House Rules vs Rules as Written

[sthanheykel]

My opinion is that House Rules shouldn't be used unless they are covering some mechanics not explored by the original system. I generally prefer modular RP systems, which allow GMs to choose which rules they wanna play, depending on the level of realism, setting or just personal preference, like GURPS and Savage Worlds.

However, when it comes to MU*s, it's sometimes necessary to do some adaptations, some RP systems will work better for it (in my experience, WoD seems like a good example, though XP becomes a problem after a while), some will need tweaks or a complete overhaul. I also believe that if you design a HR, you should constantly run tests and hear the experience of your players for constant improvement.

[Coin]

You should House Rule the things you feel need to be House Ruled.

You should not let people House Rule things on your game willy-nilly.

You should be prepared to explain clearly and concisely why the House Rules exists.

You should be ready for the inevitable avalanche of disagreement.

You should be able to stand steadfast before said avalanche.

If any of these are not applicable, you should not House Rule.

[Faceless]

@Coin said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

You should not let people House Rule things on your game willy-nilly.

This is pretty much where my general distaste for House Rules and "custom content" comes from. A previous game I played and it's secondary incarnation is guilty of this. Beyond the point of being able to readily measure just how much has been HRed and the obvious jockeying to make one aspect of the game "better", while neglecting many aspects that could have used a new shiny coating for their respective turds.

[Arkandel]

When I HRed some Underworld powers (both in Death spells and Sin-Eater powers) I explained why - it might or not have been the right call but I think it's important players know the reasoning behind your actions.

It doesn't happen very often overall though. Things are taken out with no explanations as to why.

@Coin said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

You should be ready for the inevitable avalanche of disagreement.

You should be able to stand steadfast before said avalanche.

Well, and listen. I mean you might as well - perhaps there's a solution you haven't thought of. Rules should never be in place because you feel you'll look weak if you cave-in when a good point is made, for instance.

[ThugHeaven]

@Sunny said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

I find house rules to be a necessary thing. Most tabletop systems are not designed for a persistent world that has more than 5-6 people, and thus absolutely must be modified with that factor in mind.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Warma Sheen]

@Sunny said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

I find house rules to be a necessary thing. Most tabletop systems are not designed for a persistent world that has more than 5-6 people, and thus absolutely must be modified with that factor in mind.

I found that this idea was often applied to WoD games when in fact, large groups of LARPers were not only known about and recognized, but had books written for them. And yet in many WoD games this was continually thrown about as an excuse to change something, despite the fact that it did not necessarily apply.

I think the issue with places that have "excessive" HRs (and maybe HRs in general) is that people just want to change the game to fit them rather than playing it the way it was presented, but don't want to own up to that. So they try to justify it with explanations that don't quite hold water. There have been many HRs justified as 'this is a mistake and probably wasn't meant to be this way' despite the fact that errata (and sometimes a second round of errata) was released and that particular thing wasn't addressed.

It takes a healthy ego to assume knowledge of what an author meant, declare his/her work a mistake, even after two official revisions of their work, and declare the fix you think they would make had they caught the mistake they must have missed through those two revisions and corrections.

I'm not saying that unnecessarily changing the rules to fit a staffer's personal preferences is bad or good. I just wish people would own up to the real reasons behind the HRs rather than coming up with excuses.

[Sunny]

@Warma-Sheen

WoD LARP uses a completely different system than for tabletop (and the mushes have in all but a very few cases used the tabletop system, so 'there's books for LARP' has nothing, at all, to do with the price of tea in China), but beyond that, it is also not designed as a persistent world with multiple splats all mixed together and....etc.

If the game is played differently than intended (as a mush, instead of a LARP or a tabletop), then rules must be adjusted accordingly. How does this have anything to do with ego, saying a dev made a mistake, or anything else? With LARP/tabletop rules, it is not possible to 'play it as it was presented' in the first place, if you're doing it on a mush. Because MUSH, not LARP. Because MUSH, not tabletop.

