Saving Board Games from the Gamers (Part 1)
May 9th, 2007 by Edward Pollard
Ever since The Dice Tower started I was haunted by a feeling that something was wrong with it. If you didn’t know, The Dice Tower is a prominent podcast about board games authored, primarily, by Tom Vasel. (Hi Tom. Despite what is to come I love the show). Weekly for most of its run, and now on a biweekly format, The Dice Tower is 80 or so minutes of news and opinions about board games and the related subculture.
Early on in its run I tried to capture my feelings about the show and deliver them to Tom, and while extraordinarily polite my perspective was mostly dismissed. I felt the show needed to be shorter, tighter, and more focused. There was, in my opinion, simply nothing about the genre that deserved a 90 minute weekly ramble-a-thon. Of course, The Dice Tower soon became one of the more influential podcasts on the scene, and I was left scratching my head. But the truth is I totally failed to capture what my feeling was, and instead delivered a bunch of half-cocked objections on wishy-washy premises.
But first a bit about me: I have at present 163 board games and card games listed as owned over on my BoardGameGeek.com profile. I have a crazy passion for board and card games, and at every opportunity I try to expose friends and family to this fantastic hobby. Why do I do this? In brief, I feel board games represent the perfect blend of social interaction and gaming , one online multiplayer video games can only dream of aspiring towards. Board games are not only family friendly, but everyone friendly: it is almost impossible to be incapable of enjoying spending time with loved ones over a great board game. They are, to me, pretty much perfect. But within the hobby of board gaming there lies a problem, and my feelings towards The Dice Tower were symptomatic of a large issue I was only beginning to gain an understanding towards.
The board game industry is dominated by classics published by huge multinational toy companies, such as Monopoly and Risk, that sell in huge numbers every year. New “themed” editions fuel the rage for these American family classics in an audience that is pretty much 100% removed from the audience interested in the games I’m talking about. Fans of these games call them “designer games”, or “modern games”, or “eurogames”, and only a select few such as The Settlers of Catan gain even modest traction outside the died in the wool fans. Those fans are thus left muttering under their breath and cursing the success of the new Star Wars edition of Sorry!, while Pillars of the Earth sells in only modest numbers.
I’m one of those people who mutters, by the way.
The people who are leading the “designer games” movement are people like Jay Tummelson, owner of Rio Grande Games which publishes dozens of these titles annually. Or Reiner Knizia, famed mathematician designer of countless modern games. Or Alan Moon, designer of Ticket to Ride, one of the more successful entries in the genre in recent years. And one thing people like this, so entrenched in the industry, do is attend gaming conventions. There are many of these every year such as Origins, BGG Con, and the recently passed Gathering of Friends.
The Dice Tower covered the Gathering of Friends, an invitation-only convention hosted by Alan Moon. In some respects it can be viewed as the event for the cognoscenti of gaming - anyone who is anyone in the industry gets an invite, and the inivtation-only nature makes them more prone to attend as it is less about the selling of games and more about the gaming. There is still a commercial aspect to it, though. Prototype games fly around the room being tested and refined for production, and big gaming companies like Days of Wonder (publisher of the previously mentioned Ticket to Ride) frequently show off their latest project in an attempt to build buzz amongst the best of the best. This is all speculation to a degree, though I’ve tried to be cautious, balanced, and conservative. I don’t go to this event; I just read about it on the internet.
While listening to The Dice Tower coverage, correspondent Mary Prasad was discussing the upcoming schedule from a game company and was delighted to learn that a planned re-release was of a game she already owned. She only figured this out after an ample description of the product, as well as a description of the components in the earlier and much less fancy version that she owned. She modestly chuckled at this discovery and moved on in the interview.
This crystallized for me my problem with The Dice Tower, with large parts of the BoardGameGeek.com community, and the state of the designer game industry: people like this are at the front of the fandom crowd. People like this, who don’t even know what games they own because they consume them like candy and give them so little regard as to be able to forget their names, are the ones with access to the designers and the publishers. They are the fans with the most influence, with the most esteem. People like this are setting the tone for the designer games industry: and that tone is one that will NEVER break into the mainstream. The industry has become so satisfied with being marginal that it makes almost no effort to find a larger audience.
I don’t mean to pick up on a mild gaff and throw it around as a criticism. It was a reasonable mistake given that she and her husband own over 700 games according to BoardGameGeek.com. But I’m very fluent in the gaming scene and I can’t even think of 350 games worth owning, let alone twice that many. But, then, I bet many people reading this can’t think of 163 games worth owning. So it’s just a question of scale, right?
