Can’t remember, but the vid is here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/W0meWjH8SnY?si=662ZyYYw8E9UmdCy
2 Likes
Which way? I’ve argued with some games that if missing one rule ruins the game, then you’ve got a truly elegant ruleset. Prime case was Jaipur, where we played with top-decking and it was terrible. I later learned you couldn’t topdeck and suddenly the game was brilliant. I really respect it for a small but essential ruleset where each constraint is perfectly placed.
Also Dark Moon which started as a PnP “BSG Express” and was later reskinned to an Alien-esque setting and published.
2 Likes
Didn’t get a chance to participate, I’ve been mostly offline for about two weeks.
First off, on the philosophy of houseruling. Just a counterpoint.
First, designers will tell you that a game, in the first week after publication, gets more play than during the entire playtesting cycle and certainly more eyes. They’ll freely admit that the game gets more refinement in that period and they never see every strategy or meta. Looking at A Few Acres of Snow (Halifax Hammer) or Great Western Trail (spamming Kansas City) as well known examples. I’d argue it’s a fallacy to assume that the game as published is the game as intended, without exception. Chvatil and Lehmann aside, who make computer models to run thousands of iterations, most games are not fully baked on publication. Some get second editions to fix these oversights. Most don’t.
Second, rules generally only give you one way to play. Sometimes they include variants. But with a base system and the components there are often several valid games. See our conversation on hidden scoring as an example. Also see the Jaipur app that tweaks the game in a dozen directions: what if the tokens were in reverse order? What if camels were worth 15? Zero? What if the hand size was 9? 5? Each of these is a really fascinating variation on the system that forces you to play differently.
All to say, games (and recipes) aren’t always “right” out of the gate and if you know what you are doing it’s fine to tinker (though, to @pillbox’s point, futile to change the formula and then complain about the result). And maybe Samurai with hidden scoring is best for most of the population but not for you. Open scoring isn’t wrong.
Approximately 2 cents in the bucket there.
5 Likes
I feel that there’s a difference between a house rule and a ton of people recognizing broken pieces of games after publication. Often the designer weighs in at such a point and it becomes a semi official rule or is fixed in a new edition or expansion as you said. Spirit Island now has an additional blight token per game. Obsession has some admittedly unbalanced take that tiles that can be removed… etc. this is where the gamer hive makes things better by uncovering weak spots.
But not everything a single person dislikes about a game is broken. If I introduced a house rule every time my partner exclaimed something was unbalanced… we’d be drowning in house rules. Sometimes he is right but often he is just being a sore loser.
Where is the line? How many people need to complain about part of a game to change it? Who gets to decide at your table? Majority? Game owner? Table owner? Game teacher?
Personally I rarely feel like I have played a game enough to be able to make an informed decision about balance. I can usually only contribute anecdotal evidence that such and such an element seems a little detrimental. I’m all in favor of collecting such and letting the pros decide if a game would be better with a change.
Recent experience shows that I rather avoid games or expansions that seem unfun with rules as written.
4 Likes
So maybe I’m the worst tinkerer here. Here’s what I jotted down looking down my games:
Variants
- Ticket to Ride: Europe - Play with or without the stations. Taking them out makes a tighter, meaner game for those with more experience or in the mood.
- Blue Lagoon - At 2p, we put neutral tribes on the islands (I can share the pattern if anyone is interesting). These create obstacles for your chains and count toward majorities. Otherwise the game doesn’t work at 2.
- Settlers of Catan - I’m happy with the stock version. But two options for those who aren’t have come up. One, if you are ever boxed in with only 2 or 3 settlements, you are allowed to settle an open space at the edge of the island for the cost of a settlement + 1 extra sheep. Second, if you do not receive a resource from a die roll you are given a token. You can exchange tokens equal to your current vp for any one resource (so at the beginning, it is 2 for 1. By late game it’s irrelevant as may need 7 or more tokens and you are more likely to get a resource each roll).
- Puerto Rico - I haven’t played this but found a fascinating variant for anyone who plays repeated games with the same group. Basically, the building market is fluid game to game. At the end of a game, if both copies of a violet building were purchased, that building is +1 cost next game. If neither, the building is -1 next game. (if 1, no change). This opens up engine archetypes that simply aren’t allowed in the printed economy and forces you away from the standard openings as favorite buildings become cost prohibitive. Maybe one day.
- Samurai (et al) - Open or hidden scoring. Different benefits. I prefer open most of the time now.
