I've decided to include some examples of variant rules for Eldritch Horror . I expect they'll be negative rrsponses, (assuming people read this) an statements of why they won't work. This is fine; I'm looking for feedback, (so long as it is positive), over a number of features of the game that are issues at least to me. I wrote all this out on a Word document headed Eldritch Horror: Varriant Rules , and then decided to share them with others. See what you think.

Clues

Unlike Arkham Horror , investigators have to be successful with Investigation Encounters to collect clues in Eldritch Horror . Failure can be very frustration, with investigators rushing all over the globe dealing with Mysteries and the dreaded Rumours, closing Gates, dealing with monsters, having standard encounters in spaces and maybe having the time to visit the current expedition, all of which need or can benefit from having clues.

An alternative rule is that when an investigator has an Investigation encounter, he is automatically successful in gaining the clue. However if he fails his necessary roll, then he also takes the negative result. If the reward gained from a successful roll is the clue plus a second clue, the investigator receives only the clue on the board, (plus the negative result), if his roll is a failure.

Co-operative Actions

One of the most frustrating elements of Eldritch Horror are the encounters during the action phase that require multiple rolls. A single investigator may not have the right mix of skills and is unsuccessful by failing a roll. These are encounters that would suit investigators teaming up to use their collective skills to produce success. Such encounters include closing Gates, visiting the Expedition Site and Banishing Monsters.

If two or more investigators are present during a Gate or Expedition Encounter, the first player turns over the relevant card and tries to succeed with as many rolls as possible. If he fails a roll, he takes the fail result, but the card is not discarded. The next player uses that card to try to close the gate or resolve the expedition, ignoring the rolls that the first player succeeded. If the investigators finally succeed as a group with a gate, then the gate is closed. If at an expedition, then the reward is placed on the appropriate space. The investigator that went first can spend a clue token to collect the reward. If he does not then the next investigator has this opportunity and so on. If none of them collect the reward then it remains in the space until an investigator finishes his Action Phase there and at the start of the Encounter Phase he spends a clue to pick up the reward.

Banishing Monsters are dealt with below.

Banishing Monsters

Lovecraft stories focused on the horror of the monsters encountered by humans, even if only briefly. The usual result was that such individuals fled the creatures rather than stopping to fight them. Eldritch Horror , (and other games like Arkham Horror ), change this concept by having investigators fight the creatures, an event which, in the stories and other sources like Call of Cthulhu roleplaying, leads to grisly death. An alternative, which Lovecraft does address on a few occasions, is banishing the monsters. One can look at whether this is possible in Eldritch Horror , given the right circumstances.

An investigator can trying banishing a monster that is on a Gate. Alternatively he can try on any space if he has a tome, ( Necronomicon , Cult de Goules , etc.). After making a Horror roll the investigator rolls Lore, not Strength, subtracting any loss to Sanity from the number of dice he can roll. His roll ignores the monster’s Damage. If the result is equal to or greater than the monster’s Health, then it is banished. If not, the investigator loses Stamina equal to the monster’s Damage.

Two or more investigators can co-operate to banish a monster, adding together the results from their Lore rolls. If a second investigator fails to banish the monster, then he loses Stamina equal to the monster’s Damage as well. If the investigators are trying to banish a monster using a tome, then only the first investigator that tries needs to have one.

Banishing a monster on a Gate without using a tome isn’t a permanent solution. The monster token is inverted, showing that it has no further effect that turn. The Gate must be closed during the same turn. If it isn’t, then at the end of the Mythos phase the monster is returned upright, as if nothing had happened. (Co-operation in closing the Gate can be used, as described above).

Interesting ideas. I myself don't have a problem with being frustrated in this type of game, so I would probably never use these sort of house rules, except perhaps in solo play (where being frustrated is less fun).

Here's some thoughts:

Concerning co-op actions, I think there's some issues with theme and story here. So I co-operate with my friend to gain an artifact, and the card tells me that I gain an artifact, but for some reason we drop it just because there are two of us? Why would we drop it? Also, some of the stories might make less sense given that they were written with just one investigator in mind. Also, the way we try to succeed at an encounter in turn doesn't feel like co-operation, it just feels like we are each having the same encounter individually.

Here's an alternative idea you might consider: the "impart knowledge" action. As an action, you may "impart knowledge" to another investigator on your space. For the remainder of the turn, that investigator may use one skill on your character sheet instead of his own for a test.