Refusing to recognize the need to adjust things because you don't like house rules is foolish. Calling it an excuse is downright stupid.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Sunny Insisting that things need to be House Ruled 'because they don't work', when in reality they do work (just not the way the staffer/player wants them to) is also downright stupid. Which I believe is what @Warma-Sheen is trying to express.

Yes, some House Rules are necessary for conversion from tabletop to MU*. If you try to tell me that every House Rule that was made for Haunted Memories, The Reach, and Fallcoast was absolutely necessary? I will laugh at you for forever.

Nobody has even once said that House Rules should never happen. Not once. Can we please stop trying to force that into anyone's post as though it can be used to refute everything they're saying? Actually... let me just...

There.

[Warma Sheen]

@Sunny Most of the powers play the same way in LARP or tabletop. The systems for determining success or failure are different, but the powers generally do the same thing. So in case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about HRing concepts, not systems for determining success (staff changing powers whole cloth, ruling they don't work on certain things or certain situations, banning them outright, etc...)

Taking a rule from the tabletop and saying 'this power wasn't made for large numbers of people' when there's a book with the same power, same application but just with a different system for determining success is a cop out.

And does anyone really believe these people who are contributing writing to WoD books have never considered that gamers aren't going to play splats against each other? Or that there won't be players using these systems against other players? How is it we play these games over and over again, and yet people seem to give the writers so little credit for developing these games we love so much. So little.

Anyway... (add inflammatory insults and name calling here because it makes my argument stronger)

[Ganymede]

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

And does anyone really believe these people who are contributing writing to WoD books have never considered that gamers aren't going to play splats against each other? Or that there won't be players using these systems against other players?

In the past, games have tried to balance the splats against one another. This is arguably necessary for oWoD, where PvP is built into the system.

In nWoD, there is less of an emphasis to PvP, so one may argue that House Ruling for balance is unnecessary.

But, seriously, the Autumn Court's Changeling 1E boon is shit. No one disagrees with this. It tends to be House Ruled to something with some application.

I have my doubts about the writers after seeing Secrets of the Covenant. That book sucks.

[Warma Sheen]

@Ganymede said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

But, seriously, the Autumn Court's Changeling 1E boon is shit. No one disagrees with this. It tends to be House Ruled to something with some application.

That's a good example of an HR + reasoning that I can get behind. No pretense. 'I think it sucks and I wanted to change it.'

Not: 'in a MU* environment, it doesn't offer the practical applications that a tabletop as written blah blah blah Bob Loblaw blah...'

That's what I'm talkin bout.

[surreality]

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

Not: 'in a MU* environment, it doesn't offer the practical applications that a tabletop as written blah blah blah Bob Loblaw blah...'

That's what I'm talkin bout.

If you do not think that being in the physical presence of other players vs. being an anonymous entity outside punching/dice-throwing/ability to see horrified looks on people's faces range makes a profound difference on behavior, you're pretty dangerously ignorant of human psychology.

[Ganymede]

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

Not: 'in a MU* environment, it doesn't offer the practical applications that a tabletop as written blah blah blah Bob Loblaw blah.'

Here's two good examples of things that don't work on a MU that would work in TT: oWoD's Dark Fate flaw and Common Sense merit. These should be House Ruled or barred.

[Warma Sheen]

@surreality Doubtful. I think you're just willing to cater to worse behavior than I would be.

@Ganymede said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

Here's two good examples of things that don't work on a MU that would work in TT: oWoD's Dark Fate flaw and Common Sense merit. These should be House Ruled or barred.

Not sure about Dark Fate off the top of my head, but Common Sense is one that should have 0 issue and should be taken by more people, but isn't because people don't want to "waste" points.

[surreality]

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

@surreality Doubtful. I think you're just willing to cater to worse behavior than I would be.

That's almost cute as a bad strawman dodge attempt, but it ain't gonna work.

What I -- as player or staff -- tolerate or not has precious little bearing on what some people will attempt to get away with on any given game, period.

You seem to be living in some mythical place where I'd admittedly love to live where the combination of anonymity and a large population of potential targets means people don't try to get away with shit they would never dare attempt were their identity known, or if they had to look someone in the eye while they were doing it.

