| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a phenomenon I've seen on the boards, and elsewhere. It's where a player is in love with a certain style of play, perhaps just a single conception of how a rule works, that they believe that interpretation is the truth despite all evidence to the contrary. This often happens when players are taught the game from actual play rather than reading the books and have perhaps only skimmed the bits not immediately relevant to their characters.
I am not opposed to houseruling things to work the way you want. In fact, I encourage it. I houserule a popeload of rules!
The problem is where people claim their houserules are the real rules. Some believe it with religious fervor.
The key to effective communication is to recognise when your preference for a rule is getting in the way of what the rule actually says.
Don't be afraid to hate the rules. If something doesn't work how you want it to, recognise that! Take hold of that dissonance between desire and actuality and use it to build upon. Don't wallow in self-deception.
Houserules are okay. Houserules are good. You don't need to lie to yourself and others when you play the game differently from how it's written.
Remember: You can be wrong in your interpretations of the rules. Use logic. Use proof. If the rule reads in a way that makes the game suck for you, don't let that impair your pursuit of truth. Once you have seen and identified the flaw, you can mend it.
I am really tired so I am going to sleep now. Tomorrow I will probably come back and read this and facepalm at some critical error. Oh well. I'm sure someone will have pointed it out by then.
|
I agree completely with this sentiment. As do my nine pages of House Rules. :)
I love Pathfinder...but some stuff just isn't as good as it could be and should be corrected. And I've seen the attitude mentioned all too often, sometimes even from very intelligent and otherwise rules-knowledgable people.
*moans*
I suppose to some extent, stuff like chain-binding genies comes under this. Rather than say 'the rules don't let you do that', say 'the rules do let you do that but I am houseruling against it'.
Thanks for encouragement! So, to finally let this off my chest: 4E blows.
Don't be afraid to hate the rules
4th edition rules are great!
I'm not even sure if I'm making sense anymore. I'm so tired. Bleeeaaaagh...
Use logic. Use proof.
There is no logic or proof in the case of word interpretation. That's why these debates get so heated.
Tough job. Really. I was in a couple arguments on threads where all the participants were experienced game masters. We were arguing over a rules interpretation. It was civil and we all presented proof... You will note that both sides had proof to back up their claim. The arguments broke into two camps almost immediately and was impossible to settle since there was evidence of it working either way. And although my side had the stronger proof (from multiple rule sources in the first argument), it was impossible to simply hand wave away the wording the other side was convinced spelled out the way they felt it worked. We would be arguing till the end of time if someone hadn't cleverly gone and asked the developers for the real answer. And the developers settled the arguments. Even I wasn't completely correct (in the second argument I got part of it wrong. Though I was completely right in the first argument).
I guess what I am saying is Logic and Proof are often inconclusive even among experience people, especially since the rules are written by many people each using different wording when expressing their ideas.
Thanks for encouragement! So, to finally let this off my chest: 4E blows.
Don't be afraid to hate the rules
I'm all about house rules, because they're one of the great things about ttrpgs. If I don't like something, I can just fix it...
I didn't house rule 2e at all, because it was my first rpg and I was too young to really consider changing rules. If I were to go back though, my house rules would constitute a fantasy heartbreaker.
I really started house ruling during my 3.x years, as I realized what I like and don't like about D&D. I recently wrote a pdf of my essential house rules for 3.x, and it's seven pages long -- and those are just the bare essentials! If I were to write out everything that irritates me about it, I'd end up with another 3.x retro-clone.
4e works pretty much as it's intended to, and the way I want it to, so my complete house rule pdf was only one page long.
When I discovered the Complete 4th clone, I threw out my one page of house rules because now I only need two: 1) hex map, and 2) no XP. Gods bless intelligent design!
So, having said all of that...fewer house rules are better than many. :)
Tough job. Really. I was in a couple arguments on threads where all the participants were experienced game masters. We were arguing over a rules interpretation. It was civil and we all presented proof... You will note that both sides had proof to back up their claim. The arguments broke into two camps almost immediately and was impossible to settle since there was evidence of it working either way. And although my side had the stronger proof (from multiple rule sources in the first argument), it was impossible to simply hand wave away the wording the other side was convinced spelled out the way they felt it worked. We would be arguing till the end of time if someone hadn't cleverly gone and asked the developers for the real answer. And the developers settled the arguments. Even I wasn't completely correct (in the second argument I got part of it wrong. Though I was completely right in the first argument).
What was the particular game system and ruling in question, if you don't mind saying?
Kind of moot Tequila Sunrise but:
The first argument was an argument over Taking 10.
The second one was about crafting vs WBL.
Oh and the system was Pathfinder.
Okay, amendment:
Where the rules are inconclusive, all members of the argument must admit that it is inconclusive. At which point, there is no correct answer and the argument must then move on to not what the rules say (as this cannot be answered) but to what's best for the game, with all parties acknowledging that the argument is now no longer about anything except preference.
The problem, of course, arises when it's not agreed that the rules in question are inconclusive.
Dang.
It is hard to use logic and proof to prove a point about an inherently subjective thing.
One's like or dislike of the rules is entirely based on opinion, and opinion can't be proven.
For example, I LOVE the Armor as DR variant rule. Is it objectively better than the normal rules? Nope, it's just that I like kinetic combat and I feel that the variant makes combat more kinetic.
Very little exists in the realm of entertainment that is objective.
Hell, very little exists in the realm of human experience that is objective.
You've missed the point. What you want the rules to say is very often subjective. What they actually say often isn't (although not all the time), although it may be contrary to what pretty much everyone wants. Understanding it better can lead to clearer and less ambiguous rules writing.
At no point do I deny the subjectiveness of what people enjoy.