by Vandervecken
Thanks for explaining your position on the particular example.In my mind, arguments about House Rules and the choice of optional rules can be classified into one of four camps, from the most egregious to the least:
1) Bad Mechanics. The Imperial I card, and I've heard the same thing said about Representatives from Shards (I tend to agree, I found Reps to be a very bad addition to the game and never play with them). When faced with this case most people (even you I suspect) would mod the game.
2) Permanent imbalance. Most people I have talked to would agree that, *all other things being equal* (and assuming a player has no particular facility for any one play-style), a player who draws a race like the L1Z1X, Jol-Nar, Hacan or Yssaril, is going to have an objectively higher chance of victory than one who draws the N'Orr, Yin, or Xxcha. This forum has polls where races are ranked, and the above distinctions seem to be more or less borne out in the voting patterns.
Here's where you and I diverge. In my longstanding group, we've made some changes to squeeze down the disparity between the races a bit. Note that I don't argue that one race might be more or less fun intrinsically. I argue that such permanent shifts in competitive advantage (that last an entire game) are a bit too drastic and need to be curtailed. You argue (at least in any given case we've discussed) that such differences are sufficiently tolerable that you would not want to open the floodgates to the anarchy of modding. I argue that these differences are too great to be tolerable. It's a question of degree.
3) High-variance cases. Similar to (2), but in this case the differences are not so clear cut. For example, there's no objective which can be said to be easier on average across the board than another, all other things being equal. Or at least, if you make the case, it's a lot more muddy. There are more variables. Nevertheless, mechanics that fit into this category generate what could be a great deal of random variance. It is a common trend in boardgamers to want to reduce excessive variance in games.
You made the argument before about not wanting to spend a whole day playing TI with a group playing House Rules you are not familiar with. Your objection is basically a High Variance objection - you don't know what you're getting, or whether it's good/fair/fun. I could turn it around and say that I would not necessarily want to play a whole day of TI, knowing that the random choice of an SO could set me back just as badly as your unfamiliarity with the group's house rules would set you. Again, the objection is against a High Variance mechanic. This is why groups do things like choice of races, choice of Objectives, etc.
It's also the reason why most people AFAIK don't play regular Distant Suns, or Space Mines.
Finally, there is (4) - Wanting something different. Changing the mechanic not because you think there's anything imbalanced about it, but because you think a different mechanic would be more fun, or bring out the latent potential of the game. While that can be fun, I don't think anyone is arguing that their option is objectively better, just more interesting.
Thoughts?