I know I reference BoardGameGeek (BGG) an awful lot, here. It'sbecause it's the single best boardgaming resource on the web. No question, no contest.
Unfortunately, it's not always very user-friendly.
I learned this after recommending the site to Ron, who games with us on Wednesday evenings. He came back the following week, and asked for help because he'd struggled with the site.
I figured it'd only take a few seconds to show him, but there's a lot to cover on the site.
And I sincerely doubt that Ron is the only person out there who has struggled with it. So I'm going to be (in and around other entries here) working on a series of entries to help you learn to navigate parts of BGG. "In and around other entries" means that my goal is one entry per month on using BGG. I may do more, but I may occasionally miss a week.
To start with, I figured I'd just post an image of the front page as it appears with me logged in.
My next BGG post will cover some of what you see in this image.
Just watch for the BGG for Beginners tag.
Wherein Eric discusses Games, the Game Industry, Gamer Culture and anything else which catches his eye.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Prototyping
For the last few months, I've had the opportunity to play a friend's prototype game. It's a lot of fun - and I'm learning a lot about what's involved in playtesting a game. I have a lot more sympathy for the team at Wizards of the Coast that has to decide what's balanced and what isn't for their Magic: The Gathering collectable card game.
My friend's game has significantly fewer abilities to balance, and already there have been long discussions on timing issues and the interaction between abilities.
With each revision of the rules, some elements get simpler and the game itself becomes more elegant.
It helps that it's a really fun game. He's thinking about entering it into the Seventh Annual Game Design Contest at KublaCon.
I also have a friend who is a publisher who asked me (totally out of the blue) if I knew of any game projects worth publishing.
I've previously discussed some of the magic of holding a prototype in your hands. And I've played some mediocre prototypes. This isn't one of them. I think that, if a publisher gives it a shot, it'll likely make it a good long ways. Even if it's not eventually published, it'll mark my friend as a designer to watch.
I don't want to say too much about the game itself, because I don't want to endanger its chances of publication in any way. But I'll keep you in the loop on its progress.
My friend's game has significantly fewer abilities to balance, and already there have been long discussions on timing issues and the interaction between abilities.
With each revision of the rules, some elements get simpler and the game itself becomes more elegant.
It helps that it's a really fun game. He's thinking about entering it into the Seventh Annual Game Design Contest at KublaCon.
I also have a friend who is a publisher who asked me (totally out of the blue) if I knew of any game projects worth publishing.
I've previously discussed some of the magic of holding a prototype in your hands. And I've played some mediocre prototypes. This isn't one of them. I think that, if a publisher gives it a shot, it'll likely make it a good long ways. Even if it's not eventually published, it'll mark my friend as a designer to watch.
I don't want to say too much about the game itself, because I don't want to endanger its chances of publication in any way. But I'll keep you in the loop on its progress.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Diplomacy: An Update
Not two days after my recent post about what's up with Diplomacy, my FLGS posted this, and Funagain posted this.
I asked Brian at Phoenix what he'd heard - "It appears to be getting some 'artistic treatment to game components,' but beyond that details at this point are sketchy..."
Armed with more information, I headed to one of my WotC friends to ask some questions. Now, my friend has a great sense of humor and may have been pulling my leg, but it sounds like this won't be a 50th Anniversary set. In fact, this set is expected to have cardboard and paper components.
Again: My friend may very well have been kidding.
We'll know for sure in a few weeks when Avalon Hill/WotC formally release their 2008 schedule.
I asked Brian at Phoenix what he'd heard - "It appears to be getting some 'artistic treatment to game components,' but beyond that details at this point are sketchy..."
Armed with more information, I headed to one of my WotC friends to ask some questions. Now, my friend has a great sense of humor and may have been pulling my leg, but it sounds like this won't be a 50th Anniversary set. In fact, this set is expected to have cardboard and paper components.
Again: My friend may very well have been kidding.
We'll know for sure in a few weeks when Avalon Hill/WotC formally release their 2008 schedule.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
My Gaming Year In Review
This year started for me with all-night gaming. On December 31, 2006 at around 8pm, I got together with some friends and we started to play games.
I made a few comical resolutions for 2007, and one serious one:
I would keep up with my games played. And I've managed (ask my wife how odd I've gotten about keeping track).
400+ plays this year - and I'm mildly surprised at which games I've played the most.