These are the real social pressures of a tabletop or LARP group, individually or in combination. If you genuinely don't believe that their removal has a profound impact on what a great many people will try to get away with online, you're in for a very rude awakening some day, and have never heard of The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, or it's more serious descriptor, the online disinhibition effect.

[Miss Demeanor]

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

@surreality Doubtful. I think you're just willing to cater to worse behavior than I would be.

@Ganymede said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

Here's two good examples of things that don't work on a MU that would work in TT: oWoD's Dark Fate flaw and Common Sense merit. These should be House Ruled or barred.

Not sure about Dark Fate off the top of my head, but Common Sense is one that should have 0 issue and should be taken by more people, but isn't because people don't want to "waste" points.

I'll be honest, I can't really remember owod's Common Sense merit, but if its anything like nwod's Common Sense merit, then its terrible in a MU* setting. Useful once per chapter (ugh, already having to convert TT time to MU time), the Storyteller can make a roll for you (so it can only be used in a plot with a dedicated ST) to determine risk vs rewards of potential actions. And mind, the ST is under zero compunction actually allow you to use this merit. The merit itself states as such. For this, you use up 4 of 7 given merit dots (because of course, its character creation only).

There's not even really a good way to track how often a given character is using this merit. Seriously, given that in this day and age, anyone can be an ST... how do you keep track? How do you make sure that someone isn't using this in every plot scene? What staffer would want to have to track this?

[tragedyjones]

@Ganymede said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

I have my doubts about the writers after seeing Secrets of the Covenant. That book sucks.

You suck, book is dope.

[Groth]

@Derp said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

House Rules need to be written, IMO, like court opinions. You need to both announce the change to the rules, and explain the reasoning for it (which is an excellent use for MU Talk Pages). You need to offer some background to explain why this fixes a problem, so that (in the event someone has an idea that actually does it better) you can scrap the thing. Or, if it turns out you were just being needlessly reactionary after people review it, you can remove it and go back to basics.

You could, but I don't think I would put the background work on the rule on the rules page as that would make what is on many games an already difficult thing to keep up with even harder for most people to grasp in their entirety but if anyone is interested, you should definitely be able to show them.

I think the amount of house rules a game needs depends heavily on what kind of game it is. Back when I played Exalted 2nd Edition on javachats, the list of house rules tended to be absolutely gigantic because that game was near unplayable as the rules were written.

That can be contrasted with Requiem for Kingsmouth which also had an absolutely massive amount of house rules, however RfK's house rules were for the most part additional systems added to VTR2 rather then an attempt to fix anything written in the book.

Generally I rather dislike house rules that change book mechanics since that requires players to look in two places to find out how something works and that also goes for Errata. The absolute worst situation is when understanding a single mechanic requires looking in 3 or 4 places because it relies on two books, official errata to those books and the house rules.

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

And does anyone really believe these people who are contributing writing to WoD books have never considered that gamers aren't going to play splats against each other? Or that there won't be players using these systems against other players? How is it we play these games over and over again, and yet people seem to give the writers so little credit for developing these games we love so much. So little.

Let's be honest here. Has White Wolf or Onyx Path ever been known to release tested and solid game mechanics*? I don't know about you, but the reason I play their games is because I love the feel of the settings and you can go a long way without actually throwing dice around.

*VTR 2 was pretty good though.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Warma-Sheen said in House Rules vs Rules as Written:

Not sure about Dark Fate off the top of my head, but Common Sense is one that should have 0 issue and should be taken by more people, but isn't because people don't want to "waste" points.

You do realize that as written common sense requires a storyteller present, right? That is not something that is happening in the vast majority of MUSH scenes, making it a prime example of something not written for a MUSH environment.

Edit for @Miss-Demeanor OWoD version is just the storyteller warns you before you do something abjectly stupid. Exact wording "Storyteller should alert you as to how your potential action might violate practicality."
No roll involved.

[Killer Klown]

@Coin Most importantly, to me at least:
You should make sure the House Rule you're putting in place for one thing does not break one or more other things.

I've seen people fail on that one in so many epic ways.