Maybe. Perhaps even probably. But designer games have been around a long time, and sales of Monopoly are still going strong. I’m starting to think that people like this, who spend God only knows how much money traveling around the world to play games - let alone the expense of the games they buy - are a part of the problem. My suspicion all along - and I’ve been listening and will keep tuning in - is that The Dice Tower is bad for the games industry. It advocates an uncritical and unbalanced approach to the gaming scene that does nothing but create a myopic one sided perspective that only obsessive compulsives could possibly engage with, and indeed one that should rightly scare the pants off anyone looking for a fun way to spend a Thursday night with the family. It is pointless boosterism that serves only to pat fellow gamers on the back for being fellow gamers.
I’m using Tom and Mary as examples because they are sticking their necks out, and I don’t mean it personally and I hope they don’t take it personally. But I really hope the game industry takes these fans with a grain of salt, and despite their unwavering dedication (and accompanying outlay of ludicrous sums of cash) works hard to move past them into something larger.
Because these games deserve to be played by more than the people who would play any game.
(Part 2 of this article will follow on the weekend and will detail what I think us gamers should be doing instead)
This is an _excellent_ article, Edward- not only do you bring up a very significant point that ought to be discussed but you also articulated a lot of my own objections and disagreements as to where the board gaming community is going and how a lot of the “institutions” of it such as “The Dice Tower” are actually doing much more damage than it might appear on the surface.
You make a very good point about podcasts and shows like “The Dice Tower” being 80 minutes of rambling…come to find out, there really is a finite amount of time you can spend talking about games before it just all becomes redundant. Of course, we live in an era when there are practically no limits to content, so what we see a lot is people scrambling to make content to fill percieved voids. No, there doesn’t need to be an 80 minute podcast about gaming- particularly when it has almost nothing interesting, provocative, or thought-provoking to say beyond “ain’t board games swell?”
What is happening more and more is that gamers are becoming more insular and more hostile toward the ‘nongaming’ public- witness a recent thread at BGG where someone was fishing for a derogatory term to call mainstream gamers (I think “Sheeples” was one bandied about). “Myopic” is a good way to put it and it’s really unfortunate that a lot of industry folks are adopting the myopoic view rather than really reaching out to new gamers with broad, accessible offerings that have recognizable themes and licenses rather than niche market titles with ephemeral, esoteric themes engineered to appeal to a certain market.
It doesn’t help that people like Tom Vasel present themselves and conduct themselves as some kind of “spokespersons” or “leaders” for the hobby- likewise, it doesn’t help that there are many who attribute their involvement in gaming solely based on his and others’ writings on the internet rather than discovering their own way into and through the hobby. There’s this culture built up around boardgaming now that is focused on personalities who “contribute” to the hobby by writing noncommital, “polite” reviews, accumulating games to the point of buying thrift store cast-offs to pad collections, and participating in a community centered around a website that is all but completely impenetrable to outsiders who might just be casually interested in looking up game information about something they might have seen in the store.
Add to that the fact that the board gaming audience is getting older at a faster rate than younger people are getting into it, and we’re looking at a pretty grim future for the hobby unless things change for the better.
That’s one of the things we’re trying to do with FORTRESS: AMERITRASH- give _fresh_ perspectives on things, offer alternative viewpoints, and provide somewhere for those who don’t feel that BGG allows an ample and appropriate opportunity for more critical and irreverent discourse. I think in the next few years the really interesting discussions and comments are going to come from more “outsider” sources and voices and we’ll see the last remnants of the “old guard” become more and more sequestered into obscurity.
At the end of the day, what we should ALL be doing is focusing on playing games with friends and family, finding out which games we get the most out of, contributing to the hobby by sharing thoughts and ideas openly and without boundary, and really relishing the experiences we have around the gaming table. “The Dice Tower”, BGG, and all of this peripheral culture that has built up around the hobby is ultimately, at the end of the day, completely irrelevant.
Great post. It reminds me of the time I spent in comp.os.linux.advocacy where they call Windows users “sheep”, as though they are aware of an alternative and deliberately choose to live with an operating system that doesn’t meet the needs of the elite, despite whether it meets their own needs or not.
People with so many games kinda make me sick too.
Hi Edward, I agree with you completely. The fact that the most prominent people in the hobby are rampant collectors who play most games once is damaging, because as you point out they are so focused on the cult of the new, and the way a game plays on its first session. I own about 60 games, and everyone I know thinks that I have a huge collection. But, even with a collection that size I still look for games that can be played dozens of times over many years. Realistically, if the hobby ever takes off most people will have five to ten games. To broaden the appeal of the hobby, I think it would be better if people concentrated on replayability (that means not reviewing after one play), and only recommended excellent games that can withstand the test of time. I was shocked when I realised that some reviewers recommend games that they only play once. A game should have legs, and you should still want to play it a year from now. If you just focus on excellence, then I think you’re right that its hard to come up with 90 minutes of material a week.
I also agree that there is a lot of pointless elitism in the hobby. I’m not sure (even after reading many justifications for it) why the Gathering of Friends is invite only. I’m not saying that out of jealosy, because I don’t think it would be my thing. It justs seems needlessly alienating.
