" Monopoly" is perhaps one of the best examples of why you should play better without house rules. Monopoly according to the official rule played, while still a boring thing, but at least it is over after about 2 hours. With the most diverse house rules, and "improvements" that are in every group game sealed regularly to it is intolerable to a juggernaut.
In my opinion there are two basic types of house rules. On the one hand, those that are introduced by a dedicated player, because he has either played it has always been so or because he is better for the game basically stops. On the other hand, such house rules, crafted jointly by the play group or be drawn to make a mediocre or even poor game into something playable. Both types fail to complete their goal.
The impervious to advice players
If I want to tell a player that a game with this or that little rule change but sooo is much more fun, I ask me first, why the author or the editors of the game is not also noticed. Mostly found then very quickly the reason. It is not true. Often it is simply that the house rule is to cover up a discrepancy that exists only in the performance of its inventor, or is grounded in group-think his play group. For example, I no longer can count on one hand how many proposals for changes in Adeligenendwertung " St. Petersburg "(Michael Tummelhofer, Hans im Glück ), I have already read. Why? The game works very well without any changes. If a player thinks to have recognized that he has found the universal strategy, and it only and exclusively can be corrected by his great house rule, I doubt first of all to that strategy is a very similar, if not controversial controversial topic of the guild house in " San Juan " (Andreas Seyfarth, Alea ) is also here:.. change is not better , I think it reduces to the number of possible strategies.
The really bad game
If a game by itself already has a real problem, but would like to see it necessarily good, is often dug up the house rule. There are some games that supposedly rules are written informally in the first playable. The most prominent example is a naturally immediately " Sid Meier's Civilization - The Board Game " by Glen Drover appeared one at Eagle Games. Here that I However, the question: Why? Why should I invest time and fun in a mediocre to bad game in order to "improve" the rules just because the publisher has not brought it to the series? Are there no other, better games more? Before those games on the table bring, but I ask myself the question if there are no alternatives. And there is sure. In his blog on Spielbar.com Peer Sylvester early December, has spoken of the attraction exerted by these games sometimes but on the viewer. You tempt that is played around with them that they are improving, that they finally made something that is fun.
Mir remains closed this appeal. I would rather play a game of which I know that I'm even without additional investment is fun or a game of which I still know nothing at all. Yes, I am a news junkie.
The exceptions
also exceptions are of course possible. This, however, refer to completely different issues and approaches. If a game from a different angle, for example, the perspective of a potential author is "improved", that's not what I had to suspend anything. Finally, this writer will bring me in a few years, the results of his work in the form of a new, freshly printed game box on the table. However, as all present must be informed about it and draw on the same page. It is then not just mostly about the games and the fun of games, but the views of the author resonates in the background. This is important.
The second exception is dual head. Playing of course you without nines.
0 comments:
Post a Comment