"Value Gaming"?

As this is a hobby there is no right or wrong like you mention in your first post. Value only goes as far as what type of presence does one want hobby gaming to be in their life. So the best I can do is relay how I get my value in gaming.

I've gone through many phases and spent untold thousands of dollars, I could have paid off a very, very nice high end performance car at this point. And over the past few years I've been reflective and tried to identify what I do and how I interact with my hobby. Identify what I like.

What I've discovered is that overall, I like great and Great games, but the former is what gets play and the later is what I'd like to play. If you've been following the ERP thread you might have seen my differentiation between little "g" great and big "G" Great.

To further elaborate on that different the big "G" Great are the classics, the games of exceptional design. War of the Ring, Twilight Struggle, Chaos in the Old World, Merchants and Marauders. Games that years from now will likely still be discussed. And games that by and large gather dust on my shelf.

The little "g" great games are the more personal games, the ones that I love but might not do anything original, likely won't be discussed years from now and to be honest aren't universally loved in the way I love them. Dice Town, Las Vegas, Magical Athlete, Trains and Stations, Monsters Menace America.

As I look at my collection what I've determined and have been focusing on is limiting the big "G" Great titles because if I were to somehow trim my collection down to a half dozen or dozen titles those would be the games I'd want to focus and play a hundred times. And often they take a commitment to learn and be proficient. So I don't need or want shelves stocked with those games. Finding those half dozen or dozen Great (big "G") games to focus in on and be very proficient and intimate with is all that I need as far as those games go.

But as I like variety, trying new things and cycling additional value is added by expanding my collection with the games of the "pull and play" variety. Ones where the first play will provide an equally satisfying experience as the 100th. So most all of my new game purchases have been in this category already having more than enough Great games.

The last variety of games that I have are the serial purchases. The games where I can buy something, expand my hobby, but not at the cost of a game that likely won't get played. Attack Wing, X-Wing, Descent, Mansions of Madness. Those games I'll buy everything new that comes out for them.

And post-lastly, I'll admit that I very much enjoy the exclusivity of having one of those super-rare titles. Those where they're only a few dozen or hundred floating around here in the states. The Bugman's Game, Train Raider, The Mushroom Eaters.

So balancing that mixture is how I "Value Game". Because to me, value gaming isn't a dollars to plays ratio. It's about not looking at your game shelf thinking "What was I thinking?", it's about identifying and making your hobby what you want. And yeah, though I could have bought a very nice performance car, that isn't my hobby, playing with glorified toys is.

We have 300+ games and I'd say that I'm happy with that. I see the collection as something like a library of the greatest hits of board games since they started being designed again. I enjoy sharing my library with friends and, also, having great games around whenever I want to play.

I tend to burn out on games easily. As such, I'll play one game a lot and then move onto another. The collection is sufficiently large that I can do that in rotation. Yes, stuff we love doesn't get played anywhere like enough, but it's better that than hating a game because it's overplayed, getting rid of it, and wanting to play it again in six months' time.

I felt guilty about having such a big collection until I read the ERP list. Although we've accumulated this collection in quite a short period of time, we own quite a few of the ERP games and not 'everything that came out of Essen last year' or ''hundreds of Kickstarter games with 60,000 zombie miniatures'. I bought a lot of Essen releases last year and it was pretty miserable - we spent all the year playing bad and mediocre games to decide which ones were worth keeping. It felt like husband and I had a part-time unpaid job playing all these mediocre games when we could be playing Stephenson's Rocket or Tigris or Relic or something.

I have no idea what the optimum size of our collection is. I have tried doing big clear-outs from time-to-time and invariably I miss many of the games I've just sold and they tend to creep back into the house again.

I increasingly think there are 1,000 board games in the world worth owning forever, and we own all but 100-200 of the ones that play ok with two and aren't too dry/long. This number isn't increasing very fast... Maybe by ten games a year maximum, of which only two to five suit us. The problem is that it won't be clear which are the five released in 2014 until about five years' time.

