House rules. Rules of the house.
As we are talking about boardgames, what do we mean?
We start by outlining the idea, should some players need an explanation.
When a group of players agrees on one or more “not official” rules and applies them during the games, we can call them “house rules”.
Where “non official” simply means that these rules are not in the rules set of the game but that, for that (wide or scanty) group of players these rules become a custom.

To give the idea, we begin with a rather controversial example.
Many MONOPOLY players, especially in the United States, adopt this house rule: when you arrive on the “Free Parking” you receive 500 dollars.
The rule, strangely, got a footing. Even if – as our reader Luca Iennaco, co-author of this article, remarks – this rule tends to lengthen the game, and a MONOPOLY game is already rather long…
How is it possible that some players accept as a rule something that seems to worsen the game? The reason is that for some players to have more money in MONOPOLY is part of the entertainment.
Ergo, the first… rule of the house rules is: “there are no good or bad house rules, but only house rules that are shared by all”.

We immediately remark another fundamental point.
Luca observes this: the main purpose of house rules is to “fix” a non functioning rule (or simply to improve it, whichever is the definition of “improvement” by who modifies it).
Yet the house rules can be introduced as well simply to satisfy a desire of the players: more or less complexity, more or less realism, to increase or to diminish the duration of the game, to reduce chance factors, to prevent “annoying” phenomena like the kingmaker effect, to eliminate “appendages” that are believed to not be necessaries, etc.
An example of the second-last case: to play with secret points where the original game had public points (e.g. VINCI).
An example of the last case: to play with public cards / money / points /any-generically-countable-resource, instead of secret ones, to avoid to take up part of player’s attention to the annoying calculation of others’ resources (e.g. the money in SANKT PETERSBURG). So the players can devote themselves to the “interesting” part of the game.
Notice that these two examples are in contradiction among them. In fact they are “house” rules… what does your host like?

As it can be evicted from the reading of these considerations, there are two big categories of house rules that we can call – as our video game players cousins do – “fix”s and “mod”s.

A “fix” is a house rule that remedies what – objectively – is an error, an oversight, a “bug” in the original rules.
A “mod” is a house rule that modifies a game to come toward the players’ tastes about duration, options, setting or to increase or diminish the importance of a factor (luck, memory, manual dexterity, etc.).

An example of “fix”: in BALLOON CUP, by Stephen Glenn, two players fight for colored cubes that are the prize for their ability in maneuvering a balloon.
We do not enter in the details of the rules, but we notice a (notorious) basic error. The challenge is resolved by playing cards on your own side with respect to a row of four tiles in the center. Every tile has some cubes on it, placed by chance at the beginning of the game. The cards that can be played on the sides of a tile must have the same color of the cubes on the tile itself.
All this means that if on 4-point tile there are four gray cubes, it will be necessary to play four gray cards on one side and other four ones on the other side for a player to win this tile. That is a total of eight gray cards, but the gray cards in the game are only five!
To solve this problem, a house rule says “there can’t be never as a prize more than the half of the cubes of a color”. So, the third and the fourth gray cube were to be discarded and replaced with cubes of other colors…
As you can notice, in this case to do not applying this fix it is possible to reach a paradoxical situation where no player can play cards, and the games blocks (“locks-up”).

Examples of “mod” have already been done (e.g. MONOPOLY, SANKT PETERSBURG, etc.).
In the other sections of this number of GiocAreA you will find many much house rules, and certainly some for your favorite games. In this article we prefer to observe some macrocategories of house rules, so to suggest you how and where to intervene if you want to modify the rules of a game to match your tastes. For each macrocategory we will give at least one example.
With some practice you will be able to invent coherent and correct house rules, and even to diffuse them on the net… or here on GiocAreA!
We add a little comment for each category, on which are the problems that could rise by operating on that particular category of rules.

House rules: game duration
One of the typical modifications that can be done to your favorite games is about game duration.
Is it possible to find some sleights of hand to shorten or lengthen the game duration, depending on your tastes.
The motivations can be different: maybe the game lasts too much (or it is too much short) when changing the number of players. Or you prefer to play more rounds in the same game, especially in the shorter games where the luck component is important. Or simply you want to disprove the saying “Don’t carry the joke too far”: you want to amplify the pleasure of an evening game.
A good example is BOHNANZA because its end of the game condition can be easily modified. As it is a game where you pick from a common deck, the rules simply say that the game ends when the deck has been shuffled twice and it does end. At this point two possible modification rise spontaneously: a “quick BOHNANZA” if you have little time, with only one shuffling (a variant that we do not suggest, anyway!) and a “slow BOHNANZA” where you can shuffle the deck three or even four times.
Not always the house rules that influence the game duration are so obvious. After all the “500$ on the Free Parking” rule in MONOPOLY modifies the game duration because in that particular game, the game (and, so, the playing time) is over when you run out of money. For this reason that particular house rule is a criticizable one: if you give more resources to the player, you are not giving more possibilities to the players but, instead, you are increasing a game mechanic that is really based on the progressive diminishing of those resources!

