Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35152 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20833 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7420 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3978 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3504 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2078 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2584 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2255 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2498 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3018 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3695 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2625 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2462 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2291 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2507 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.

How to divide hobby games into broad categories?

More
10 Feb 2017 08:32 - 10 Feb 2017 09:00 #243738 by Matt Thrower
For my latest project I need an excuse to talk at length about a number of particularly fun and/or interesting games. They're all kinds of games: role-playing and miniature as well as board. I've got to write about these games in sections so, ideally, I need to find a good way of grouping them together into categories.

The purpose of this project is to introduce new gamers or gamers who are dedicate to one niche of the hobby (e.g. people who've played, say, Warhammer and nothing else) to the wider world of games. So we need to be able to talk about a game and give it some history and context with other games in the same "section".

Some ideas that I've had and rejected are: by decade (too dry and academic), by mechanic (too board-game centric), by "type" as in role-playing, wargame, card game etc (too artificial).

Currently I'm left with two ideas. The first is to break them up by weight (casual, medium, heavy, simulation). This has the advantage of being marginally more scientific than other approaches but giving games a sort of "approachability" rating is going to be a part of this project, so it's kind of replicating information that's already there. The second is to do it my theme (fantasy & horror, superhero & sci-fi, historical etc) but that leaves a problem with abstracts and semi-abstract real-world euros like, well, all the popular euros.

What do you guys think? Any other ideas?
Last edit: 10 Feb 2017 09:00 by Matt Thrower.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 08:42 #243739 by Black Barney
I think dividideing by weight makes the most sense but I don't know how you can group board games with RPGs
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 08:57 - 10 Feb 2017 08:58 #243740 by hotseatgames
A combination of theme and weight would go a long way to informing someone of what to expect. And if it has the side benefit of steering people away from Euro games, all the better. ;)

I think the combination is important, because there's a wide gulf between Last Night on Earth and a zombie miniatures game that uses tape measures.
Last edit: 10 Feb 2017 08:58 by hotseatgames.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 09:15 #243743 by the_jake_1973
You should definitely pose this question to the denizens of the Boardgames subreddit.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 09:28 #243745 by Gregarius
I think it would be neat to divide them into categories that are not normally used. You could do monetary or time cost, but then you'd likely have very uneven distribution. You could pick a specific component, like: dice, cards, chits, figures, but that kinda works the same as mechanic. Hrm. I'll have to think a while to come up with something unique.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 09:32 #243746 by fastbilly1
I typically do it by weight and type. So light euro, medium wargame, etc.

When introducing people who are on the outskirts of games but play one heavily - say Magic or Warhammer, the easiest way is to just ask what draws them to it. Someone who plays Magic may love deck building, so it is easier to get them into something like Ascension or Dominion, than Puerto Rico or Scythe. My Warhammer group mostly played it because it was the only option. We enjoyed the strategic decisions more than the army building, so when were introduced to Memoir 44, most sold off their Warhammer armies. RPGs are a different animal though.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 14:58 #243764 by wadenels
Weight, type, and theme/setting integration.

A game like Pax Porfiriana would be kinda heavy, tableau building, and setting tightly integrated.

Warhammer Diskwars would be kinda light, miniatures (on discs), and setting well integrated.

Codenames would be light, social word deduction, and minimal theme integration; One Night Werewolf is light, social role/team deduction, and mediumly integrated setting.

Actually now that I've typed it out I think about it there's still something lacking there but it seems like there might be seed of a good idea.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 15:28 #243767 by SuperflyPete
Make up your own categories, mate. No need to parrot what a thousand plonkers have done.

If that becomes too difficult, I'd use blended categories like...
Complex Narratives
Narrative Middleweights
Narrative Casual
Abstract Middleweights

...and so on. Blending style and complexity would be a good starting point as long as you define what each main category is and how it translates to the experience.

Good luck, will enjoy reading it.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 15:49 - 10 Feb 2017 15:51 #243768 by boothwah
I have my shelf categorized as such :


Top Shelf: Games I Like
Middle Shelf : Games that I used to Like, but keep because noobies love them
Bottom Shelf : Games that I loathe, because who doesn't have a copy of /apples to apples/pictionary/taboo/quelf/etc. I F#$#ing loathe parlor games. And when it's my wife's night to pick games....because we are going to be playing a parlor game.

And that's usually how I introduce someone to gaming - If they pick something from the bottom shelf we can never be friends. Ever.
Last edit: 10 Feb 2017 15:51 by boothwah.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower, Colorcrayons, wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 16:03 #243769 by wadenels

boothwah wrote: I have my shelf categorized as such :


Top Shelf: Games I Like
Middle Shelf : Games that I used to Like, but keep because noobies love them
Bottom Shelf : Games that I loathe, because who doesn't have a copy of /apples to apples/pictionary/taboo/quelf/etc. I F#$#ing loathe parlor games. And when it's my wife's night to pick games....because we are going to be playing a parlor game.

And that's usually how I introduce someone to gaming - If they pick something from the bottom shelf we can never be friends. Ever.


With matching liquor cabinet I hope. "Tonight we're playing Apples to Apples and drinking swill!"
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower, boothwah

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 17:09 #243772 by RobertB
I think 'weight' as a game concept is BGG/FA jargon. Not the worst example by far, but I know my mother-in-law would be lost if it was used as a synonym for 'rules complexity'. Just some slide that looked like this would touch on it:

=========================================
Checkers -> lightweight
Chess -> middleweight
Monopoly -> heavyweight

Weight is not strategic depth, Weight is rules complexity!
=========================================

I know if I had to teach a class to my relatives, I'd drag them though a quick glossary lesson, so we could go faster later.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 17:37 #243773 by Black Barney
Monopoly heavier than chess??

You are OUTTA HERE!!!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Feb 2017 21:02 #243776 by dysjunct
There's no one answer, because there's no one thing that people look for in entertainment.

That said, if it were me, I'd have two axes: rules complexity and rules strictness.

Rules complexity is how easy or hard it is to internalize the rules. So the checkers - chess - monopoly thing works here.

Rules strictness is how much room for interpretation there is. Chess is extremely strict. Fiasco is extremely lenient.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Feb 2017 08:59 #243784 by Jexik
I'd maybe define it by game length and the level or type of interaction. If they're coming from Warhammer, pretty much any rules set won't seem that daunting. RPGs kind of defy this classification though.

The idea of a cooperative game like Pandemic is quite novel to some people, and there's a big difference between M:tG and Race for the Galaxy, unless what you came for is complex card interactions.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Matt Thrower

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.201 seconds