House rules and variants
I was intrigued by a rather hot public discussion on a variant for Euphrat & Tigris on BoardGameGeek which was referenced by some comments on Mikko Saari's gameblog. This made me think about house rules and variants in general. First of all: I do like fan-produced extensions and other variants. These become interesting when you've made it down the learning curve of a game. Once you are at a stage where you fully understand game mechanisms and know successful strategies and counter-strategies, I typically want a little bit more spice.
A new game mechanism for Carcassonne, either official or unofficial, a new map to Ticket to Ride, another scenario for our Catan settlements. If you play a game regularly with the same group certain player-specific strategies and tactics will become transparent. Let's take Ticket to Ride as an example. While one player may have a tendency to connect the East and West of the USA, another player may prefer a blocking approach. After a couple of games, the players can adjust and fine-tune their strategies. At this point, something interesting can happen.
The players decide to introduce a house rule or play a variant of the game. I am pretty sure you all have one house rule or the other. The older the game, the more house rules generally exist. Games with greater popularity also produce more variants. Take the classic: Monopoly. A good collection of Monopoly house rules is available here at boardgames.about.com. The long long list includes traveling railroads, double hotels, bank repossession, a tax man and the free parking jackpot. And these were just very few examples...
This leaves me with at least two reasons for creating a house rule or variant:
1. Adjusting game balance
2. Keeping the game interesting, after you've played a lot of games
There may be more. What's important is, that every group is at liberty to come up with such rules. I even like to read about them in forums, at the Geek or in blog-world. If I like them or if I think a particular rule might solve a problem, we sometimes try to adopt them into our group.
Now, but here is what I don't like.
Suppose you join another group which regularly plays under a certain set of house rules, or you play a tournament or at a con. In this case, there is zero tolerance for any house rules or variants. It's a pain to even discuss them. Sometimes people can turn into know-all, didactic, patronizing schoolmasters. "Oh, if we don't use this rule, the game is no fun because from turn 25 Joe will always use [add the game's dominant winnning strategy] and have a huge advantage..."
It's cool, I understand people having house rules, I may even be able to understand why these may be improvements. But if one player is foreign to these house rules, don't play them. Teach a novice player the original rules first. Let them make their own experiences. Even if the "God of all Games" joins the group - just start playing under the original rule set. Those discussions are a pain. Personally, I only want to start playing, to have some fun, to "observe" the others and learn about their game behavior and tactics.
For me, it's a form of respect and a rule of politeness to play the game by the original rules. That's why game artisans invent these in the first place. I always like to see them as the least common denominator for all players. It's more or less a starting point for the group's joined exploration of a game. A path each individual needs to take on their own.