Attention!: when you apply house rules on the game length, be sure that to increase the playing time does not create a resource shortage. For example, in a game where you pick three cards at every turn and you don’t have to play them, if you increase the number of turns it is possible that… there are no more cards to play!

House rules: no more secret resources
Many players do not love the games where you have to remember which and how many resources a player has: these games would greatly aid a “Pico della Mirandola”.
A typical example is a “set collection” game where you collect the various types of resources during the game and keep them secret, and you count the points at the end of the game with respect to some particular combinations of these resources.
Some practical examples?
We put on the table the usual Reiner Knizia and its games SAMURAI and EUPHRAT & TIGRIS (TIGRIS & EUPHRATES). In these two games, as in many “German” very strategic ones, the points gained during the course of the game are kept secret.
It is possible, on the contrary, to decide to maintain open these points. In this manner the course of a game, e.g. of SAMURAI, is greatly changed. Who loves this type of variations on the theme generally uses as a motivation the fact that the information on the resources obtained by the players has already been given to everybody during the game, and only the players with a good memory can exploit this fact to their advantage.
This is certainly true, but…

Attention!: when you apply house rules to make open resources that were secret in the original rules, consider that you could have a problem of analysis paralysis.
That is, as you have many more information to consider now, it is possible that the game slows very much because each player, at her own turn, could not to count any opponent’s points and the moves that, probably, he is going to do.
In fact, the time needed to take a decision is in direct proportion with the quantity of information to consider. In extreme cases, at this point, you may think to amplify the house rule adopting the use of a sand-glass for the turn of each player. Even if in such a manner you substitute the problem of keeping in mind some data with the problem to think too fast. This explains why often resources are kept secret and not open!
Also, there is another problem to consider: generally speaking, to maintain secret the resources goes in the direction of partly avoiding the kingmaker problem. That is, the possibility for a player with no hope for victory to “choose” who will win a game in the last turns of the game. So, if everything is open to everybody, perhaps you should decide to utilize a rule to avoid the kingmaker effect…

House rules: number of players
A recurring problem when you organize an evening of games is the number of players around the table. Sometimes you gather to try a new game for four players and you are… three or five at the table!
This factor, or the eventuality that you want to test a three-player game with your partner before proposing it to your friends is the rousing cause of the house rules that vary the number of players.
A premise is necessary: generally the publishing houses prefer always to indicate on the box of the game the wider possible range in the number of players so that the game does function. If a game says “from 3 to 5 players” it is almost sure that it has been played with 2 and 6 players and in both cases some snags emerged. Otherwise you would find “from 2 to 6 players”…
Said that, in some cases increasing the range of players is easier than usual.
Let’s think to a four-player game. It is easy to think that it could function even with only two players, each of them playing the role of two different persons. In some games (like racing games as PITSTOP and BOLIDE) this mechanic functions very well. In some other cases, for example in bluff or trading games (like BLUFF or SETTLERS OF CATAN) this is – if not impossible – at least difficult to realize with success.
As much simple is, in some cases, the inverse path: to transform a 2-player game in a 4-player one by creating two couples of players that help each other for a common goal. In this case the bigger problem is how to divide the resources (cards, dice, pawns, etc.) between the four players, but sometimes the experiment functions very well. Try to play LOST CITIES in this manner, without knowing what your partner has in his hand: the game is more chaotic, but entertaining!In this manner it is even possible to transform group games in solitaire games.
On this subject, Luca remarks a contradiction: “I think that to play LORD OF THE RINGS alone (by interpreting all the players) is not a house rule: I use all the original rules and nothing more; I simply do the choices of all the participating Hobbits”.
In fact, in this particular house rules macrocategory the boundary between “new rules” and need is little: if I play some CHESS games against myself to learn to play the game, am I applying house rules? Probably not, at least if I don’t find a way to make Black “automatically” play the game while I defy it with my Whithe. On this “algorithmic” criterion was based, for example, the solitaire variant for BANG! published on no. 18 of GiocAreA OnLine, but on the other side it is true that to create such an algorithm to simulate opponents is no more a simple house rule, but almost a new game.
To classify these as house rules perhaps it is necessary that, besides to interpret the role of more (or less) players at the table you add some additional rule (for example, you play in couples but only the points of the best in the couple are counted…).
The discussion on this point is open yet.

Attention!: when you apply house rules on the number of players, you have primarily to consider with attention the manner in which the resources (cards, tiles, counters…) are assigned to the players, and moreover during the preparation of the game, because you risk to spoil the game balance.
Moreover, you should be sure that, by increasing the number of players, everybody feels herself enough involved in the game, for the quantity of decisions to take, and for the waiting time between one of her turn and the following one. Similarly you must be sure that by decreasing the number of players nobody feels overloaded by information or choices to take.

