Games played in 1997
Paul Mazumdar
Normally at about this time of year, Andy Merritt posts an inventory of his
games played in the previous year. This year he seems to be having problems
with his news server, so has asked me to post it on his behalf.
Comments should obviously go to Andy (Andy.M...@cambridge.arm.com) rather
than me.
____________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Games I Played in 1997
Well, there have been a couple of lists of games people played last year
posted this year. I have been posting mine for the last 2 years, and have
finally finished writing mine up for 1997, so here it is.
It is in a slightly different format to before - I have incorporated
my totals for 96 and 95, added a rating field with the rating I give
the game (very personal), and a notes field for comments.
If you find this useful then as a way of saying thanks why not post
your games played in 97 list, or start up a games played in 98 list.
If people want descriptions of any of these games then I'm happy to give
1-2 line descriptions, though the more I am asked for the longer it will
take me to do so ...
Andy Merritt (Andy.M...@cambridge.arm.com)
Games Played in 1997
====================
Times Played In Rating Notes
Game 97 96 95
MtG 155 112 250 5
D&D 43 43 40 3
Can't Stop 9 4
Carrabande 8 5 4
Rasant 7 2.5
Pass the Bomb 6 9 3
Turf Horse Racing 6 3 4
The Recipe Game 6 3 This one is my own design
Settlers 6 6 5
Galopp Royale 6 2 4
Raj 5 3
Tricks 4 3 3
METW 4 12 3.5
Foppen 4 9 3
Pit 4 3
Dimenticato 4 2.5
Airlines 4 1 4
Bohnanza 4 3.5
Um Refenbreite 4 3
Pirat 4 3
Bausack 4 4
Bridgette 4 3
Ausgebremst 3 7 4
El Grande 3 4
Wurmeln 3 2.5
City 3 3 3.5
Sindbad 3 2.5
Manhattan 3 5 4
Kohle, Kies & Knete 3 4
Crossword 3 1 3
An Den Ufern Des Nil 3 2 3.5
Sleuth 3 1 3.5
Bazaar 3 4
Wyvern 3 6 16 3
Campanile 3 2 3
Acquire 3 2 2 3.5
Schoko & Co 3 3
Schwarzmarkt 3 2.5
Das Wustentruck 3 3
Showmanager 3 4
Die Fliegende Hollae 3 4.5
Expedition 3 5
Shit! 3 2
Mush 2 1 3
Raubern 2 1.5
Once Upon A Time 2 3 3
Freight Train 2 3
Esels Rennen 2 2.5
Sauerbaum 2 2 3
Murphy 2 2 4
Survive/Esc f.Atlant 2 2 3
Ave Caesar 2 3
Quirks 2 2 1 3.5
Fair Means or Foul 2 2 1 4
Hare and Tortoise 2 1 2 4
Top Secret 2 1 8 3
Take It Easy 2 3
Formula One 2 3
Die Oster Insel 2 3
Motorway Madness 2 1 Another of my own - a turkey!
Medici 2 1 4
Ransom 2 1 3
Zum Kuckkuck 2 3
Kunst Stucke 2 3
Scruples 2 0 2 3
Und Tschuss 2 3.5
Drunter & Druber 2 4 3.5
D.C.G.P. / Top Race 2 2 4
Special Delivery 2 1 2.5 Sorry Kevin :-(
Tutankhamoun's Reven 2 7 3
Orient Express 2 3
Labyrinth 2 0 7 3.5
McMulti 2 4
Conspiracy/Sigma F. 2 3
Showbiz 2 3
Volle Hutte 2 2.5
Formula De 2 2 I disagree with most people!
Groo 2 1.5
Ciao Ciao 2 3.5
Starts & End 2 3
World Cup Football 2 4
Gold Connection 2 3
Mississippi 2 3
Fair Play 2 1
Das Motorsportspiel 2 3.5
For Sale 2 3
Titan - The Arena 2 4
Totem 1 1 3
Igel Argern 1 1
Key to the Kingdom 1 0 1 1
Dino Hunt 1 2
Knots 1 2
Members Only 1 1 2.5 A bit too dry for me
Cosmic Encounter 1 4 3.5
Schlangen von Delhi 1 2.5
Dinosaurs o.t. L. W. 1 3 3
Dicke Kartoffeln 1 3 3.5
Saludos Amigos 1 1 Didn't work for me
Family Business 1 1 1 I'm not a 'TTYF' fan
Ligretto 1 1 I'm not a speed gamer!
