Nice: 7.

So from the first 2 articles I’ve noticed that you use a 60 point scale with Weak, Normal, and Strong versions of both whole and .5 numbers. Maybe you should just switch to a 100 point scale? At least then there may be some variety...you know like 73, 74, 75, 76, 77…

Also, you may want to add a link to Part 1 of this series so people can find it easier if they missed it the first time.

A strong 7?  And a Weak 7?  On a scale of 1-10 we still can’t differentiate games enough that we are giving these types of ratings?  C’mon Larry, you might as well be using a 100pt scale.

Were getting to Part III and the main topic that seems to be coming is “Still decent games I played recently...”

7 means a pretty good game and given all of the disagreement I see about games,from everyone, all these games can’t possibly be within 2 points of each other???  Its like 30+ games your reviewed so far.

Actually, I am reading Chris Dunbar’s post above me… I see he beat me to the 100pt scale idea.

Quote: “Cities – (2 games) The love child of Take it Easy and Carcassonne.”

No better statement exemplifies the sameness of boardgame design today.  Best statement you made in this article Larry!

I am glad that Alea Iacta Est shaped up to be an interesting release - As a declared hater of dice games, my mind was changed from the moment I laid eyes on Yspahan, which also employs dice in an interesting mechanic for game play. That game and releases like Formula D changed the way I looked at dice rolling.  I have been watching this one since I read an Allers write up on it somewhere and I still believe its a strong contender for the collection.

I am still hesitant to purchase a game that seems to be solely a dice roller.  I seem to always equate dice with luck..and if that overturns any hope of strategy I am not a huge proponent.

So Ryan, how often do you deliberately play games you suspect you’re going to hate?  I try to keep it to a minimum--life (and time for gaming) is too short.  With all the enormous amount of information available about new titles (thanks, in part, to my fellow correspondents at BGN), it isn’t too hard to avoid games that just won’t work for me.  A few disasters will still occur, but I don’t think arranging for two thirds of the games you try to be at least mild successes is too lofty a goal to set.

My ratings scale needs to be taken into account as well.  A “7” for me is already a game that, while I’m happy to play it, I won’t usually suggest and I’ll strive to get something better on the table.  I’ve tried to make that clear a few times in my comments.  So it’s really the games listed in Part 1 of this series that were the true finds for me.

As for the “strong” and “weak” 7’s, I’m a bit bewildered why the presentation of more information might be a problem.  I don’t actually record my ratings like that, but for the purposes of this article, I figured I’d refine my feelings a bit more to avoid a series of 7’s.  The arrangement of strongs and weaks might change next week, but that’s how I feel today.  If it ruffles some sensitivities, you can always ignore it and just use the numerical rating.

Ryan, I realize that our opinions on the types of games we like are different, but if you were hoping I’d report that most of the stuff I played recently was crap, then I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed (and will usually be disappointed).  Even though 2008 was NOT a strong year for games for me, there was still a reasonable amount of stuff that was at least worth playing.  And since those are the ones I played, those are the ones I’ll report on.  But look at all the games that come out each year!  There were easily a dozen other designs that I wanted to try that I DIDN’T get to play at the Gathering!  Is 30 decent games in a year that unusual?  Are your tastes so refined that you hate most of the games you play?

I’m not being snarky with that last question.  There are other gamers--Chris Farrell is an outstanding example--who seem to have such high standards that they apparently dislike (or at least find fault with) most of the games they try.  That’s fine, but I’m happy to say that isn’t me.  I don’t view myself as a Pollyanna (far from it) and think I’m at least typically critical of the games I play.  But gaming has been my love virtually all my life and after a long search I’ve found the kinds of games that truly work for me.  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that some very smart designers and publishers are releasing a lot of things that will appeal to me at least a bit?

I figure you were just baiting the haters with this article until I read that last comment.  Yikes

Larry, maybe it’s better to let the descriptions speak for themselves and not put a numerical rating? I liked your articles and found your descriptions very informative. I even feel like I can make good buying decisions based on what you wrote. Your descriptions more than adequately said what you like and what was lacking. In your descriptions you made clear distinctions and had strong opinions. You pointed out games that needed more development, games that were possible award winners, games that had themes that did nothing for you, and games that you couldn’t get enough of.

But then you followed those opinionated descriptions that differentiated the games from one another, with a number that essentially says “these are all about the same.” All the numbers are doing is undermining all of that great work you did earlier.

Thanks again for putting in the time to bring all of that great information to us.

Tom M.:  Maybe you’re like me.  I strongly dislike most games that use dice as resolution devices (like many war games) or for roll-and-move designs.  They introduce the kind of luck that cannot be adjusted for.  As a contrast, I much prefer card games.  Sure, I can be dealt a crappy hand, but there’s still usually different ways to play it and I can play in a way that tries to minimize the damage from my poor cards.  But if I keep rolling poorly in D-Day or Monopoly, I have no chance (and will probably have no fun).

But I *love* pure dice games.  This puzzles a lot of people, but I view these as very different from the dice-resolution games.  I’m talking about games like Can’t Stop, To Court the King, Pickomino, and Airships.  These games reward probability management.  Sure, you can be lucky or unlucky with the dice, but there’s so many rolls that the person who makes the best use of his turns will usually win.  I find the decisions these games require to be very enjoyable.

Games like Yspahan and Kingsburg, where the dice are used in novel ways, but they aren’t the sole focus of the game, are also a lot of fun.  Without question, we have entered the Golden Age of the Dice Game.

So just because you don’t like some games that use dice, don’t be afraid to try out some games that use *nothing* but dice, Tom!  You may be pleasantly surprised!

I rate this article a “7”.

But seriously, maybe you should suggest and play more games that you do like, instead of mediocre games your “friends” suggest.