House rules: limiting the alea
Many players despise the alea (not the “alea” publishing house with the capital "A" – that, on the contrary, has published marvelous games – but chance!).
The purists think that a game should not have any casual factor. Generally PUERTO RICO is mentioned as a not aleatory game, even if even in that game the tiles with the growing are chosen by chance. And, isn’t there any alea on the disposition of the players around the table? But this are sophisms (and, as Luca remarks, to avoid the chance in the positions around the table… it is sufficient to play with two players!).
Said this, the house rules to limit the alea are generally rather simple to invent and to apply, if the players want to do that.
Let’s think to CARCASSONNE. Even if it is one of the most famous games of the last years, many players play it with a variant: rather than picking by chance the tile to place on the map at the beginning of the turn, you start with three tiles in your hand and you play one of them at your turn, then you pick a new one.
In this manner there is alea, but it influences less because you can decide in a strategic manner what to play and what to keep for the future.
The die is the very fierce enemy of the players that hate the alea: for some reason they identify in the six-faced little cube, more than in the cards or the tiles, the taint of chaos. Having said this, it is possible to limit in some manners the total casual effect of the die.
Let’s do some examples.
In BASARI each turn begins with all the players that throw their die and go forward on a board. In the economy of the game, the number of spaces done correspond to a secret resource, because the first to make a complete round blocks the game and gains some points.
As a fundamental part of the game is to decide when to make an action to throw the die again and to advance, a simple house rule says “only a die is thrown, and everybody advances”.
In this manner there is equity between all the players, and it becomes more critic to decide when to advance alone.
For games like SETTLERS OF CATAN (or BACKGAMMON, if you want) the Dice Corp. has invented a curious object: the DECK OF DICE. It is a deck of 36 cards where you find all the combinations of a couple of dice.
In this manner, rather than throwing the dice, at your turn you pick a card and use the shown dice. It is useful to prevent a probabilistic strangeness that could happen when the thrown dice in a game are only some dozens (“it is the fourth twelwe in a row!”).
Another simple possibility, even this applicable to BASARI, is to throw two dice at your turn and to choose one. The alea remains high but the player has more freedom.

Attention!: when you apply house rules to limit the alea you risk to… kill the game! Let’s say a truth: in some cases, the chaos produced by the continuos upsetting of the game caused by luck is an integral part of a game, especially if this gives a chance – even an improbable one – to a player who is behind with the number of points.
Apart from this consideration, there are generally no contraindications when you find a brilliant rule to reduce a bit the influence of luck – always if all the players agree!

House rules: to increase the coherence
When the game on the table is highly set, it is typical that, as time goes on, the players think to create a series of house rules to increase the coherence of the represented world. Think, for example, to the numerous sport or pseudo sport games like BLOOD BOWL, for which dozens of apocryphal rule sets do exist, that introduce possible game situations not provided for the original rules.
Even the BANG! example is very explanatory: various players, for example, find paradoxical some situations that can emerge during the game and – with the risk of ruining its balance – try to fix it.
Is it possible that, in the wild West, you are sent in jail together with your horses and with a loaded rifle? Obviously not, so a house rule says “in jail you discard all of your blue cards”. It is useless to observe, at that point, that those cards represent rather the resources at player’s disposal rather than her real inventory; each group of players has the right to increase the coherence of the world in which they are playing.
Countless are the variants proposed for SHADOWS OVER CAMELOT. To quote one: as the players have no mobile with them, how can the knights continue to talk from one side to the opposite of Camelot? So, better silence between remote players!
At last, as Luca Iennaco reminds us, when a game is taken from a saga, from a novel, from a fairy tale or more generally from a pre-existing story the need to create house rules to “live” the history in the manner in which it has already been said is higher.
In fact, Luca remarks that to play LORD OF THE RINGS with the abilities of Sam and Frodo exchanged, to be faithful to the novel (Sam pulls forward the mission at every cost, so he plays the white cards as jokers; Frodo is more resistant to the burden of the Ring, that is he suffers less damage from the die) is a house rule that practically does not alter the game in nothing (the only real difference is that the Ring begins in the hands of the character with the “anti-die” ability). But this variant is liked by the players who desire to “live” the history of the Lord of the Rings: in facts it renders Frodo, as he should be – and not Sam, as per the original rules –, the character whom you desire to give the Ring, because he suffers less the effects of it when he uses it.

Attention!: when you apply the house rules to increase the coherence, often you increase too the complexity of the rule set. In this case, be sure that all the participants know deeply the “normal” rules of the games.
Remember too that a greater complexity not always means a greater entertainment, unless you like to throw a handful of dice and to control at each step a series of tables to see if, maybe, Frodo has fallen during his ascent on Mount Doom…

House rules: all the rest!
Our analysis stops here. We hope to have given you some hint to create your own house rules, but it is obvious that not all of them can be brought back to the macrocategories here shown. As it is possible to teach five manners to invent a funny story (but other millions of ways are possible), in this field it is the same.
Who creates a functioning house rule is – small as it is - a game author like who really wrote the game. And, as you know, the are infinite rules to be written yet.
So, if you invent a really good house rule, let the other know it!