Ca$h'n Gun$ is in first with 28 plays, followed by Mr. Jack with 25 plays.
Dungeon Twister is in third with 23 plays. If you include the expansions, I've played DT 38 times this year.
The surprising thing for me is that I am constantly telling people that I don't play very many two-player games. But Mr. Jack and DT are both right there at the top of the list. I had only two plays with the 3/4 Player expansion for DT, so it was clearly two-player for the other 36 games.
My top five includes three two-player games.
My Top Five Played Games, BTW, are:
1. Ca$h'n Gun$
2. Mr. Jack
3. Dungeon Twister
4. No Thanks!
5. GIPF
These are all games I enjoy - and these five games make up almost a quarter of the games I played this year. If you include the DT Expansions, they're just over a quarter of my games played.
By number of plays, that is - if you compare time spent playing, I suspect you'd see a difference.
A couple of games didn't hit my Top Ten Plays that deserve special call-outs - I'll try to do those later this year.
I'm tweaking my tracking next year, too. I started late this year, after seeing the suggestion online:
If I play an expansion that doesn't stand alone (Vexation, for example), I'll record 1 play for the main game and .1 for the expansion. For games like DT, however, the expansions stand alone and will be posted as a full play of the expansion. This should give me a better idea of what I play next year.
I won't be posting again until late next week at the soonest. Have a safe and fun New Year celebration.
I made a few comical resolutions for 2007, and one serious one:
I would keep up with my games played. And I've managed (ask my wife how odd I've gotten about keeping track).
400+ plays this year - and I'm mildly surprised at which games I've played the most.
Ca$h'n Gun$ is in first with 28 plays, followed by Mr. Jack with 25 plays.
Dungeon Twister is in third with 23 plays. If you include the expansions, I've played DT 38 times this year.
The surprising thing for me is that I am constantly telling people that I don't play very many two-player games. But Mr. Jack and DT are both right there at the top of the list. I had only two plays with the 3/4 Player expansion for DT, so it was clearly two-player for the other 36 games.
My top five includes three two-player games.
My Top Five Played Games, BTW, are:
1. Ca$h'n Gun$
2. Mr. Jack
3. Dungeon Twister
4. No Thanks!
5. GIPF
These are all games I enjoy - and these five games make up almost a quarter of the games I played this year. If you include the DT Expansions, they're just over a quarter of my games played.
By number of plays, that is - if you compare time spent playing, I suspect you'd see a difference.
A couple of games didn't hit my Top Ten Plays that deserve special call-outs - I'll try to do those later this year.
I'm tweaking my tracking next year, too. I started late this year, after seeing the suggestion online:
If I play an expansion that doesn't stand alone (Vexation, for example), I'll record 1 play for the main game and .1 for the expansion. For games like DT, however, the expansions stand alone and will be posted as a full play of the expansion. This should give me a better idea of what I play next year.
I won't be posting again until late next week at the soonest. Have a safe and fun New Year celebration.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
What's Up With Diplomacy?
As many of you know, I live and work in the greater Seattle area, which is home to many board, card, and role-playing game publishers. Including Wizards of the Coast (WotC).
WotC is owned by Hasbro, as is Avalon Hill (AH).
In fact, AH is currently the board game division of WotC.
Yes, this is relevant.
I have several friends who work (or worked) for WotC. So do most of my friends - as a local gamer, it's almost impossible not to have friends who work for a local publisher.
Now, news spilled a few weeks ago that a new printing (or edition) of Diplomacy is being shopped to distributors. Since the game has been OOP for a few years, it's newsworthy.
2009 is the 50th Anniversary of Diplomacy. As the shirt says, it's been "Destroying Friendships Since 1959." A 2008 release would give the 50th Anniversary time to get rolling, so they could do some sort of celebration throughout 2009.
So here's where I get interested:
I asked a couple of my WotC friends about the upcoming reprint. My friends are usually fairly free with information - it has similarities to my arrangement with Asmodée: they trust me.
Everyone I've asked so far has clammed up or mentioned their Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).
It kindles a little spark of interest - and perhaps some hope for a 50th Anniversary release. WotC, if you're listening, I'd love to have a copy of Colonial Diplomacy included ...
WotC is owned by Hasbro, as is Avalon Hill (AH).
In fact, AH is currently the board game division of WotC.
Yes, this is relevant.
I have several friends who work (or worked) for WotC. So do most of my friends - as a local gamer, it's almost impossible not to have friends who work for a local publisher.
