On Problem Games, House Rules, & Settlers of Catan

AKA, The 40 Most Popular Board Games According to Ranker, Part 11 – Settlers of Catan

Catan is a great game.

I want this to be clear up front.  Because I won’t be nice to Settlers of Catan in this article.  But my complaints come from a place of love for the model game that straddles the fence separating casual and serious gaming.  Catan is the Rubicon for those who hear the clarion call of the board game industry in all its messy glory, but are hesitant to plunge into weighty rulebooks filled with corner cases about double-blind Dutch auction slingshot mechanics.

None of that. Catan is simple to pick up and play while offering a sample of Eurogame cuisine. Players take turns placing villages at three-way intersections around a hexagonal tile grid. At the beginning of each player’s turn, they roll a pair of standard dice. If an ‘8’ is rolled, each player whose village borders a tile with the number ‘8’ on it gets one of those resources.  Trade those resources to build roads leading to more villages.  The first person to attain ten victory points worth of developments wins.

Settlers of Catan sits by the register of your local game shop and sells in salvos for Target.  It’s light, pleasing, and addictive. Yet when you ask some players about it, they break out in a cold sweat and a hot streak of swears.  No, no, no, no, they will not play that game.  Put it back and pull out something else.  The crazy part is this rejection often comes up when someone notices Catan on the same player’s shelf.  They have enough respect for the game to keep it in their collection, but never enough respect to play the damn thing.

Why? If it’s such a good game, why wouldn’t someone want to play it?  Even if it’s only to humor someone else?  Well… it’s probably because…

 

Catan is a bad game.

Much of your success in Catan is determined by your starting location.  Choose poorly, and you might as well not play at all.  The five resources are not equal; wheat is instrumental, and sheep incidental.  A poor set up might encourage said sheep herder to invest in development cards… which often doesn’t pan out.  The core problem with that strategy is the Knight card takes up roughly half of the development deck.  The Knight roughs up any Robber terrorizing your best village. That’s a good trick… if you’re in the lead and everyone is dumping the Robber on you.  It’s useless to a player in last digging for a miracle but instead finding answers to nonexistent problems.

The development deck doesn’t always suck.  Sometimes, it’s bonkers.  A lucky ‘Monopoly’ can loot eight or more resources from your opponents in one swing.  Or the development player could draw four victory cards in a row, pushing the game next to over with no other player the wiser.  And speaking of luck, you did notice when I said the game is predicated around players rolling dice every turn to see who gets what resources? In theory, it averages out.  In practice, your hand will amass random cards while you suffer little to no control over the flow of every rotation of the board.

And then there’s that Robber.  Roll a seven and everyone with eight or more resources dump half their cards.  It’s a mechanic intended to encourage spending over hording.  But it’s not unheard of to go from one resource at the end of your turn, to eight resources across everyone else’s turn, then roll a seven when your turn begins again, dumping half your hand. It’s easy to accept when a person loses big when pressing their luck because they held onto cards they could have spent. But regardless of how much you spend, the Robber can still wipe you.

Oh, and the trading mechanic is less regulated than the housing market in 2006.  Players in third or fourth place are desperate to catch up and often give favorable trades away to the player in first. It’s not their fault.  They need to get on the scoreboard. It doesn’t matter to them if they’re kingmaking. A person in last who doesn’t trade will remain in last.  What do they care if second place can’t bridge the gap?

So yes, while Catan can represent the best aspects of the board game hobby, it can also be the worst. It’s a punishing, vindictive game where, after a grueling ninety minute playtime, victory is spurious if not undeserved.  Or maybe it’s an exciting game of one-upmanship where victory is achieved through intense negotiation and clever placement.  Take your pick or neither, because it can be both those things even in the same game.

 

Fixing Things

That said, a number of these problems are easy to fix.  Not everything, mind you.  You wouldn’t want to fix everything anyways, since ‘fixing everything’ makes the game unrecognizable.  Also, it doesn’t make sense to ‘fix’ things for many new players in the same way that it isn’t necessary to ‘fix’ tic-tac-toe for little children.  Tic-tac-toe is a broken game. Part of the adventure is discovering how to break it. Likewise, Settlers has been a gaming fundamental since it won the Spiels de Jahres in 1995.  If you don’t recognize it for its flaws, it’s a fun game.  No change need be made.