Perudo 1 1 3
Was Sticht 1 2
Superblatt 1 2
221B Baker St 1 1 3
Outwords 1 1 2
Eurohit 1 0
Sante Fe 1 3
Entdecker 1 1 2.5
Modern Art 1 1 2 Sorry it doesn't work for me!
Automania 1 1 2
5 Straight 1 2.5
Stockers 1 3
Schlangennest 1 2.5
Talk of the Devil 1 1.5
Serrenissima 1 3.5
Toilet Humour 1 2
Heimlich & Co 1 7 2.5
Karrambolage 1 2.5
Pony Express 1 2
Piraten Insel 1 1
Trumpet 1 3
Tutankhamoun 1 1 3
Five Alive 1 1 1.5
Das Faultier 1 1 1.5
Die Heise Schlacht 1 1
SiSiMiZi 1 3.5
Kersplat 1 1.5
Pipeline 1 3
Exploration 1 1.5
Formula Motor Racin 1 3
Shark 1 3
Falsche Fuffzigger 1 1
Wiz War 1 1 2 3
Pac Man Game 1 1.5
Zankapfel 1 2
Cha'ship Showjumping 1 1
Personal Preferences 1 3
Quo Vadis 1 2 4 3.5
Restaurant 1 2.5
Taxi 1 1.5
Kremlin 1 1 3
Breaking Away 1 3
What's My Word 1 2.5
Jeu D'Affaires 1 1.5
Hoax 1 2
Koppit 1 1
Sherlock Holmes C.G. 1 2.5
Lowenherz 1 3
Shanghai 1 2
Buro Crazy 1 1.5
Curse of Mummys Tomb 1 2.5
Suzeraine 1 2 2
Im 7th Himmel 1 1.5
Das Borsenspiel 1 1
Speculate 1 3
Entenrallye 1 2
Merchant of Venus 1 3 1 4
Mississippi Queen 1 2.5
Wizard's Quest 1 2 2 3
Kwiiietsch 1 1.5
Die Kette Von Saba 1 2
Ali Baba 1 2
Code 777 1 3.5
Golfwinks 1 3
Chase 1 2
Jolly Roger 1 2
Up & Down 1 1
P'cess Ryans Star M 1 2
Das Ausreiser 1 1
Zerstreute Pharaoh 1 2.5
Elephantenparade 1 2
Mutternland 1 2
Der Ringgeister 1 1.5
Phase 10 1 1.5
Canyon 1 2
Hobbits 1 3
Waldesfrust 1 3
Yucata 1 2
Banque Fatale 1 1.5
Palmyra 1 1.5 I may have the rules wrong!
Ponte Veccio 1 1
Downtown 1 3
Modigliani 1 2
Office Politics 1 2
Loopin ' Louie 1 4
Njet! 1 3
Metropolis 1 2.5
Barbarosa 1 1
Sherlock Holmes C.D. 1 3.5
Viva Pamplona 1 3
Carrom 1 3
Wrott & Swindler 1 2
Fluxx 1 2
TV Wars 1 1
Halunken & Spelunken 1 2.5
Long Short 1 3
Mythos 0 5 1.5
Auf Achse 0 4 3.5 Why didn't I play this in 97?