Now, news spilled a few weeks ago that a new printing (or edition) of Diplomacy is being shopped to distributors. Since the game has been OOP for a few years, it's newsworthy.
2009 is the 50th Anniversary of Diplomacy. As the shirt says, it's been "Destroying Friendships Since 1959." A 2008 release would give the 50th Anniversary time to get rolling, so they could do some sort of celebration throughout 2009.
So here's where I get interested:
I asked a couple of my WotC friends about the upcoming reprint. My friends are usually fairly free with information - it has similarities to my arrangement with Asmodée: they trust me.
Everyone I've asked so far has clammed up or mentioned their Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).
It kindles a little spark of interest - and perhaps some hope for a 50th Anniversary release. WotC, if you're listening, I'd love to have a copy of Colonial Diplomacy included ...
Sunday, December 23, 2007
A Brief Side Trip
Last Wednesday, we gave out our Game Night Christmas Gifts - a $10 Gift Certificate to Phoenix Games.
I don't think everyone there celebrates Christmas, but everyone there celebrates some gift-giving holiday in December. And no-one is offended at receiving a Christmas gift. Which is nice.
Every year, my wife and I discuss how much to give, and every year, we settle on $10 - we think it's the ideal amount to support the game store:
1) This year, we bought 12 gift certificates. That's $120 direct to the store.
2) Some members will lose the gift certificates. This turns the $10 for that person into pure profit. That said, however, if they mention it to Brian, he'll probably replace them - but he doesn't have to. And it's hard to get hugely upset over losing $10.
3) Very few games cost less than $10. This means that when people use the certificates, they wind up spending more money on top of the certificate. The more money which is spent at the game store, the better off the game store is.
Even though I had recently received a sizeable bonus this year, we didn't increase the amount we gave.
As I won't be back until the middle of the week, I'm going to take this opportunity to wish all of you a very merry Christmas (unless you don't celebrate Christmas, in which case I wish you a wonderful Winter Holiday of Choice - and this wish is retroactive if I've already missed your Winter Holiday).
I don't think everyone there celebrates Christmas, but everyone there celebrates some gift-giving holiday in December. And no-one is offended at receiving a Christmas gift. Which is nice.
Every year, my wife and I discuss how much to give, and every year, we settle on $10 - we think it's the ideal amount to support the game store:
1) This year, we bought 12 gift certificates. That's $120 direct to the store.
2) Some members will lose the gift certificates. This turns the $10 for that person into pure profit. That said, however, if they mention it to Brian, he'll probably replace them - but he doesn't have to. And it's hard to get hugely upset over losing $10.
3) Very few games cost less than $10. This means that when people use the certificates, they wind up spending more money on top of the certificate. The more money which is spent at the game store, the better off the game store is.
Even though I had recently received a sizeable bonus this year, we didn't increase the amount we gave.
As I won't be back until the middle of the week, I'm going to take this opportunity to wish all of you a very merry Christmas (unless you don't celebrate Christmas, in which case I wish you a wonderful Winter Holiday of Choice - and this wish is retroactive if I've already missed your Winter Holiday).
Friday, December 14, 2007
Miniatures Gaming - Oops!
I realized the other day that I overlooked discussing one significant factor on the other games I've covered:
"Wow, that looks cool! How do you play?"
It's not a barrier to entry, but it needs to be factored in the game's rating.
I did factor it into the final rating of the games I've done so far, but (while doing so) failed to discuss it.
For example:
I really like Battleground: Fantasy Warfare. It's a great game. It plays well, it has a low introductory cost, and it's just plain fun. But the cards aren't very eye-catching. I give it a C here.
A large part of what sucked me into War Machine was the appearance of the figures. This gives it an A.
Once I'm done going over these minis, I'll throw together a chart with the games and the various categories I've used in rating them.
"Wow, that looks cool! How do you play?"
It's not a barrier to entry, but it needs to be factored in the game's rating.
I did factor it into the final rating of the games I've done so far, but (while doing so) failed to discuss it.
For example:
I really like Battleground: Fantasy Warfare. It's a great game. It plays well, it has a low introductory cost, and it's just plain fun. But the cards aren't very eye-catching. I give it a C here.
A large part of what sucked me into War Machine was the appearance of the figures. This gives it an A.
Once I'm done going over these minis, I'll throw together a chart with the games and the various categories I've used in rating them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)