I admire your courage in criticising Tom Vasel. I did it once, and got well and truly flamed. I hope the same doesn’t happen to you
Yeah, I did it once and got BANNED.
Be careful, Edward- what you say here could affect your standing at BGG.
Eddie, I responded at BGG, but wanted to repeat here that I think you have an excellent blog.
While I will wait for part two of this post to measure it (both of them), you certainly say what you have said well. I, for one, do not think you are in danger of losing any ground anywhere for criticising The Dice Tower in this way. For one, you aren’t being belligerent, for another, you aren’t being inflammatory, and for yet another, you were very exact in stating that this was not a personal attack on Tom or Mary, but an address of a problem which you percieve to exist, and in so doing were citing the aforementioned podcasters as examples of said problem.
Even though my name wasn’t mentioned, I feel included since I am part of The Dice Tower podcast. Would you like to know how much of the attributed “ludicrous sums of money” came from my pocket?…about $150 in the last year. Now according to my calculations (for which I used a calculator), that comes to a whopping $12.50/month! WOW!! How ludiocrous is that!! Now, I don’t personally know how many games Tom actually purchases with his money, but an educated guess is that he spends not too much more, if any more, than I. And even if you factor in the money for our once-a-year (how ludicrous is that?) trip to Origins, it’s still far from what I would call a “ludicrous sum of money”. Did I mention that this is just my second time to a gaming convention? The last time I went to one of these things, I was in high school, and it cost me $20 to get in the front door. So, please understand first of all that we are not spending “ludicrous sums of money” on this hobby. My wife won’t let me, and Tom doesn’t need to…most of his games (and a very small amount of mine) are given to him (or me) for review purposes.
Now, the “problem” that you bring up here is that shows like the Dice Tower are “bad” for the hobby. And the reason you state such, if I’m clear, is that we “consume games like candy…giving them little regard”, “provide an uncritical and unbalanced approach (to the hobby)”, and engage in “pointless boosterism”.
Well, first of all, I looked up “boosterism”, and came up with the following definition: the act of “boosting” or otherwise promoting one’s city or organization, with the goal of improving the overall quality of the city or organization, as well as its public perception. Guilty as charged…and quite proud of it, to boot! What, exactly, is wrong with that, anyway? And since boosterism does have a goal, how can it be pointless? Moving on…
Secondarily, we are said to “consume games like candy…giving them little regard.” I presume that you are alluding to the “ludicrous sums of money”, at least in part, that we already talked about. But you may also be including this idea that we always only play a game once before reviewing it. Sometimes it happens this way, especially if it is a title with a tremendous amount of buzz. But more often than not, a game will be played a number of times before we actually review it on the air, or in written form on the internet. That is definitely true of myself, and I think is more than likely true of Tom. As far as not remembering all the names of the games that we own, I have a bad memory to begin with…I can forget something in less than five minutes…and that’s after my wife told me NOT to forget!! I would also say that quite possibly many people would be hard-pressed to name every single game that they own, including yourself, without some kind of aide. So, really, this is rather trivial compared to the rest of your case.
Finally, we are said to provide an “uncritical and unbalanced approach (to the hobby)”. Really? I was under the impression that reviews are criticism. Sure, some of them may be good, and some are bad, but they are still criticism. As far as being “unbalanced”, I fail to see what exactly would be considered a “balanced” podcast about anything. By that I mean that a podcast is a show put out by a “fan” (short for “fanatic”) of any certain genre. Now, I looked up “fanatic”, and come up with this definition: “marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea”; and it even went on to label a fanatic as a “rabid isolationist”. Maybe it’s just me, but the idea of being “balanced” isn’t anywhere in either of those phrases. And quite frankly, we have heard reports directly contradictory to this part of your case in daily emails regarding our show. Many people have emailed us thanking us for what we do, hailing us (podcasters in general, and some specific to The Dice Tower) as the reason they got into (beginning or deeper) the hobby. I don’t say that as, “Hey, Look at us!!” (pat on the back…pat, pat, pat). I say that as, “I see your point of view, now see it from ours”.
Like I said, I am waiting to provide final critique until after part two is available. These are just my initial thoughts as I read your comments. Know also that I am not offended, but I saw that you have a misperception of the contributors of The Dice Tower, especially myself. I don’t make “ludicrous sums of money”, hence I don’t spend it on this hobby. My salary puts my family pretty close to the poverty level in America, but my God provides for my family and I in other ways. So, please don’t think that I (or we) think ourselves to be the elitist snobs for which some people take us. I am amazed every time I hear how many listeners The Dice Tower has…it’s really hard to fathom that many people taking time out of their day to listen to my voice about something as trivial and insignificant as boardgames. I do it only because I enjoy it. Sometimes, though, it’s a pain…it’s been a long day, and I want to go to bed…but I have to go record the Dice Tower. But most of the time, it’s a real joy to do it.