Contack 0 4 2 2
Mole In The Hole 0 3 2
6 Nimmt 0 3 1 2 It doesn't work for me
Roborally 0 3 2
Bakshish 0 2 3
Tante Tarantelle 0 2 3
Sim City CCG 0 2 6 2
Vegas 0 2 2
Rainbows 0 2 2
Phantoms o.t. Ice 0 2 2
The Way 0 2 1 2.5
Asterix 0 2 1.5
Sternenhimmel 0 1 3
Sorceror's Cave 0 1 5 3
Banana Republic 0 1 1 2.5
First Impressions 0 1 2
Safe Return Doubtful 0 1 1.5
Barricade 0 1 1.5
Billabong 0 1 2.5
Linie 1 0 1 2.5
Railway Rivals 0 1 2.5
Balloon Race 0 1 2
Excaliber 0 1 2.5
Blackjack (casino) 0 1 1 3
Elf Quest 0 1 1
Wucherer 0 1 1.5
Am Fuss Des Killiman 0 1 2
Rette Sich Wer Kann 0 1 1.5 Unconstrained bitching :-(
Hacker (SJG) 0 1 1.5
Continuo 0 1 2
Trax 0 1 2
Robin Hood 0 1 1.5
Sanctuary 0 1 1.5
Backpacks & Blisters 0 1 1.5
Milles Bourn 0 1 1.5
Sharp Shooter 0 1 1
1830 0 1 2.5 Life's too short
Slang 0 1 1
Legend of Heroes 0 1 1 1
INWO 0 0 7 2
Plague 0 0 3 2
Inspiration 0 0 2 2
Dingbats 0 0 2 2.5
Xanth 0 0 2 2
The Name Game 0 0 2 2
On The Edge 0 0 2 2
Credo 0 0 2 1.5
Twister 0 0 2 3
Heroes of the Maze 0 0 1 2
History of the World 0 0 1 2 Too long gaps between turns
The Music Game Thing 0 0 1 1
B.O.T.T.O.M.S. 0 0 1 3
Age of Exploration 0 0 1 2.5
Zig Zag 0 0 1 2.5
Search f.t. Emp's T. 0 0 1 2.5
Rummy 0 0 1 2
The GWR Game 0 0 1 1
Dungeon 0 0 1 2
Rating is:
5 Excellent
4 Very Good
3 Good
2 Acceptable
1 Awful (No thanks)
0 Never Ever Again Ever!
Summary of my top games (sorted by rating and then times played in 97):
MtG 155 112 250 5
Settlers 6 6 5
Expedition 3 5
Die Fliegende Hollae 3 4.5
Can't Stop 9 4
Carrabande 8 5 4
Turf Horse Racing 6 3 4
Galopp Royale 6 2 4
Airlines 4 1 4
Bausack 4 4
Ausgebremst 3 7 4
El Grande 3 4
Manhattan 3 5 4
Kohle, Kies & Knete 3 4
Bazaar 3 4
Showmanager 3 4
Murphy 2 2 4
Fair Means or Foul 2 2 1 4
Hare and Tortoise 2 1 2 4
Medici 2 1 4
D.C.G.P. / Top Race 2 2 4
McMulti 2 4
World Cup Football 2 4
Titan - The Arena 2 4
Merchant of Venus 1 3 1 4
Juliet's comments (my wife):
Magic is also my top game, followed closely by Gone Bananas - where
can I get hold of this fantastic game?!!
I would also give higher scores to Roborally, SiZiMiZi (lots of
purple bits), Dicke Kartoffeln, 6 Nimmt, Waldesfrust, Personal
Preferences, An Den Ufern Des Nils, Hobbits and Formula De.
I would give lower scores to Manhattan, Ciao Ciao, Die Oster Insel
and Bausack.
Kevin Rolph
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Andy Merritt limply disguised as Paul Mazumdar
wrote:
>Medici 4
>Drunter & Druber 3.5
>Special Delivery 2.5 Sorry Kevin :-(
>Formula De 2
>Groo 1.5
:-) Hurrumph.
Well, actually, I'd give the relative scores to this sample as you have!
--
Kevin Rolph Kevingston Games. http://www.kgames.demon.co.uk
"Now that Mamook has eaten the duck...." Frank Davies
John Harrington
In article <xYQ0rFAV...@kgames.demon.co.uk>, Kevin Rolph
<kcr...@kgames.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Andy Merritt limply disguised as Paul Mazumdar
>wrote:
>>Medici 4
>>Drunter & Druber 3.5
>>Special Delivery 2.5 Sorry Kevin :-(
>>Formula De 2
>>Groo 1.5
>
>
>:-) Hurrumph.
