Brett, I am sorry to bother you as I am merely a loyal podcast listener and it’s not like I have even met you in person etc.

I was wondering if you could tell me what you like about astonishing swordsman and sorcerers… I saw it at a convention and it looked gorgeous and I’m really considering. It ain’t cheap though

If it’s Not a game you feel like talking about… No harm no foul!

My preference is to avoid house rules whenever possible. This has the unfortunate side effect of making it very difficult to find a system that works the way I want without house rules. Now, if it just comes down to ignoring a particular rule because it doesn’t provide sufficient benefit for the added complexity, that’s no big deal. But if it comes to actually changing or adding rules, I tend to start looking for another system. I don’t want to have to generate a handout of house rules.

As an extreme example, a new player joined our group some years back. After a few months, he wanted to run, so I took a break from GMing. The first session he handed us his house rules for the system, and it was about three pages. Annoying, but okay. Every session after that, he handed us his updated house rules. By the time we’d had enough it was up to about 8 pages. Some of these changes caused us to go back and re-work our characters to fit his new rules. That was the worst I’ve ever seen. We quietly left his group shortly thereafter as some of his old group had re-joined and it wouldn’t kill his game. (Which we were willing to do at that point, but it was good it didn’t come to that.)

Much of the topic, to me, seems dependent on context. For most of the newest games, I would agree with Sean: play that game; otherwise, what are you playing? But there is another discourse that is predominantly composed of house rules. This is the OSR, a gaming arena that is expanding outside of its first and most prominent interest in the Original Game to comprise such old school systems as Rolemaster, Champions, Star Wars d6, Runequest, Warhammer—they all are returning, many as modified retroclones, some with different titles, packages and innovations. Sean sounded somewhat disparaging when he said that such games as DCC are house ruled versions of D&D that, in turn, are house ruled again, becoming yet newer games. I’d like to hear more about what he thinks about this. Some might say—and this accords with Brett’s cooking metaphor—that no table of D&D ever precisely has played the exact same game.

It seems to me that all the systems under the umbrella of the Original Game and others are voices in an ongoing conversation about “this is how we play.” Those purchasing such games are hearing more and more of the discussion, and they are being encouraged to borrow or modify anything they happen to like. What’s the ultimate aim? It’s to most effectively cultivate a particular experience at the table or online, whether this method of play is designed by the Referee or by the common will of the game group. All these systems are tools for emulating specific fictions, in whatever manner seems to be the most elegant and effective, within the game. With this aim, whether or not a group is playing a certain game as “intended” becomes secondary. Does that sound accurate? I might be suggesting that the most satisfying games—remembering that the goal of a particular game is a certain experience—are kluges of an entire rpg library.

As an extreme example, a new player joined our group some years back. After a few months, he wanted to run, so I took a break from GMing. The first session he handed us his house rules for the system, and it was about three pages. Annoying, but okay. Every session after that, he handed us his updated house rules. By the time we’d had enough it was up to about 8 pages. Some of these changes caused us to go back and re-work our characters to fit his new rules. That was the worst I’ve ever seen. We quietly left his group shortly thereafter as some of his old group had re-joined and it wouldn’t kill his game. (Which we were willing to do at that point, but it was good it didn’t come to that.)

I’m confused – where do official “optional” rules fall in this false dichotomy? :slight_smile:

I really have a problem with any statement like “If you feel you have to change any of the rules, you should look for another system.” I find that, on the face of it, absolutist, absurd, and insulting.

For D&D 5e there are common reinterpretation of RAW that are “house rules” at more tables than not, such as “Inspiration”: RAW say to use it BEFORE a roll for advantage. Many of us allow it to be used as just-in-time Advantage AFTER seeing a role. That shouldn’t prompt a “well, you’re playing the wrong game then” response.

Let’s stop telling people they are playing it wrong without even taking the time to play with the people we’re judging.