So, I guess I’m trying to say that there are a lot of mean-spirited people out there (in our hobby), of which neither I nor Tom are a part. Be careful not to put yourself into that group of people. You’ve not done so…just a *friendly* warning, and I mean that *friendly* part of it. I thank you for listening to The Dice Tower, and can only hope that you will continue to do so, as you have said.
Until Next Time…Sam.
I will respond at BGG.
I don’t believe in elitist gamers. I believe in prolific writers and I believe in gamers who have a lot of friends, and I believe that a lot of the gamers who have a lot of friends know each other, but I don’t believe they’re elitist and I don’t believe they’re a clique.
I do believe there are people (like me) who spend way too much money (yes, ludicrous sums of cash) on board games with the result that the games we buy don’t get played as many times as we like, but so what? I *do* have much more money than time. I buy new games because I read about them and get really excited… and shopping can be good therapy for people who are overworked :-). If I didn’t have this hobby I’d be doing something else in a similar obsessive fashion.
I also don’t think that “elites” guide the hobby in any sense. Tom Vasel may influence a lot of people, but why is that a bad thing? There are movie reviewers and book reviewers who influence people as well. I’m sure Tom knows what he’s talking about. Personally I ignore his opinions because I like different sorts of games, and I’m sure that anyone who’s going to buy a few games will decide for themselves whether to trust his opinions or not.
I think your article is founded on an enormous disrespect for potential gamers. You assume that they come into the hobby because they uncritically believe everything they are told by the “elites”. Nonsense. They think people like me, let alone Tom, are freaks. They worry about our sex lives. A mate of mine persistently tells me I’m the weirdest nerd he knows, but that didn’t stop him asking me to get Cartagena and Coloretto for him.
I don’t think gamers are destroying the hobby, I think they are just making the most noise. Games companies will let the sales figures do the talking, and those figures are being generated by a whole lot more people than your fictional elites.
Just a few notes here about your article….
I’m not sure you can compare euro-games to the typical Hasbro classic library games in terms of sales. Here’s why:
I’ve worked on a Mono-licensed product in the past. One of the more distressing things to come out of the meetings was the finding that most (by a wide margin) of the Monos (and their licensed brethen, ala Star Wars Cantina Monopoly) are NEVER opened and played. They are simply bought as gifts for people targeting a hobby. “Chuck likes old cars, let’s get him 70’s Muscle Car Monopoly”.
In other words, they are bought not as games to be played, by as mere trinkets, more like non-posable “collectible action figures.” So while they are “games” in the sense that, yes, they have pieces and rules and boards and things, in reality aren’t really PURCHASED for their gaming qualities.
Euro-games, however, are typically bought to be played. However, probably even if you remove all of the gift sales from Monopoly and counted up the games that were pruchased to be played, they are still much higher.
In regards to the podcast issue, I’ve sort of watched this kind of thing happen to another product, pinball. It’s similar to the story you present, where the only real feedback the designers/manufacturers get is from the really passionate, and/or the really passionate start becoming involved in the industry; and then you start losing your “silent base”. I think it’s the nature of the internet.
I can’t remember where I first read about it, but there’s an amusing quote for it, something like “All these single village idiots who used to wander around spewing out their lonely conspiracy theories and were laughed at by the rest of the village. With the internet, they now virtually form their own villages, where they become the mainstream.” It was used primarily to describe political blogs, but it can be extended really out to any niche market, way of thought, or hobby.
However, I think that the nature of the business in this case is a little different. There’s enough small pubishers (along with Hasbro) that are still targetting the non-geek world, and finding their niche. The best example that I can come up with would be maybe Gamewright, who is always putting out new games aimed at little kids. Or Out of the Box (the Apples to Apples guys).
For those following along at home
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/165297/page/1
While I don’t agree as much with Edward’s criticism of the so-called gaming ‘elite’, I too have wrestled with this question of why high-quality boardgames cannot manage to gain the visibility and sales figures of fossils like Monopoly.
I have personally exposed dozens of friends, family, and neighbours to designer board games with generally high levels of success.
I was most surprised when a local city councilwoman in my neighbourhood was delighted with a purchase and play of Memoir ‘44, because she is a huge WWII buff, but after interacting with BGG and a FLGS, she informed me that she would be happy to get any more boardgames through my recommendations and delivery methods, because both BGG and the FLGS were intimidating to her in their own special ways.
It would be stellar to see a well crafted board game tied to a pop culturally significant license, to generate more sales to the uninitiated, but I understand that those costs are prohibitive.
I look forward to reading your proposed solution, Edward.
young girls models top50…
young girls models top50 - http://bestusasex.com/h/index107.html…
compass constantly viagra every now fleetingly