- Jaipur - The app really went crazy here. What I recall without opening it up: Handsize of 9, handsize of 5, camel token worth 15, camel token worth 0, standard tokens set up in reverse order, Rubies and Gold removed from the game… then some others you can’t easily implement IRL like fixed values for goods tokens. Each of these was a fascinating twist to the puzzle that required a different approach and drove a different meta. Strongly recommended for anyone who plays regularly with the same opponent.
- Neom - Rules as written are the best. But I advocate variant for the disaster tiles for people playing their first game or three.
- Tiny Towns - those resource cards are just ripe for creativity. My favorite way to play is a kind of open draft where cards are dealt to the table and then players take them one at a time. More interactive and more frustrating. I usually play rules as written, though, as this is usually played with lighter or first time gamers.
Permanent Houserules
It looks like most of my “houserules” are more of options so very few are “always on.”
- Dune Imperium: I’m torn with the reviews of this new version that came out. This isn’t Star Realms where you have the space and money to have multiple versions of the same game. Most of the changes I can do without but everyone agrees that replacing “foldspace” with a better spot was the right move. We are going to make Foldspace cards into something like “heroes” from Star Realms, where they go in front of you rather than into the deck. You can later discard them to place a worker anywhere. The open item for more testing is if you can just discard the foldspace (essentially making your hand 1 bigger for the turn, more powerful) or if you discard it with another card so it just adds icons to the card you are playing (less powerful).
- Nuns on the Run - What a great concept that didn’t quite hit. One houserule is necessitated by a vague rulebook. We say Abbess and Prioress always listen after the acolytes move and running only loses them their “listen” after their own move. The rulebook is very unclear here. I haven’t checked the forums in a long time, maybe there is an official ruling. But, more importantly, with lots of players there is usually one player whose route just happens to take them away from the “guards” and they run run run win, which isn’t actually fun for them or for anyone else. Best houserule is that ALL acolytes must get their wish and return to their roooms, making it more of a co-op. Then, to keep everyone engaged, between rounds the Abbess/Priorss player closes their eyes and all other players point to where they are on the board. Works much better.
- Mice and Mystics - Maybe unnecessary now, as the real answer is “buy Stuffed Fables instead.” But back in the day we modified the movement rules, as well as the equipment loss rules and equipment carry-over rules. There was just a mismatch between the punishing roguelike philosophy of the game and what people actually wanted.
- Puerto Rico - I’m still appalled that the exhaustively tested adjustments have not been folded into the published game. Even the designer has acknowledged the change. Swap Factory/University in the building market and reduce starting resources for players 3 and 4.
- The Wolves - Another one where everyone agrees that player order is too important in 4-5 player games, probably 3 as well. A lot of discussion on what the fix is, as the game is still young, but the best I’ve seen is tiered starting resources that give later players more flexibility or more actions, as they get further from first player.
Games I tried or wanted to fix
- Barenpark - at 2p I nearly culled the game. Fortunately I got a 4p game in and loved it. I’ve noodled a lot on what made the 2p experience so flat and theorized fixes but the best ones require some craftiness. I only play this at 4, 3 in a pinch, and just do Patchwork at 2.
- Oh My Goods - They tried so hard. I love the idea. But it just doesn’t work. The game itself got 2.0 rules that made it better. Then the first expansion, which fixed more problems but also diluted the deck, making more. I’d love to see this rebuilt from the ground up but maybe it is unfixable.
- Citadels - There’s good bits in this game. But the role selection takes too long. At lower player counts, or with focused, experienced players, it can shine. I thought a lot about different ways to do the role selection but nothing worked.
- Ark Nova - The deck is too big and the cards are too specific to really control the direction of your zoo. SU&SD nailed it in their review. I had a lot of thoughts but ultimately just accepted (and deeply enjoyed) the game for what it is. I’d like it more if it were a bit different, but what it is is good too.
- Pax Pamir Wakhan - Kudos for putting a solo bot in this kind of game at all. But… yeah. It’s a cheating button masher that just acts chaotically at a fast enough pace that it’s hard to keep up with. I have found that you always lose the first dominance check and then, once you’ve built up a bit, it’s easy to manipulate Wakhan for the remainder of the game and win without contest. I had a ton of thoughts on how I would have done it differently and started designing some sideboards but this was another one where the effort wasn’t worth the payoff.