>
>Well, actually, I'd give the relative scores to this sample as you have!
>
If it's any consolation he only gave Office Politics 2.0. I wouldn't
mind, but I think he won the game of it I played with him.
John Harrington
Fiendish Games - makers of Breaking Away, Office Politics and Traffic Lights
www.fiendishgames.demon.co.uk
Paul Mazumdar
>>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Andy Merritt limply disguised as Paul Mazumdar
>>wrote:
Just for the record, this time I'm limply disguised as myself (though some
would say unconvincingly).
> If it's any consolation he only gave Office Politics 2.0. I wouldn't
> mind, but I think he won the game of it I played with him.
I think that there's something of a risk when scoring a game on a single
playing. So many factors affect your enjoyment of the game, such as if you do
well, the sort of people that you're playing with, the quality of the beer and
so on. I'd take more notice of Andy's scores on things that he's played
several times rather than things that have only had one outing.
John: I got to see Office Politics in London last weekend. I assume you're not
aiming it at the family market? *8-)
Paul
John Harrington
In article <6amvg0$sf4$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Paul Mazumdar <Paul.Mazumd
a...@kings.cam.ac.uk> writes
>>>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Andy Merritt limply disguised as Paul Mazumdar
>>>wrote:
>
>Just for the record, this time I'm limply disguised as myself (though some
>would say unconvincingly).
>
>> If it's any consolation he only gave Office Politics 2.0. I wouldn't
>> mind, but I think he won the game of it I played with him.
Now I know why people use those damn emoticons. The above (written by
me) was not meant to sound like I was carping - all game designers value
honest feedback. I was just wondering what score Andy would have given
it had he lost!
>
>I think that there's something of a risk when scoring a game on a single
>playing. So many factors affect your enjoyment of the game, such as if you do
>well, the sort of people that you're playing with,
Ah, that explains the low rating - he was playing with me...
Hang on, let's try that again.
Ah, that explains the low rating - he was playing with me :-?
>the quality of the beer and
>so on. I'd take more notice of Andy's scores on things that he's played
>several times rather than things that have only had one outing.
>
>John: I got to see Office Politics in London last weekend. I assume you're not
>aiming it at the family market? *8-)
>
I presume you are referring to the existence of the "Shag That!" card
and one of the management philosophies, which is "Suck Ups are F*ck Ups"
The slightly naughty version of the game was sold at a games convention
to consenting adults. The version available in the shops will retain
the "Shag That!" card but the "F*ck Ups" bit has been changed to "Muck
Ups". Of course, by making the change I am passing up my opportunity
for a "must we fling this gaming filth at our kids?" two page splash in
the Sun but if I'd wanted fame and fortune from my hobby I'd have become
a Spice Girl (instead of a Teletubby).
We are having to make some changes for the German version of the game,
as the Anglo-Saxon satirical elements don't all work in a German
context. Seeing as I don't speak a word of German my translator could
be changing the management philosophies to something even more obscene,
but I somehow doubt he'd do that.
I'm not sure if we mention in the game box but we are also happy to do
custom made boards that reflect the hierarchy of the office you work in
- just send me a company tree diagram and we'll produce a custom board
for a fiver. Of course, it makes for a dull game if you are self-
employed.....
Enough of this shameless plugging,
Christopher Dearlove
In article <yiYUYpAb...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk>, John Harrington
<URL:mailto:fiendi...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <xYQ0rFAV...@kgames.demon.co.uk>, Kevin Rolph
> >On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Andy Merritt limply disguised as Paul Mazumdar
> >wrote:
> >>Drunter & Druber 3.5
> >>Special Delivery 2.5 Sorry Kevin :-(
> >>Formula De 2
> >>Groo 1.5
> >
> >
> >:-) Hurrumph.
> >
> >Well, actually, I'd give the relative scores to this sample as you have!
> >
> Kevin,
>
> mind, but I think he won the game of it I played with him.