But for those with a strong connection to the game, who are also dispirited by the game’s drawbacks, there are fixes.  Here’s one I came across by FlutterByCookies on Reddit that’s intended to reinforce players who spend whole rounds without seeing their numbers pop up:

It’s an excellent solution.  Not only does it give a minor boost to players who would otherwise get nothing, but the house rule simultaneously denies otherwise successful players from leeching identical benefits.  It’s not perfect, of course.  You need to maintain a tally of your development points as you play, and it encourages a ‘one big turn’ playstyle that the Robber was meant to discourage.  Also, players might specialize in hard to achieve numbers, since they’ll always get something.  But there’s no such thing as a perfect solution.  This one, at least, seems well-thought out.

Like I mentioned before, one of the disappointing traps in Catan is that players with poor resources are often tempted to try their hand at development cards that likely won’t help.  There are too many Knights in that deck.  Which, if I’m to be honest? I think those cards are intended to be filler.  You can’t remove them, because the quality of the cards in the development deck would suddenly spike.  And the Knight cards are baked into the victory conditions of the game. The person who played the most Knights gets the ‘Largest Army’ tile for an additional two victory points.  Which sounds great. But you can play every Knight you get and still lose the largest army tile to the first place player who was dipping into the development deck because of their excess of resources.

One solution is to make the Knight do something else.  Here’s one option:

Take any one resource from the bank.
Then, if you have a number of villages and cities less than or equal to all other players, take any one resource from the bank.

It’s not perfect by any means. But it’s better at helping a player who’s struggling to come back from behind compared to moving a Robber that may never bother them.

Alternatively, you could make an entirely new development deck.  Go wild and put in anything.  But keep in mind that development cards are relatively cheap to purchase, and the cards one finds in the deck should reflect this.  Also, if there are neither Knight cards adding to the Largest Army, nor other victory cards, then the game may take longer to play… and Settlers already takes a fair amount of time.

I figure it’s irresponsible of me as a writer to suggest designing your own deck of development cards if I wasn’t willing to do it myself. So I made an alternate 28-card development for you to play with, if you’d prefer.  I’m breaking down the cards below, but if you want a clean page where you can download and cut them out, you can click on this link:  JMGariepy’s Alternate Development Deck

First off, there are still fifteen Knights.  But instead of the same ability over and over again, I gave the Knights different abilities to add more variety.  I kept two copies of the original Knight, redubbed Knight of Tradition:

But also added two Knights with my suggested alternative text called Knight of White Shield:

Along with this Knight are a number of other Knights designed to be acceptable to everyone, but better to the player who is trailing behind.  For example, the Knight Enforcer is designed to help players who were locked out of much of the board by letting them build roads where roads already exist.  Since this is quite the potent advantage in the right/wrong hands, I kept this to a single card:

Likewise, upgrading settlements to cities is a stage two tactic often employed by players who are in the lead.  The lone Knight of Heritage breaks everyone’s cities into a selection of component parts that’s usually worse than the whole.  Unless you know it’s coming and can build around it.  Granted, cities are sometimes built by players who are trapped.  But while this might hit the occasional lopsided last place player, over the course of many games this card should do far more damage to those running away with the lead.

Meanwhile, the two Knight of Charity work in reverse.  The player who plays them chooses another player to take two cards from, then they give a card to a third player.  If you’re in last place, you don’t need to be the person who plays the Knight of Charity to benefit from it.

The lone Knight of Mercy benefits you if you aren’t spread out around the board.

As I mentioned before, sometimes players get stuck on the development card track because they’re overproducing sheep, which is traditionally seen as the worst resource.  I added a few cards to the development deck as a potential reward to those with excess sheep, including Knight of Muster and Knight of the Ram.

 

 

Then there are three more Knights with no real agenda.  Though Knight of the Inquisition and Knight of Opportunity are more likely to be aimed at players in the lead.

 

 

While I was at it, I altered the victory cards in my development deck.  Holding on to victory cards, then revealing them at the end keeps the state of the game a mystery.  But I felt it could be fun to introduce tension here.  Each of these victory cards include a minor side ability when you play them.  They aren’t huge bonuses… just enough to force you to weigh the value of hiding your victory points.  For example, the Census Bureau lets you look at one player’s face down cards when you play it.  Is it better to gain that information, or hide that you picked up a victory point?

 

The Royal Gardens grants both a victory point, and a virtual road. Which could be enough to steal the longest road and force someone to drop two roads to take it back from you…

The Clocktower looks broken at first glance.  In most other games, gaining an additional turn is a breaker.  But in Cataan, with the ability to play as many cards and build as much as you want every turn, and with everyone gaining resources at the beginning of each player’s turn, taking an extra turn can prove redundant.  Still, an enterprising individual can find a perfect turn to force an extra die roll into the game.