[Note, we also own some real c**p of which we are inexplicably fond. I know objectively that Quarriors is a rubbish game but - for reasons unknown - I really really like it].

I've been considering a major culling. In the past I've been saying, "Even if I like a game a bunch, if it doesn't ever get played, I don't need to own it." That's helped me keep the numbers down.

But now I'm thinking of going further. I have Homesteaders, for example. I like Homesteaders, and if I brought it to game day, I'd be able to find players for it. I like it, it can get played. However, if someone stole my copy, would I replace it? Would I miss it? Do I care if I never play it again? Not really. If something happened to that game I have other stuff I'd just as happily play. And this might become my new guiding star.

I've assigned a finite amount of space to store my board games. Basically a single bookcase. I have several games on it now that I wouldn't mind selling when I need to make room for new games. However, as long as I don't need the money or the space I'm fine with my collection as is. I could stop buying games altogether right now and have plenty of stuff to play for many years. I know this for a fact because I've had a lot of my games for many years already. That being said I will continue to buy a couple games a year like I do now because I enjoy it. I guess what I'm saying is that I've already gotten the value and new things are for me icing on the value cake.

Jeff White wrote: We are a 'less is more' family, and have been leaning more and more towards that as the kids are getting older. We feel it has had a positive impact on our lives.

I find that possessions weigh me down. They steal my focus from what's important. What's important is spending time with people and enjoying ourselves. The focus is shifted from "Let's play F:AM!" to "Let's play!" and I find that's better for us. I still fight the collector instinct, but I'm far removed from the days I had to have THINGS.

I posted in another thread about getting rid of Civ and just rebuying it if you want to play it. You can always sell it. This reflects a significant attitude change I've had about money. If I'm doing something because of money then I'm doing it for the wrong reason. That alone has revolutionized my way of thinking. I can buy something, enjoy it, sell it. Wanna have an 80's themed game day? Buy 2 copies of F:Am and play Red Dawn all day on the Tv ... then ditch it all afterwards. I get the experiences and enjoyment without the weight of the possessions or worry about money dragging me down.

I don't know if this is relevant but I crunched some numbers. For the past couple years I've tracked the games I played that were new to me.

2012 data

New to me games played: 58

# of these games I do or would own: 15

played once: 36
played twice: 3
played 3+ times: 18

2013 data

New to me games played: 67

# of these games I do or would own: 8

played once: 45
played twice: 9
played 3+ times: 13

I have two groups I primarily game with. The Tuesday night group is 4 people, one of which does a lot of trading, Kickstarting, and buying. Another also gets a lot of new games often. I seldom bring games to this group, so usually I'm playing something of theirs.

The Sunday group is from 4-10 people (sometimes more) on a given Sunday, and there are a lot of folks, including me, bringing new games.

So looking at these numbers, I waste a LOT of time on junk I'll never play again.

I know, every game is somebody's favorite, and 90% of everything crap, but there's a tremendous lack of staying power here. What I didn't include was the number of these games I ONCE owned but either are gone or are in the trade pile (thankfully low, but still significant.)

My list for 2014 is at 50 new-to-me games, with probably about the same percentages of junk and worthwhile stuff.

Legomancer wrote: So looking at these numbers, I waste a LOT of time on junk I'll never play again.

I do this too, it's a really bad habit, but also part of being in a culture of folks who are passionate about gaming. It's easy to say "I'll only play games I'm at least interested in", but when three friends are at the table and want to play something you've no opinion on, and at least one of them IS interested in playing it, you concede. It's hard not to, and part of how you get your new games to the table is being everyone else's crash dummies. As a rule, I don't like to learn more than 1 new game per session (exceptions for shorter stuff), and I'm generally ok with that. I don't want to have the reputation of being 'hard to game with', because I know some of those people, and they're on the bottom of the list of people I call when I need a chair filled. But once I learn a new game in an evening, I'm pretty clear I want to play stuff at least most of the folks know how to play, and everyone seems cool with that.