The banishing monster idea is my favorite of yours. I like how banishing a monster can be pretty dangerous (since you have to suffer ALL the damage if you miss your target roll) and I like that you need a tome to banish monsters effectively, this keeps the fighter characters from feeling completely redundant right away. Still, I kind of feel that this new rule makes the fighter types much less desirable to play, since a lore character can potentially be much better than a Strength character at taking care of monsters. I guess that can be slightly true already with the right spells and such. There is a "banish" spell in the new MoM expansion, and one thing that balances it is that it can't be used against epic monsters. Did you intend banishing to be an action or an encounter (an alternative to combat)? What if there is more than one monster on my space, can I banish all of them in the same turn? Just some things to consider.

The clue idea is fine I think. One concern might be that some of the tension in the game is removed if I know that I can get a clue. Say I need a clue to solve a mystery or rumor that I really need to solve. Normally, I wouldn't know for sure that I will succeed in getting the clue, but if I get the clue no matter what, I can know for sure that the mystery or rumor will be solved this turn. Still, I'm sure there'll still be plenty of tension and uncertainty in the game even with your house rule.

So those are just my thoughts. Sorry if I was overly critical. Do whatever is fun for you, of course.

For me all that rules is absurdity. There is a rule in rule book and company spend years and lot of money to make it as good as possible. So I dont even bother myself to read this kind of threads…. Just my opinion….

For me all that rules is absurdity. There is a rule in rule book and company spend years and lot of money to make it as good as possible. So I dont even bother myself to read this kind of threads…. Just my opinion….

I must agree. the game already has an easy option in the mythos deck, but to go as far as to completely change the game because you're "frustrated" with it, is kind of absurd. what you are suggesting is basically a way to manipulate the game so that you can win it 100% of the time. at that point, you've removed the pressure and threat of losing, thereby making the game much less worth playing. my opinion of course, as I suppose the game was not made for everyone. some people have a very hard time losing a game. as such, it has become somewhat common for people to think, "if I don't win, then it isn't any fun". that's quite a pity.

I am mixed on the idea of rule variants. I say this only because as people have stated above, the developers spend much time and money into creating a game that works well. Toss a wrench into one gear and you might find yourself having the whole thing fall apart. On the other hand, some rules seem unnecessary and I feel could be removed without much harm. The tricky thing is that each group and each person within that group will have their own subjective opinions about what rules are more worthwhile/necessary.

With that said I can really appreciate the theme of the co-operative encounters and banishing the monsters. I am not sure I would implement them in my own games, but I really enjoy the thought of two people working together to overcome some obstacle. We have actually had this conversation come up a few times in games I played with different people. I would LOVE if they created some official rule that let people team up and work together to beat encounters.

The banish a monster is a neat idea. I like the idea of a kind of pause button on a monster, but I feel that it kind of breaks down as you are essentially giving everyone a starting spell so to speak. This doesn't really make sense if two people who are not gifted in the lore department banish a powerful monster, it just doesn't fit into the theme for me.

The clue variant is just not something I would ever implement. It feels like you are just stripping the game of an entire component, that is the research encounters. There is so much flavor in those cards, especially since they are specifically crafted for each ancient one, and you are removing it from your games. Not only that, but it makes the game much easier as you are now essentially doing two things at once as you can just do any encounter and receive both the benefit AND the clue.

Personally, I only play with one variant for my Eldritch Horror games, and I didn't start doing it until a bunch of games under my belt. I found the turn order to be unnecessary and a hindrance to strategic game play. For instance if you want Akachi to trade her clue with Jacqueline and then have Jacqueline trade her clues plus the one she got from Akachi to Lola who then has enough to solve a rumor/part of a mystery. If the player turn order sequence doesn't have Akachi sitting before Jacqueline sitting before Lola, then you are SOL, but if you take your turns however you want, then you can actually do something really cool and exciting. Same thing with encounters. Let's say you want one person to close a gate, but there is a monster on the gate and the person who can close the gate better doesn't have much to fight the monster with. You could have a strong fighter take their encounter first so clear away the monster and then have the gate closer to attempt to close the gate. It is just more fun and interesting this way, not to mention it makes sense themewise. If I am a big burly fight I am not going to let the frail old man fight the monster just because he is in front of me, I am going to tell him to get behind me while I charge towards it.

Edit: I still have someone be lead investigator so that if a mythos card comes up that hits a lead investigator, it actually has potency.

The Banishing idea is the one with the most legs for me. The clue idea doubles up clues too often and depreciates their currency in the game and I suspect that co-operative gate closing might cause some narrative issues as outlined by wrmtheta.

As for faith in the rulebook and the company, I'd say that faith was misplaced. I've played plenty of games which are improved by throwing out half the rules and using house rules. You're potentially cutting yourself out of a lot of fun if you never try any variants. The wisdom of crowds and all that...

