The Tao of Gaming

Mik Svellov has set up a webpage so that you can vote for the Counter Hall of Fame. Here (copied from his page) are the nominees:

• Adel Verpflichtet
• Carabande
• Carcassonne
• Demarage
• Die Fürsten von Florenz
• Expedition
• Formule Dé
• Junta
• Kardinal & König
• La Cittá
• Löwenherz
• Mü
• 6 Nimmt
• Tadsch Mahal
• Tichu
• Tikal
• Titan
• Torres
• Ursuppe
• Vinci

Nice games all. Except Taj Mahal, which is fundamentally flawed (I will brook no arguements on that). [I also don't personally like Tikal or Torres, and have burned out on several other titles]. But are any of these games Hall of Fame worthy? Personally I'd like to see "None of the above". I've always admired the Baseball HOF for high standards (in theory, if not the actual balloting).

I personally think Titan belongs. I mean, I've played around 1,000 hours. [And it's not just me, Titan is one of the few board games to have a succesful convention dedicated to it.] It looks so out of place with all of the nominees (but not the prior inductees, I note).

So Titan gets my vote. And I'll order the rest of the games (it's an Instant Runoff system). But I wish "None of the Above" was a choice.

The recent discussion (see comments) about the Counter Hall of Fame brought up some good points.

"What should the criteria be for a Hall of Fame game?" The main page describes games as "Modern Classics" that have "Stood the test of time."

Well, first of all ... "standing the test of time" should be at least a decade. Five years isn't enough. (I'm judging that based on the fact that nominees for next year's ballot had to be published by sometime in 2001). First of all, the extra time will allow everyone to painlessly winnow out games. For a game published in 2001 (if I missed it early), I may not have seen it until 02 or 03. [There are probably a dozen games from last Essen/Nuremburg that I still haven't tried that I want to]. If I only got to play it once or twice, I may still be very attached to the novelty. "Novelty" and "Modern Classics" don't mix. An extra five years cooling off period would help.

But more than that, instant runoff voting is ... inappropriate. If Titan is a modern classic, that doesn't make Ursuppe (or whatever) any more or less a classic. Naming a game (or two) per year is wrong. Imagine if the Literary Hall of Fame added one work per decade. We'd have a century backlog after Shakespeare. And a lot of mediocre works from the 1400s. Instant Runoff voting makes more since when you have to have a winner (like an elected office) [Although see my sidenote below].

So I think you have to vote each game up or down on it's merits. You can have a slightly loose nomination system, which will allow you to spread the word on a few more games ("It's an honor to be nominated") and allow for controversy. Then you have a strict criteria. (Say, 75% "yes" votes). If a game gets voted down one year, it can always be renominated (perhaps skipping a year or decade after a few failed attempts).

There's no perfect system (Damn you, Arrow!) but I'd like something like that better.

Non-gaming sidenote -- Eugene Volokh once had a "Propose a constitutional amendment" contest. My entry was mandating that "None of the above" be a valid choice on every federal ballot. If "NotA" won (a plurality), then that seat would remain empty, and would automatically vote against any changes to existing law. If the presidency were empty, it would veto every bill passed. [Sadly, there are lots of tricky cases that would have to be worked out].