- Elfenland - Great when it hits. Flat when it doesn’t. I experimented with shrinking the map to force player interaction at lower counts. @lalunaverde’s solution was better (just play right and you are incentivized to follow each other).
- Quantum - Really like this game (anyone have an extra copy???). But the D6 wasn’t to my taste. Cyclades die (0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3) with the hint of a normal curve seems better suited to this kind of contest.
- New Frontiers - Maybe more of a variant? I’m really appreciating what this game is, now, as it is. But I sometimes miss the fierce interaction of Puerto Rico. I’ve actually made, rules and materials, a “teeth” expansion that puts the teeth back into the trading and consuming phases. Still considering uploading it to BGG but it all needs some refinement to be more than a homebrew/playtest type file.
- Empyreal - Love this game but, like Elfenland, it thrives on competition over map spaces while the system allows you to spread out too much, to divide and conquer. I wish the starting placement rules forced you on top of each other or there were more incentives to invade each others’ spaces, so the game always falls onto its best groove.
- Dark Moon - The game has different decks for even and odd player counts. Odd seems to work, even does not. This is my experience and, back when it was being discussed, a frequent independent variable for those who liked or disliked the game. I haven’t figured it out so I don’t know what needs to change in 4 and 6 player games.
- Cabo - After playing, I thought “neat, but lots of turns are draw and discard. I wish there were more abilities in the game.” Then I found Silver, which is exactly that. Problem solved.
3 Likes
Dogs of War - the designer variant in the BGG forum are awesome.
Pax Transhumanity - Sophia Leckner’s variant of flexible deck depending on player count. This means a shorter deck at fewer player counts. Why is this not the rule already? IDK
Pax Porfiriana - qwertymartin’s variant (aka Senile Diaz) is a workable duct-tape on a bad 3 player game. At 3 player I would rather just suggest Pax Renaissance if they can handle the rules weight. Otherwise, variant it is.
Imperial/Imperial 2023 - don’t bother with the starting suggestion in the rule book, it only reinforce the idea that you are playing a country. Just do a once-a-round purchase on every country, as stated on the advanced rules.
Dominant Species - I remove 3 cards that gives additional action pawns, and remove cards depending on how fast players play
Pax Renaissance - I like the alternate scenario where England and Germany are already Protestant. But I still prefer the original scenario.
The variant where the both top cards of each deck is revealed but cannot be purchase is a nice easy variant.
Azul - always at the advanced (“sudoku”) board.
Food Chain Magnate - “Hard Choices” with base game milestones is the preferred rules atm.
Evolution - simultaneous play even at lower player count is cool. The awful downtime soured me on Oceans
Railways of the World - “worst comes first” turn order. The auction is ****. Get rid of it.
Santiago - Mark Wilson did a variant in BGG for lower player count.
Cosmic Encounter I need to get back on this, but I still prefer 2 aliens (face up if newbies) with secret bidding at Alliance phase, and with the Reward deck, of course.
3 Likes
I’ve played Startups wrong in at least three ways and it was always an interesting game.
3 Likes
What’s topdecking?
1 Like
Oh, sorry. Topdecking is drawing the top card of the deck unseen. Alternative would be drawing face-up cards from the market.
In fairness, I may be misusing the term. I first heard it in card based duel games where your hand is also empty, so you are essentially playing blindly from the top of your deck.
Edit: The Designer of Nuns on the Run has officially weighed in on the confusing rules around running and listening. Thank you BGG, I didn’t have this resource back when I first played the game!
Also, Nuns on the Run has an online implementation…
4 Likes
Aha. Thanks for that.
Yes - I can see how Jaipur wouldn’t work quite so well if you were taking cards from the deck!
3 Likes
I think the bloat ends up being a virtue. It forces you too manage all sorts of nonsense which both puts pressure on the players and distracts from pure social deduction so there’s more mystery in the mix than reading someone. It is a long game but I think it wouldn’t be as good if it was less fiddly and convoluted.
1 Like
I don’t think we’ve ever used the resource cards - do you always play with them even if you aren’t doing an open draft?
1 Like
Well, certainly for solo. We also use them in 2p games to add a “bot” so that we aren’t given too much control of the game. Just deal a card every third turn and deal with whatever it gives you.
2 Likes
But because it became such a long and fiddly game it didn’t hit the table anymore in our group. There also were some good expansions, I really enjoyed the one which gave the zylons their own board to cause more chaos and coordinate their attacks better.
1 Like
Not explicitly as far as I could tell.
1 Like