Ava Jarvis: Trimming Down That Collection

If you were reading the various gaming blogs, sites, and random conversation just after the New Year, you’ll notice a very common trend among the serious hobby gamers: “I’ve got to get rid of all these games. Or play all these games. And then get rid of the ones I don’t like. I swear this is my New Year’s resolution....”

The act of Spring Cleaning your collection, large or small, is a controversial one. Doubtless not as controversial as, say, whether Puerto Rico or Caylus is the game that deserves the number one BGG spot, but the issue comes to be personal. Especially if you don’t have the budget, the space, or the time! 

There is a counter-argument to the yearly purge: sometimes you don’t know if a game is going to come in handy later. Suppose your group tastes (even your group) change, or perhaps you’re going to have children or get involved with a significant other who, while not a gamer, is amenable to the idea of spending time together via not-too-deep games. Suddenly, getting rid of Princes of Florence, that Harry Potter CCG collection, or your stack of Kosmos two-players is a question of looking forwards towards the future. Also arguable is that you’d be richer in the end if you kept all your games, simply because you wouldn’t go through the trouble of re-buying them. It’s even worse if the game you get rid of turns out to be the next Magic Realm or Heroquest and in your old age you’ve turned incredibly nostalgic or have a new generation of gamers on your hands.

Nevertheless, practically speaking, pruning the collection down might be a good idea if it’s starting to encroach on your living space. Or if the guilt is keeping you tossing and turning at night.  Or if the fire hazard is affecting your home insurance rates. Even if that isn’t so, wouldn’t it be better for the gaming community, as a whole, to get their hands on games you’ve been keeping, perhaps at reduced prices or even for free? Games going to a better home---that’s a very altruistic stance for the game connoisseur and collector.

If I had to give a reason why I have Crazy Bilbo trades and sales once in a while (though not too crazy, “Munchkin with all expansions” in trade for Taj Mahal is not going to fly), it’s the altruism reason. Secondary would be the storage thing, since I have a clean house policy, even if I don’t always get there.

Trimming your collection also includes prevention. A lot of us will get games on impulsive whims, and while this is a good thing for the industry in general, if you’re looking to avoid having to go through that game sacrifice every year, you might be better off holding back. If you’re not going to keep them, even if they turn out to be mediocre, it’s advisable to hold back. Prevention is difficult, but trust me---it’s less heart-wrenching than trading/giving away. Of course, if you’re gold-mining or investing for games that can be used to trade for older games if you don’t like them, it could be a good thing to grab that Gemblo with expansion and other goodies if you’ve got your eye on a possible future offered copy of Arabian Nights that no one else has been able to pry from the owner’s still-living hands.

But for all our good intentions, most of us are still stuck with the dreaded purge. So here are some ideas for trimming the verge down with an eye towards future investment.  They are all based on categorization.

Categorize your collection by play/mechanic characteristics.

This is a very painful and involved process, categorization being one of the most difficult areas for both humans and computing, especially when it comes to the more-often-than-not fuzzy area of mechanics and their combinations (which can even be personal---some of us may consider Knizia auction games to be a valid and distinct subset). Many of us keep our collection on BGG because it’s the best collection-maintenance tool out there, and some kind of personal tags feature would help here---just think if you could count your games by tag. Everyone needs a couple of different auction games, race games, building games, games where you trade cubes for other cubes for resources for more things.... and keeping your collection down to two or even three stars of each category will keep you from over-trimming the variety of your gaming garden, yet leave enough blossoms to enjoy for a while. You might even discover categories you never knew you needed. Sub-categorization can help (one car race game, one horse-racing game, one game where racing steps are not determined by dice luck, for instance).

Categorization will also help with prevention---do you really need another deduce-where-the-other-player-is after you’ve got Scotland Yard (for your gamers) and Ghost Chase (for your kids)? But perhaps you know Scotland Yard is getting old, and your kids are growing up, and now you’ve got a group dynamic that wants theme and special effects. Now might be the time to grab that copy of Fury of Dracula and trade (however painfully...) Scotland Yard for something else.

Prioritize by game hardiness over a long period of time.

We all know there are some games that are going to be hardy perennials, and games that are going to be fleeting in audience.  Perennials usually have one or more characteristics of

• Being deep enough for a lot of strategy exploration.
  

• Light or short enough for repeat plays when you are tired (very common these days) or are short on time (also common).
  

• Alternatively, games that get pulled out only once in a while, but it’s like a good birthday when they are.
  

• Wide and general appeal, maybe even mainstream popularity, for many types of players.
  

• Time- and trend-resilient themes and mechanics.
  

• Life-long company and/or community support.
  

• Tendency to either be open enough to develop interesting variants or add extra expansions.
  

Of course, your mileage may vary.

An example: I’d want a light race game (Winner’s Circle) and a deeper one (Hase und Igel), even one that has a very universal appeal among non-gamers (Backgammon).

Limit by play frequency.

In my opinion, BGG has a great ratings system with advantages over other, more indeterminate systems around, like complexity/strategy/tactical/chaos scales, which are hard for even just an individual to determine. BGG ratings are based on play frequency, or rather, play frequency desire (after all, some games are not going to be frequent, but if you were able to through abilities to enter alternate dimension with an infinite supply of amenable partners and time, it would be a different story). This is a very honest rating, and difficult to play around with or make excuses over.

Combine this with one or two of the above for a more complex game limiting system that has empirically proven, rather than merely theoretical, replay potential.

Buy a copy of Ludoviel.

Ludoviel was going cheap like borscht for a while on Funagain, although if you missed the fun, you’ve got a $31.95 price tag again.  Ludoviel is a meta-game for game maniacs, from some of our favorite designers, and comes with 119 cards with arbitrary descriptions and categories on them. This is the quickest and most painless way to get a very eclectic collection with a good chance of both variety and playability, especially if you treat the categories as a “first game to come to your mind” exercise---or at least, first pleasurable game to come to your mind.

Categories include such memorable eccentricities like

• Green box
  
• Has to do with crime
  
• Involves boat racing
  
• Majority of the game material is wood
  
• Publisher is no longer in business
  
• Collectors want it
  

More eccentric categories can be added of course. I hope that Ludoviel someday has an expansion, and anyways, it’s a great little conversation piece if you live or even occasionally visit fellow game freaks.

I have this compunction to follow all the trends
Though with me I know they wouldn’t last
Before I really know if they gonna to fit my tastes
I buy them up without a single gasp
Don’t get, don’t get
Don’t get if you’re not gonna play
Don’t get, don’t get
Don’t get if you’re not gonna play

Even though I’m fond of looking at the games
Filling up my living room shelves
I must admit I’m not gonna play with all of them
And I’ve got to study them or else
Give ‘way, give ‘way
Give ‘way if you ain’t got that interest
Give ‘way, give ‘way
Give ‘way if you ain’t got that interest

   -- adapted from the Beatles’ “Get Back”

© 2006 Ava Jarvis

---

Comments:

No comments yet.

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

< Back Home