The Banishing idea is the one with the most legs for me. The clue idea doubles up clues too often and depreciates their currency in the game and I suspect that co-operative gate closing might cause some narrative issues as outlined by wrmtheta.

As for faith in the rulebook and the company, I'd say that faith was misplaced. I've played plenty of games which are improved by throwing out half the rules and using house rules. You're potentially cutting yourself out of a lot of fun if you never try any variants. The wisdom of crowds and all that...

well, rules variants are fine by me for games with issues, one such game I've made a ton of changes to is the highly flawed, but fun, Level 7 by privateer press. in arkham horror,I would leave all gates face down until encountered and start with a rumor..but I didn't hand out unique items whenever a player entered another world, or whenever an investigator gets delayed they gained $5.. essentially, my view on most of the ideas presented felt like he was trying to do engine work on a brand new engine. I'm all for fixing a game, but this one just doesn't feel broken..I dunno, call me an Eldritch horror purist,I guess.

Well, unlike the OP I want to share my 3 favorite variant rules (rather small tweaks), that make the game a little harder instead of easier, all for thematic reasons.

Basically I like to play a game play the given rules, I especially dislike doing stuff going against instructions which are printed somewhere on the game material. So here's my little tweaks, which are all pretty straightforward and unfiddly in their execution:

UNPREDICTABLE SPELL-CASTING

Whenever you gain a random spell from the deck, and you already own that spell, the rules state, that you discard the new card and continue drawing cards from the Spell-Deck, until you draw a Spell you don't have. Well, we're doing it like this:

In the above example you're not allowed to continue drawing cards, but instead you replace your old Spell-Variant with the new Spell-Variant. This makes casting the respective Spell a little bit more exciting, because you may be already accustomed to the flip-result of your "Plumb the Void", so now, be wary, because something unexpected may happen the next time you're trying to cast it.

ONE OF EACH

When an Investigator has been defeated, it's not always guaranteed, that he's able to hold on to every single one of his possessions. After all he got crippled/insane, probably while running for his life.

So, whenever an Investigator is defeated, and you put all his Possessions on his Card (for another Player to gain, once he encounters the defeated Investigator), only 1 of each type of possession is being kept, the rest is discarded: so, only a maximum of 1 Asset, 1 Artifact, 1 Spell, 1 Clue, 1 Ticket and 1 Unique Asset is allowed. If a defeated Investigator owned more of one type of possession, 1 is drawn randomly. Discard the rest/shuffle them into the respective decks.

PLATEAU OF LENG and CITY OF ELDER THINGS

When playing with MoM-Expansion, while the Antarctica-Sideboard is not in play, you still shuffle the Plateau of Leng and City of Elder Things into the pile of Gate-Tokens. City of Elder Things will appear in Antarctica, Plateau of Leng in Himalaya (yes, it's thematic: some Lovecraftian sources indeed claim the Plateau of Leng located in Himalaya).

Isn't the ''banishing'' spell just like what you described?
Also, I like diceman's rules, if I ever want to make it harder, I'll use those for sure.

Another (thematic) tweak comes to mind, simply because I don't really get the official ruling here (always seemed counter-intuitive and out-of-place in Lovecraft-Game to me, since a Lovecraft-Game should be all about challenge and fighting the odds):

MORE EPIC EPIC MONSTERS

Some effects in the game allow you to "Advance the Active Mystery". The official ruling, when the Active Mystery involves killing an Epic Monster, is now, that you put 2 Health-Tokens on the Mystery Card, and the Epic Monster now has 2 less Toughness. Why 2? Seems a bit generous to me. Reducing Toughness by 1 seems more appropriate to me, and also more intuitive. It works this way for other Mysteries as well (+1 Eldritch Token). So, only -1 Toughness from that particular effect. Kinda logical, and easy to remember.

In light of the recent FAQ update, and specifically with the reference card overhaul which I think is far too crippling, just thought I'd bump this thread as a way to look at alternative ways of upping the game difficulty without the fundamental change of 2 for 1 gates in a 4-investigator game.

Just to be clear, I'm not someone who has found the game to have become substantially easier since the expansions, but there's certainly more of a chance of snatching victory from impending defeat (which is not necessarily a bad thing imo).

I'm sure the game designers could easily bump the difficulty with the next expansion by introducing an exclusively difficult series of Mythos and Condition cards, but I don't see why we can't throw about a few ideas of our own.

For instance, one idea I'd previously toyed with was that if an investigator has a Condition and would gain the same Condition again, then it is immediately triggered. Some Conditions come and go without making much of an impact, so this would be a way of not only making them more relevant, but giving them them the added tension of triggering outside of a reckoning. However, I wouldn't apply this rule to Deal Conditions. Dark pacts and Agreements are dangerous enough as is.