Beating A Dead Horse (or why system matters to me)

[Sean-o-tron]

I thought I'd put something out here that I've been thinking about for the past couple of days and can't get out of my head.
The rules in RPGs are made to promote a certain style of play that the designer or designers want to facilitate.  If you're using a certain system, it's assumed that you want to play/run a certain way that this system promises.  If you are house-ruling, modding, and/or kludging an RPG, why are you even playing that game in the first place?  Discuss.

Also, here's some food for thought: Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

[Murph]

I suppose it depends on if it's a generic system like GURPS or a setting specific system like Shadowrun.  One quality a system has is adaptibility.  Some are better at it than others.  Setting specific systems like Shadowrun tend to have lower adaptibility.  Is it a design flaw I can't run a game set in the Settlers of Catan universe in Shadowrun easily?  I'd hope not.

I think the source of this discussion comes from the fact that 3.5 and now 4th D&d, the most popular systems out there have low adaptibility.  Both are setting specific high fantasy, and don't translate well to other genre.  Are these design flaws? Again I say no.  3.5 had d20, but each new setting needed custom rules, written by (hopefully) professionals.  I'm sure we'll see 4th edition Modern sometime (dang that actually sounds pretty sweet)

[rayner23]

The only house rules that I think are fully acceptable are the ones that make the game less complicated. If the game is too damn complicated in one area while the rest of the system is pretty useful, then might as well change that one thing.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Because people develope affinity with certain systems and once they do they become blind to the flaw and weaknesses of their choosen system. Naturally that's more of a problem with focused systems like Dungeons and Dragons.

Crossing systems over can be interesting. I, for one, own a set of books that convert Old World of Darkness games like Vampire: The Masquerade into GURPS 3.0 rules and options.

My own weakness is New World of Darkness.

[doctorscraps]

I think it really depends on how many House Rules we're talking. In my group, we have the standard House Rules that account for almost any given game. I don't have the list with me, but if I remember correctly, I can count them on both hands.

But the main things is~ House Rules exist to counter a rule or part of the system the group unanimously believes dousn't work nor fit~ Now if it comes to the fact that you have 20 House Rules for a game, I heavily suggest looking for something that fits your criteria better.

[Corrosive Rabbit]

I tend to agree with the original poster.  While I think there's room for minor house rules that make things easier or clarify things that are unclear, I tend to shy away from GMs who delight in having pages and pages of house rules.

Engage Anecdote Dispersal Device!

One GM I played under briefly went way overboard with house-rules.  The campaign started out as a standard D&D 3.5 game.  Then he unilaterally announced that he would be instituting a spell point system for magic.  And critical hit and fumble tables cribbed from Rolemaster.  And skill and feat training rules of his own design.  I excused myself from the group, explaining that this wasn't really what I was looking for.  He of course exploded and announced that I was banned from his games.  When I pointed out that throwing me out of his game for choosing to leave was a bit redundant, he launched into a barrage of emails and blog posts berating me and some of the other members of the group for being slaves to corporate gaming and not appreciating his unique flair for GMing.

I later ran into other players of his who recounted nearly the exact same story.  I gather he's tried this bait-and-switch scheme many times in an attempt to find people who will play his homebrew system.  I guess he figured that nobody would join up if he presented the system outright (he's probably not wrong), and so lures innocent gamers in with promises of fun D&D gaming ...   

CR

[doctorscraps]

Slaves to Corporate Gaming...When those words in that order make an appearance, you know this guy has had this issue for a good while.

[Corrosive Rabbit]

Slaves to Corporate Gaming...When those words in that order make an appearance, you know this guy has had this issue for a good while.

Yes -- he believed that Wizards, Steve Jackson Games, and other such companies were corporate monoliths that threatened good gamers everywhere.  His website is down right now, or I could link to some of his blog entries on the subject.   

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a huge fan of everything Wizards/Hasbro does, but I'm pretty sure that they're several steps away from ruling the world and enslaving us to their whim ...

CR

[doctorscraps]

Not to mention, where would we be without the corporations?
Does he have some sort of pipe dream of a world where Game Masters must craft their own tomes from the ether?

[Corrosive Rabbit]

Not to mention, where would we be without the corporations?
Does he have some sort of pipe dream of a world where Game Masters must craft their own tomes from the ether?

I think that he figured that if he could somehow rally the gaming masses to rise up and cast down the corporate overlords, we'd be left in a perfect utopia in which he could find players for his abortion of a homebrew system.

CR

[doctorscraps]

Reminds me of Ninja Stallin F--- from Episode 29-Time of Judgement.

[Sean-o-tron]

The thing that got my brain ticking about all this was the Brilliant Gameologists Sode #24: Rule 0. 

It's fascinating stuff, check it out.

[doctorscraps]

*takes a looksie*