The Tao of Gaming

Which I was just about to comment on


I see (via Linnaeus) that there's a book of essays on "The Best 100 Hobby Games" with noted game designers penning essay tributes. I should look into it.

I've played roughly 1/2 of the list (which includes CCGs, Miniatures, and RPGs, as well as Euros and Wargames). I've snarked on lists like that before, but this one's pretty good. First of all, any list that includes My Beloved Shadowfist shall be absolved many sins.

Second, even the games I haven't played I recognize, and those that I don't like do have some claim to fame. The only real reach is "My Life with Master." [I'm basing this on Greg Costikyan's online review from a few years back]. The game clearly intends to more Art than Fun. But Costikyan has always stretched the boundaries, so his nod to MLwM is true to form.

Anyway, looks worth a read. And seeing as how I just finished up the Aubrey-Maturin series, I need more reading material.

[Linguistic discussion of my title construction at Language Log]

Geoff:
I'm four books into the Aubrey-Maturan series...does it hold up?
9.14.2007 6:35am
Larry Levy (mail):
I still intend on picking up the Best 100 Games book, but I have to say I'm a little disappointed with the list. Like you, I've played about half of the games (45 of them, to be precise). 13 are in my personal Top 100, but there's only half a dozen others that I look forward to playing. Having the number of games I'm likely to play come in at less than 20% isn't a great match, IMO. Most of the games I haven't played I've at least heard of (there's only 15 that are unknown to me), but even that figure is a bit higher than I'd have liked.

The large number of unplayed titles isn't too surprising, I guess, given the editor's desire to pick from many different categories. I'm no wargamer, have played only a couple of CCGs, and while I used to dabble in quite a few different role-playing systems, those days of experimentation ended about 20 years ago.

I was just hoping for something a little different. There was a brief glimmer of hope that this would be the long awaited book summarizing the eurogame experience (either its history or critiques of its most popular and significant games). I wonder if we'll ever see a title which remotely approaches that goal.
9.14.2007 10:07am
Brian (www):
Well, I finished the series, so I'm fairly obliged to say it does. It's a slow-moving series (languid, at times) but I don't think the quality drops off noticeably. There's a rhythm after the first few books; they have to establish it. Definitely an acquired taste, but usually I figure anyone whose made it through 1000 pages of O'Brian probably likes it.
9.14.2007 11:20am
Brian (www):
Well, I'm not likely to play many of the games either. I glanced at the list and I'd be happy to play roughly 1/3rd of the games listed. In fact, I've played about 20-25 of the games listed since I moved (a touch over two years).

I wouldn't mind seeing a coffee-table book on Eurogames. Looks like you'll need to write it. Personally, if I were pitching the book, I'd make it "The Greatest Games You Haven't Played." I'd have a section on the classics (Settlers, Puerto Rico, etc) and then a section on Author's picks. The prior book just seems to have author's picks,
9.14.2007 11:55am
Chris Farrell (mail) (www):
I'm surprised you cut them some slack on the list :) I personally was more than a little disappointed by them - they seem stuck in the late 80s. I think the euro picks were good, but many of the wargame picks bordered on atrocious and too many mediocre games were included while too many extraordinary games were overlooked. And one can't make an accessibility argument; many of the old wargames are really complicated, out of print, and very hard to get while great more modern stuff (like Hannibal, We the People, etc) was ignored, and then when they skipped ahead to recent years their wargame picks were not terribly inspiring. I also think the emphasis on old wargames was excessive compared to the time spent on euros. How many people are going to play Empires in Arms? I'm a serious wargamer and even *I* wouldn't touch that thing again. Early 80s, maybe, now, not so much.

But on the other hand, I'll be fascinated to see what the designer of the Lord of the Rings Tabletop Battle Game has to say about it. I'm still really looking forward to reading the book, just because it's got a lot of interesting designers writing a lot of pieces that should be interesting to read. But if it was really trying to get at the Top 100 Hobby Games, then I'd have to say they didn't do a great job on that angle. If they wanted to get at the top games, they should have gotten a couple serious game critics (Mike Siggins would have been a natural). But when it comes to hobby games, I guess there are a hell of a lot more designers than recognizable critics (Shannon Applecline does make an appearance).
9.14.2007 1:50pm
Brian (www):
I'll admit that I didn't look too hard at what didn't make it. Although, now that I think about it ... Titan, 18xx, Age of Steam, Tichu (I wouldn't put it in, but lots of people have played thousands of times). And the wargames I just skimmed over ... I can't really comment on any older titles. (And, remember, I like Here I Stand, although I could certainly seem flipping it PoG or WtP or Hannibal. Certainly it's too new to really qualify). Should World in Flames be on the list? I've no idea (although I "played" it once, I never really grasped it). But I wouldn't be surprised but its appearance, or by its absence. Such is the nature of the genre.

Whenever you have a "100 Greatest" the most interesting part (ignoring overlooked items) are the bottom half of the list. If I asked for 100 Most influential rock musicians/bands, nobody would be surprised to see the Beatles, Elvis, The Who, The Stones (etc) in the top spots. And the order is somewhat a matter of taste. But rounding out the rest of the spots .... that's interesting.

Now, if this book had missed Settlers (or D&D, or Magic), then we could scoff. For all I know, they did that with Wargames (and We the People/Hannibal does seem a glaring omission, although the HiS article probably references it), but I'll withold savagery until I read the book.

Again, if you, Larry, Sumo, Peter Sarrett, Rick Thornquist, etc etc do such a book, I think it would be great.
9.14.2007 6:18pm
JeffG (www):
Wow...must be more like late 70s-early 80s; that's when I played a lot of games. There are some really weird choices. Naval War is really only interesting as the precursor to Modern Naval Battles. While I like MNB and have played it a lot, I'd never call it one of the top 100 games. Warlock of Firetop Mountain is very similar to Dungeon and not as good. I'd not list Dungeon among my top 100; in fact, I gave away my copy. An odd omission is Empire of the Petal Throne---late 70s RPGs got lots of space, and they didn't choose EPT? (FWIW, I liked RuneQuest and Traveller, but I can't imagine that they can hold a candle to more modern RPGs, but I don't know, since I don't play them anymore.)

What's "The Warlord?" I've heard of (and played) "Warlord," a fantasy miniatures game, but not a game called "The Warlord."

I don't think Tichu qualifies by their definition of "hobby game;" there are no other real card games.
9.15.2007 9:53am
Gery McLaughlin (mail):
I assume it's 'The Warlord game' which is a classic - published by Games Workshop in their early days as Apocalypse http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2574 - the combat system is pretty unique and lots of fun. One of my 'most played' games as we played it to death when it came out, but it's been a while now.
9.16.2007 8:14am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?