I get about 15-20 hits a day from Google. Usually about half of them are for two-handed Euchre and the rest are for riddles; the most popular of these are the pirate riddle, the burning rope riddle, and general riddles.

Recently I was surprised to see a Google referral from a search on “henry kissinger newsweek 11/8/04″. This was pretty surprising because, well, Henry Kissinger isn’t usually the kind of thing I write about. Turns out the search lands here. You’ll have to look deeply in the comments–even WordPress’s built-in search doesn’t find this.

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.

I present to you this scale which I shall use to rate games until someone convinces me to use something better, or I tire of it. It is not dissimilar to a 5-point or 10-point rating scale, but this should explain what the different ratings mean to me.

Axioms: These ratings pertain to a hypothetical game which I have definitely played until the novelty wears off (probably 3-5 plays) and which I have played once in the previous month, so there is little or no “geez, I sure miss X” factor.

In addition, a rating may be specific to a particular number of players. For instance, I might say (if I were very confused or , perhaps, heavily bribed) that Monopoly is a fine game for 4 players (rating 3) but pretty unpleasant with 5 or 6 (rating 1+)

4: How did we get a month without playing this? I’m chomping at the bit to play it again.

3: I would suggest playing this game again.

2: I wouldn’t suggest playing this game again, but if someone else did, I would not be opposed.

1: I would be opposed to playing this game again in the absence of bribery, cajolery, or the presence of a girl I was interested in.

0: I played this a month ago? I would not play this game in any circumstances.

In addition, intermediate attitudes can be expressed in terms of zero to three pluses after the number. For instance, 2+++ is a game I would be close to suggesting myself, were it not for some flaw in the game or the presence of a similar game I like more; a flat 2 I would agree to without argument, but if it were much worse I wouldn’t, and under bad circumstances I might beg off as tired/need to go home/etc.

And to rattle off some games that have been on my mind:

4 Ra, Coloretto

3+++ Puerto Rico

3++ Poker, Bridge, Settlers of Catan, Hey! That’s My Fish!

3 Power Grid, Goa, Bohnanza, Epic Duels

2++ Carcassone, Shadows over Camelot, Ticket to Ride

2 Tigris & Euphrates

1 Bang!, Risk

0++ Monopoly

A while ago, I posted that Ra would have been better if it had used cards instead of tiles.

Well, at Origins, I got to play my Favoritest Game on a picnic table outside, listening to some music (a hilarious cover band at a biker bar, oddly enough).  It was breezy and this definitely wouldn’t have been possible with cards, but the tiles were just fine. So I take it back: sturdy components can be worth both the extra expense and the extra bulk.

New rule!

You are not allowed to complain, whine, or base all or part of a “comedy” routine about the following aspects of Starbucks, or similar coffee shops:

• The price
• The fact that you cannot get “just a cup of coffee”
• The complicated multi-word nature of the drink anyone, including the guy in front of you, gets
• The nonstandard names of the drink sizes

If these things bother you, you have entered the wrong store. The fault is yours. It is like complaining that at Nordstrom, you cannot get “just a t-shirt and jeans.” What the heck were you doing at Nordstrom when you should have gone to Wal-Mart? If the concept of a raspberry latte cappuccino offends your delicate blue-collar sensibilities, what were you doing in Starbucks? You should have been in Dunkin’ Donuts, which caters to exactly the people who don’t want Starbucks. Or Denny’s, Waffle House, or IHOP, any of whom will sell you enough caffeine to make a lab rat burst into flames for less than $2.

I’ve posted the first game I designed, Satori, in complete print-and-playable format; it has a special place of honor in the sidebar. If you’re not in the habit of scanning the sidebar every day for changes (go figure), here’s the announcement.

A little while ago I observed (didn’t actually play) a game of Graenaland (Greenland). The promise of Greenland is to be a trading/negotiation game like Settlers, but with extra complications and subtleties. The board is divided up into region in which players can build multiple settlements; settlements give voting rights to the resources in a region.

In practice, players didn’t seem so enthusiastic about the negotiation, which was a practice of last resort, preferring to dominate areas and eliminate the dependency on other players’ goodwill.  All of the complications made the game see very inelegant; this wasn’t helped by the rulebook, which was unclear in several places, poorly organized, and lacked helpful diagrams.

Theme-wise, you play Vikings, but you don’t fight. Is this historical? I don’t care! In my book, Vikings fight! Clearly this Greenland is populated by some weird non-confrontational Euro-vikings that would rather settle their differences with voting and diplomacy rather than fighting it out. Too weird.

Apparently someone is trying to organize a gaming convention here in Cleveland. Looks interesting and low-key; I’m not planning to go to GenCon, so perhaps this will do instead. Link: AnCon