Upon consideration of the rating scheme I proposed in my last article, it seems that using decimals to express an intermediate opinion suggests a lot more granularity than I actually feel. What is the difference between a 2.6 and a 2.7, anyway?

I had previously considered using plus/minus scoring (possibly using letters instead of numbers, a la letter grades for class) but dismissed this as excessively loaded with connotations I don’t want. What does “average” or “good” mean, anyway? I want for these new ratings to mean something quite specific about how much a game makes me want to play it.

I think zero-to-three pluses gives enough lets me express the distinctions I want to make clear, without forcing me to think really hard about whether a certain game really deserves a .7 or a .8. In addition, it makes the important thresholds more clear (Will I willingly play the game? Will I suggest the game myself) instead of mimicking a 50-point scale.

In response to DrObviousSo’s question about Winner’s Circle: Aside from games that can be played with 2 or more-than-2 players, this game is the one I was thinking of when I mentioned that a rating is specific to a certain number of players. For six players, I give it a 1+. For four, I give it a 3. In the larger game, it feels like I have frustratingly little control over what’s happening. In the four-player game, there is much more control over the horses (you get to make at least one meaningful decision every round!) and because of this, more interesting decisions to make in the betting as well.