You may be right, Robert.  Although I bet if I did that, I’d get a bunch of comments wondering what happened to the ratings!  :-) But I don’t usually include a numerical rating in my more detailed reviews of games and when I provide them here, they seem to be more trouble than they’re worth.  So I may change that next time.  Thanks for the suggestion.

The funny thing is, I now have so many dice lying around in my apartment thanks to all the Alea Iacta Est prototypes I made over the years that I MUST design another game with dice in order to have any use for them again.  If that’s true for other designers, then we haven’t seen the end of the “Golden Age”:-)

I completely agree with Robert. The descriptions of the games were great...and at first, that’s really all I noticed. Then I went back and checked out the ratings and thought..."Wait..from the descriptions he definitely seemed to enjoy some of these games more than others, but the only thing that separates them is a “strong” or “weak”?

Anyway..I’m fairly new to this site, and loved your review of Automobile and I can’t wait to try it because of that review. Thanks for that and keep up the great work!

Larry:  Your tastes in dice gaming mesh perfectly with mine.  We need to get together over a dice game sometime! :)

Great article.  I give it 2 oranges (navel) and a gherkin.

Larry, I say go with the system that you are happy with!

Dan, I understand what you’re saying.  But unless I think it’s a game I’ll dislike, I always want to try a new game at least once.  It’s part of the Cult of the New sickness.  So almost all of these gaming debuts were voluntary decisions.

And then I move on.  So I played Finca twice, enough to figure out what’s good and bad about the game, found it pleasant and something I’d be willing to play (kind of the definition of a 7, no?), but now I can put it aside and play other games I find better.  I got to try something new (which I love), played with some good people, and had a reasonably good time.  If I weren’t at a convention where I’m gaming day and night for over a week, I might be more particular in my choice of games, but at the Gathering, it’s a perfect way to spend some time.

Larry, thanks for these articles!  I always enjoy reading what others with more access to new games think of them, and you present it well!

I am still torn as to whether Larry’s rating system is satire, or if he’s serious.

Why not deviate from the BGG rating system and use something… useful?  How much you want to play a game is not based entirely on the merits of the game.

Larry, when you write “I strongly dislike most games that use dice as resolution devices (like many war games) or for roll-and-move designs.  They introduce the kind of luck that cannot be adjusted for,” I’d like to make a comment.  Not about what you like or dislike, but about the ability to adjust for luck.

It’s certainly true that luck is difficult to adjust for in some of these designs, but it’s not true that every game with extensive die-rolling introduces luck that cannot be adjusted for.  In particular, there are a number of war games that have a lot of die rolling, but give players the opportunity to adjust.  Paths of Glory has a ton of die rolling, but I wouldn’t give myself a 10% chance of beating a top player (and I’m at least competent at the game.) The effect of any one die roll is small (especially against a top player) and I couldn’t get lucky enough to overcome the skill difference.  For the People appears to be a highly luck-driven game (probably more as a result of the card draws than as a result of the die rolls) but James Pei won the WBC tournament 7 years in a row, so that it was big news when Riku swooped in from Finland to beat him.  James has also won 4 out of 4 Winter Activation Meeting tournaments, so that (in total) he’s won 11 out of 13---just as good as the Bill Russell Celtics.

You might not like war games, but in these games luck is not a big driver of who wins.  In fact, I believe they have an enormous skill element.

Another example, not quite in the war game genre, is Titan.  It seems to be all die rolls, but the strong players win a huge percentage of their games against the weak players.

Thanks for the comment, Eric.  My wargame experience is slender and mostly concentrated on older titles (circa 1975 and earlier).  I’ve never even played a CBW.  So your words carry far more weight than mine when it comes to the skill required to play these games.

But I’ve never disputed that wargames have a high skill factor.  No, my problem is with the resolution of the individual battles.  Leaving my fate up to the roll of a die (or any other randomizing device) has always bothered me.  And I’m not comforted by the many rolls in these games, as there’s always a few key conflicts.  Besides, 50 years after the introduction of the hex and counter wargame, it seems like lazy game design to keep relying on this mechanic.  I realize that there are random factors in war beyond any general’s control.  But I want to play a game, not a simulation (another reason I avoid wargames), so that answer doesn’t satisfy me either.

Obviously, there are many players who are completely content with the state of combat resolution in modern wargames.  But just as obviously, I am not alone in my dissatisfaction.  I did not create the terms Resolution Luck and Situational Luck, nor am I the first to embrace them.  I find them useful to explain why the luck of a roll and move is anathema to me, but the luck in a cardgame is acceptable and even enjoyable.  So I acknowledge that wargaming is a great branch of the hobby and that my views of them and their combat resolution methods are far from universal.  But they’re not necessarily isolated either.

re: Playing games that you find just “meh”

Sometimes it’s as much about *who* you play with rather than *what* you play.  Actually, most times it’s that way with me.  I’d almost always prefer to play a “meh” game for an hour or two with people I want to hang with than a “10” with people I don’t know (or worse, people I dislike).

I’m going for the suggestion that’s been posted here - Larry your compact reviews are useful and interesting - the ratings?  pointless.  Drop the ratings.

Ratings are supposed to be an at-a-glance way of comparing games.  Within the larger context of a database like BGG they provide an aggregate opinion that can be useful to some.

By adding the same ratings to each game listed in this article you aren’t adding anything of value.

We can’t instantly compare the games, and we don’t have a database to aggregate multiple opinions.  You may be actually decreasing the interest and value of your article.

-- disclaimer: I’m not a fan of rating scales, but I do know that they provide use for others.

I’ve been discussing this with a number of other people, Aaron, and they’re saying essentially what you’ve said.  I am now convinced that this is sound advice.  Henceforth, the words will stay; the numbers will go.