And rounding out the victory cards, the Wool Spinnery and Trade Caravan are more potent since they can accommodate some key trades with the bank.  Once again, they’re designed to give a boost to a player who is either weighed down with a heap of wool, or is trapped and can’t reach any trade harbors.

As for the rest of the cards, some things I kept the same.  Two Road Building and two Year of Plenty are still here.

I’m not happy with how much of a windfall Monopoly can represent.  Many (un)lucky games turned on its head to that card.  I respect the card enough to keep it in the set, but dropped it from two copies to one.

I replaced the second Monopoly with a powerful card that’s less chaotic.  Instead of a windfall some of the time, Poach Workers gives you what you need all of the time, even when it isn’t stealing from the other players.

I find it interesting that the main set includes two Road Building cards, but no Settlement Building card.  I’m sure the developers have their reasons.  But I don’t see why we can’t slip one into this alternate build.

And one last card to help protect those who are falling behind.  Sister Settlement was added to give a person sneaking through the development deck a second chance to snag some prime real estate.

Do note that I cropped the artwork on many of these cards.  If I knew who created the original art, I linked to their website below that card.  Take some time to check out those artists’ other works.  If I’m to yoink other people’s art, the least I can do is send people to the original source.

Welfare variants and altered development decks are far from the only things you can do to make Settlers of Catan more appealing.  Evidently, a number of players like to add a ‘one more turn’ rule to help defend against sneaky players who hide their victory points and turn in for ten points exactly.  The common thread among most people’s interpretation of this house rules is that the first past the green needs to maintain their lead for one round, or the game continues to eleven, twelve, etc., points.  Art Griepp on a Board Game Geek forum mentioned that their group added a bridge piece to the game, which costs 3 wood and 3 brick.  That bridge can cross over a road, helping players who are trapped, and letting the game continue.  Then there are players who argue for more friendly setups, diminishing or eliminating the role of the Robber altogether, such as these house rules by Morgan McGuire on his blog.

Personally speaking, I think the Robber performs an important function in the game, and an easier start diminishes an interesting layer of strategy during setup.  But the point is that there are a lot of different people out there with a lot of different ideas as to what’s fun about Settlers.  If it wasn’t for house rules, many of those fans wouldn’t bother to play Settlers ever again.

 

The (actual) Problem With House Rules

 

I think there’s a perception that there’s two kinds of gamers out there.  In one camp are the real casuals who play games exactly how things were explained to them when they were children, and they will cry like babies unless copious absurd house rules are employed, making the game unplayable.  In the other camp are board game puritans who pore over rule books like holy texts, and will flip every table in the house at the very idea that rules are a mental construct that players only need to abide by as long as it serves them.

But I think everyone is willing to accept some level of tampering with the rules of a game, depending on the situation.  It’s about what experience a person wants to bring out, and what they are willing to do to get that experience.  In a previous article, I talked about the terrors of the Free Parking rule in Monopoly.  Put simply, a lot of players—maybe even the majority of players—seem to think that landing on Free Parking entitles you to free money.  Many players can’t seem to wrap their head around the idea of a space that does absolutely nothing. Even if the space said “Lose a Turn” it would feel like it did something.  But Free Parking does nothing, so it must do something.  And what do players want most in a game about losing money?  They want money.  This ‘$500-bills-exist-to-be-handed-out’ house rules extend to other events as well.  Land exactly on ‘Go’?  Get more money.  Roll snake eyes?  Get more money.  It feels great.  Player agree to this because they want to enjoy the game, and there’s no better feeling when playing Monopoly than getting more money.

You know what’s the biggest complaint about Monopoly?  Well, technically the biggest complaint is that it causes arguments and ruins friendships.  But I’m guessing that that ‘biggest complaint’ is a direct result of the second biggest complaint: it lasts too damn long.  “The box says it’s a thirty minute game, but we’ve been at this for three hours!  Cousin Fred doesn’t even have any property, but he’s somehow still in the game!  Why won’t this game just end… ooh, Free Parking!  I’ll take that $500 bill from the bank, and all the tax money that was dumped in the center of the table!  Now where was I… oh right.  Why won’t this game end?”

This is why house rules are treated like filthy little hobbitses: Wicked. Tricksy. False.  Board games are built on numerous playtests, sometimes into the hundreds.  Every rule was added for a reason.  And if you only played the game a few times yourself, what right do you have to question the wisdom of the developers and the playtesters who grinded this rough gemstone until every facet was smooth?

