-as-written made no sense to me. I tend to be, for fantasy/sci-fi RPGs, a member of the "if it doesn't work for your group, change it to see what does" mindset.*

I also have Compendium 1 (got it for having the article in it - thanks, MongooseMatt!); I can easily bring that in and show it - or just get a blank sheet, copy down everything except for the power plant duration, and put in a new duration. If anyone asks, I'll say "house rule" and show it to them if they ask for it.

*=For example, my fiancée and I sometimes play d20 Revised Star Wars. One of the classes is Fringer, which is essentially designed as a Barbarian or other lives-on-the-edge type. They only get Weapon Proficiency with Simple and Primitive Weapons, which means they have TL 1-2 stuff - and they'll just get shot if they go into combat. We eventually decided that the Fringer should, generally speaking, have Firearms Proficiency in place of Primitive Weapons. Not much good against stormtrooper armor, but at least they're not going to use a sword to charge a blaster-wielder.