Perhaps that's why. I've heard at least one person who I know posts here
say (roughly, hence the lack of attribution) that if he sits down to play
a game with the inventor and can beat him straight away he doesn't rate
the game (unless later convinceed otherwise). OK, he was talking about two
player abstract games where a high skill level is expected.
--
Christopher Dearlove ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk Speaking only for myself
John Harrington
In article <ant292335868#*N...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>, Christopher
Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >:-) Hurrumph.
>> >
>> >Well, actually, I'd give the relative scores to this sample as you have!
>> >
>> Kevin,
>>
>> If it's any consolation he only gave Office Politics 2.0. I wouldn't
>> mind, but I think he won the game of it I played with him.
>
>Perhaps that's why. I've heard at least one person who I know posts here
>say (roughly, hence the lack of attribution) that if he sits down to play
>a game with the inventor and can beat him straight away he doesn't rate
>the game (unless later convinceed otherwise). OK, he was talking about two
>player abstract games where a high skill level is expected.
>
concentrating on winning the game, but on how well it is playing. Plus,
I am a poor to moderate player - I prefer games where interesting things
happen to games where winning is the be all and end all (but don't
necessarily design games to fit that style).
In the case of Office Politics it is a very simple game in terms of
mechanics - the complication comes from player interaction. Negotiation
skills are useful but the inventor is in a bit of an invidious position
when trying to persuade another player to ally or work with him, as the
novice player might give more credence to the designer's blandishments
than he would another player's.
Two player abstract games are different, but I am crap at them too, as
evidenced by the World Champion status of my 7-year-old son Jack at Alan
Parr's Traffic Lights (OK, not a very subtle plug there!); he beat me
fair and square in the "World" Series (held in Freezywater,
Middlesex)....
Christopher Dearlove
In article <Mt4rbFAH...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk>, John Harrington
<URL:mailto:fiendi...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant292335868#*N...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>, Christopher
> Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Perhaps that's why. I've heard at least one person who I know posts here
> >say (roughly, hence the lack of attribution) that if he sits down to play
> >a game with the inventor and can beat him straight away he doesn't rate
> >the game (unless later convinceed otherwise). OK, he was talking about two
> >player abstract games where a high skill level is expected.
> >
> That's a bit of an odd attitude, I think, as the game designer is not
> concentrating on winning the game, but on how well it is playing. Plus,
> I am a poor to moderate player - I prefer games where interesting things
> happen to games where winning is the be all and end all (but don't
> necessarily design games to fit that style).
Just in case the person I referred to recognises himself here I ought to
follow this up. It's not that winning is everything; it's that if he can
win a first game against the inventor, who should gave spent a long time
with the game getting it right, then the game lacks some sort of "depth"
and hence he doesn't rate it.
--
Christopher Dearlove ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk Speaking only for myself,
and hoping this time to have expressed what he intended to express.
Stephen Tavener
>Just in case the person I referred to recognises himself here I ought to
>follow this up. It's not that winning is everything; it's that if he can
>win a first game against the inventor, who should gave spent a long time
>with the game getting it right, then the game lacks some sort of "depth"
>and hence he doesn't rate it.
This is more or less correct. If I can win a game of pure skill against
the inventor the first time I play, then it tells me one of two things:
1. That the strategies are so similar to a game I already know that
there's no point in buying a copy, or...
2. ...much as Christopher says above. When I play an abstract strategy
game, I want to be forced to *think*! (I generally prefer a long, drawn
out defeat to a quick victory. If I lose, then I've been fighting every
inch of the way, and my brain cells have had a good workout. I've also
probably learned something. But I digress...) If a complete novice can
beat the inventor, then I feel that the game isn't going to be be much
of a challenge.
I have had to revise my opinion a few times, e.g. Pyraos, where I beat
the inventor 2-0 at a convention the first time I played. It wasn't
until I lost three games in a row to a friend that I decided to buy a
copy.
The reverse is also true; if an inventor can beat me the first time we
play, the odds are I'll buy a copy on the spot!
Oh, and by the way; I don't apply the same standards to other genres of
games.