But here’s the thing:  I do have a right to question the choices made by a game’s designer(s) and/or a team of playtesters.  Because those people aren’t me, and their experiences aren’t the same as mine.  I don’t play games to partake in a playtester’s vision of an ideal game.  I play games to learn something, to have fun, to challenge myself, and to enjoy time spent interacting with my friends.  If none of those things are happening, then something must change.  Either the rules to the game must be altered, or it won’t be played.  And if I’m enjoying one aspect of a game, but don’t find the game entertaining as the rules are written, then I’m not so stubborn as to presume that the rules are immutable.

And I think that’s the case for most other serious gamers.  Serious gamers get a reputation for inflexibility.  And many of them are.  But it’s not that they aren’t willing to employ house rules.  It’s that they played so many games in their lives that they’re more willing to presume the fault is not in the game’s design, but in their approach to it.  Something they are doing must be wrong.  And they will never learn how to not do the wrong thing if they create a house rule to sidestep the problem.

The more games a person plays, the more that player will recognize the designer or the company that made the game, and the more likely that player will trust that team.  But the fact that these players are willing to be patient with a game doesn’t mean they won’t house rule.  In Carcassonne, the rules state that players draw and place a new land tile at the beginning of their turn.  That’s the rule.  Despite that, I know many experienced players who draw a new tile at the end of their turn, instead of the beginning of their turn.  A casual player may never think to do that, or may not consider that an important rule to change.  But by drawing the tile last, you not only get more time to think about where you will place the tile, but you can also jockey information to other players about where they should place their tiles (so you can take advantage of their choices, given your new information.)

I’m sure the developers of Carcassonne saw that option.  And I’m sure they came to a simple conclusion: drawing a tile at the end of the turn adds complexity to an already complex board state.  It’s better for the long term health of the game to decrease its overall complexity.  So it’s better to draw the tile at the beginning of the turn, and not force new players to think about all the places that won’t be options by the time it’s their turn.

That choice changes the overall experience of the game.  But many experienced players recognize this choice, and choose to not follow the rules.  They break the rules because it increases the fluidity of the game, and increases the complexity of the game, which are two things that experienced players like.  It’s not that serious board game hobbyists are uncompromising.  It’s that they too want a specific experience.  For many of them, the experience they like to participate in is one of exploration, thoughtfulness, and achievement.  And it can become painfully difficult to get those experiences in a group who’s attempting to alter the rules in favor of randomness and short term gratification.

Because these veteran players don’t use house rules in the same way, they think they don’t house rule at all.  But every time these same players throw out a ‘youngest player goes first’ rule and choose to roll a die instead, they employed a house rule.  Every time they take the Chapel card out of the running in a random Dominion setup, or decide the ‘roll to move’ mechanic in Clue is an unnecessary chore, or even employ a ‘person who wins gets to clean up’ or a ‘person who loses gets to choose the next game’ rule, they constructed house rules.  Every time they use a dice tower, or lay their cards face up to show new players how to play the game, or use meta-game soft diplomacy to convince players not to kingmake, they are employing house rules.  They don’t serve the same purpose as obvious, game-warping house rules so they don’t think they count.  But they do.  Serious players house rule all the time.  It’s part of the reason why they’re still playing games.

So I don’t think it’s worth trying to convince players to use house rules, because everyone already does.  What I think is important, however, is that we use house rules mindfully.  That when we alter the rules of a game that we understand why we’re doing it, so those alterations can enhance our experiences.  Does your group ban the use of two-letter words in Scrabble?  Why?  What’s the benefit?  Do you understand the consequences?  Have you done any research to see how that choice affects the game?

There’s nothing wrong with that choice.  For many players, Scrabble is about increasing their lexicon, not about memorizing a list of 107 technicalities.  But knowing how to employ two-letter words in a game of Scrabble can lead to a number of exciting plays where words are stacked on top of each other like straining slide rulers. And you may never understand how powerful a two-letter word can be until you undid that house rule and watched someone drop a seven-letter word supported by a simultaneously scored two-letter word.

In short, choose to use house rules.  Don’t let your house rules use you.  Everyone’s game is made better when they get exactly what they want out of it. Especially if they’re playing Settlers of Catan. The Eleventh Amendment was ratified into the the U.S. Constitution only six years after it became the law of the land.  It’s been twenty-four years since Catan came out.  There’s no reason to treat this rulebook as sacrosanct mandate.