I need to dig into the numbers deeper. I don't have a problem with trying new things, but I don't see a point in doing that exclusively or even a majority of the time. There aren't that many worthwhile new games coming out, and what's the point of liking a new game if it's immediately put aside for something even newer?

I admire the concept of minimising, and I think it's undervalued, not in terms of any great moral sense of not having thousands of pounds of shit sat on your shelf but just the ability to focus on a few games you know well and really getting the most out of them. A really great game will never get old. Every time you buy, learn, or faff with something new, you're really taking time away from the favourites, and I think it's too easy to lose sight of it. John (rarevos) writes a lot about accounting of time, and its pretty frightening for most of us to really sit and think realistically how much time do I have for gaming now and in the foreseeable future, how many games does that equate to. It's very easy to get that way out of whack with what you own, regardless of any "having a big pool to choose from". I think finding a good group of people to game with is so much more valuable than having a wide range of games to pick from, and I just don't see the appeal of forcing "new rules" on people for the sake of it, especially when you can argue theres probably only about a dozen types of game that probably work for you, and a thousand "twists" on each one. Is the variety provided worth the overhead of learning them? I don't think so.

I've got 20 games now, previously owned 715. Probably about 250 expansions so something like 5% of the games I've owned I still have. Still feels like more than enough. Actually I have bought, sold, bought, traded, bought, sold etc many of these games multiple times, e.g. El Grande I have bought AT LEAST 10 times, that is not a misprint or a binary joke. I fucking kid you not. Dungeon Lords, Dominant Species almost as many. Just mentally ill with the impulsive acquisitions and purges, and "stocking game collections for imaginary groups of gamer friends I've never had, at least not since I was back in uni and unfortunately didn't know about all these games".

I like to play Agricola and Le Havre with the wife,

if I'm playing with 2 and want something intense, I got Twilight Struggle
with 3, I've got Ra and Caylus
with 4, I've got Tigris and Brass and Acquire
with 5, I've got El Grande

Memoir 44 is lined up for when my son is old enough but the wife will also play it with me, I still havent got round to painting those twats with petes painting tips yet either.

I got Reef Encounter cos Tigris is shit with 2 so it works better with the wife for a heavy tile type game

I got Puerto Rico which covers 3-5 and is easy to break out to noobs, or Lords of Vegas if they look at Puerto Rico and think what the fuck is that shit.

for cards we got Innovation and Race, I could get rid of Race now and not miss it

I got Steam and Power Grid cos I want to try them in depth with some gamers who come round now and then, more than likely I won't keep both of them, likewise Dominant Species which is probably too long and faffy when I could play El Grande instead.

I got Carrom for flicks
I got poker for kicks
got Royal Turf for racing, but will probably replace with Turfmaster.


I've come to a point where I don't see the value in having "more" options, because it just means "less" of the great games. I'd love to have time to get back into a bit more wargaming, but it aint gonna happen.


Honestly, 20 is still too many. I doubt I would lose much sleep if I just had Agricola (which I have on the ipad anyway sans all the extra decks), Innovation, Tigris, El Grande, Carrom, (Poker). The rest is just gravy, but still quite a lot of gravy. I find it much more relaxing to see a small number of favourites on a shelf that I know will get played a lot, and the game-to-fuckingannoyinglearningnewrulesandexplainingittothedaftcuntslookingatmewithgormlessfaceseventhoughItoldthemdontworryitwillallmakesenseoncewegetstartedyoudaftfuckingtwats ratio is really enormous, not to mention the increased level of enjoyment and competition cos no one is playing like a QP Cloudy (where is that guy anyway, still chasing the store robber?, dude let it go!).

Its a shame QPCloudy left. He was finally about to stop being a noob. Now he'll have to start all over again when he comes back.