TTFN,
Stephen
--
Stephen Tavener
http://www.scat.demon.co.uk/
John Harrington
In article <3gOKmFAg...@scat.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tavener
<Ste...@scat.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>This is more or less correct. If I can win a game of pure skill against
>the inventor the first time I play, then it tells me one of two things:
>
>1. That the strategies are so similar to a game I already know that
>there's no point in buying a copy, or...
>
>2. ...much as Christopher says above. When I play an abstract strategy
>game, I want to be forced to *think*! (I generally prefer a long, drawn
>out defeat to a quick victory. If I lose, then I've been fighting every
>inch of the way, and my brain cells have had a good workout. I've also
>probably learned something. But I digress...) If a complete novice can
>beat the inventor, then I feel that the game isn't going to be be much
>of a challenge.
I realise you are talking about games of pure skill, but what about
simple multi-player games where you play the players more than you do
the system? To choose a game at random, say, Liar's Dice?
From a designer's point of view, it is probably better if he or she does
not even play in his own games. There's a dilemma of choice between
wheeling out a game-winning strategy devised over several playings and
playing neutral to let players discover the killer moves themselves.
>
>I have had to revise my opinion a few times, e.g. Pyraos, where I beat
>the inventor 2-0 at a convention the first time I played. It wasn't
>until I lost three games in a row to a friend that I decided to buy a
>copy.
>
>The reverse is also true; if an inventor can beat me the first time we
>play, the odds are I'll buy a copy on the spot!
Presumably this is without the benefit of the Brian Walker rules
explanation technique, where an obscure but significant rule is wheeled
out halfway through the game and said rule invalidates the strategy of
all the other players except Brian Walker.
(In Brian's defence, as the major source of new games in our group he
was always called upon to explain the rules and none of us wanted the
full monty in the rules explanation stakes.)
Anyway, with my next game, "Minus 50 points for outlandish clothes, plus
50 points if you're a shortarse" I hope to get you to buy a copy on the
spot when we play it! :-)
>
>Oh, and by the way; I don't apply the same standards to other genres of
>games.
>
Oh well, ignore all my comments above then!
>TTFN,
>
No, it was TTYF! (god, how many more in-jokes?)
Peter Sullivan
In article <os1yLOA1...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk>, John Harrington
<fiendi...@fiendishgames.demon.co.uk> writes
>I realise you are talking about games of pure skill, but what about
>simple multi-player games where you play the players more than you do
>the system? To choose a game at random, say, Liar's Dice?
I believe Alan Calhamer said he stopped playing Diplomacy after the
first few years, because his allies could always be persuaded to stab
him on the basis that he was the inventor, and therefore obviously the
most dangerous player on the board.
--
Peter Sullivan
Stephen Tavener
>I realise you are talking about games of pure skill, but what about
>simple multi-player games where you play the players more than you do
>the system? To choose a game at random, say, Liar's Dice?
In liar's dice (well, Perudo, which I've played more), first count how
many dice are left, and divide by three. That's about how many of each
number there are out there. If it's less than this on your turn, make
it that number, if it's more than this, challenge - ignore the other
players - the odds are they're lying! I suppose you *could* look at
your dice and adjust the numbers accordingly, but it probably won't
help!
>From a designer's point of view, it is probably better if he or she does
>not even play in his own games. There's a dilemma of choice between
>wheeling out a game-winning strategy devised over several playings and
>playing neutral to let players discover the killer moves themselves.
Again, depends on the game. I've played several abstract strategy games
with forced wins for the first player, where clearly the inventor hasn't
played enough. In a game like Trax which is so deep that beginners
can't see the point of the game at all, it's reassuring to be thrashed
by someone who knows what they're doing - it shows there is some point
in playing. The mere fact that the inventor *can* trot out some game-
winning tactic carefully crafted over a few games shows (a) that he's
enjoyed/tested the game enough to play it this many times, (b) the
players *will* get better if they keep playing. There's no point in
playing a game if each game is exactly the same.
>Anyway, with my next game, "Minus 50 points for outlandish clothes, plus
>50 points if you're a shortarse" I hope to get you to buy a copy on the
>spot when we play it! :-)
Ah, you forgot "+100 points for shamelessly clashing outfit".
IMBGN,