Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » BoardGameGeek Related » BGG General

Subject: BGG Game Weight - informative?? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Heckle Jekyll
United States
Knox
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The BGG glossary defines the following:


Quote:
light

adj. Having very simple rules and strategies that do not require deep thought. Also can be used to describe a game with an extremely short playing time. (See also filler, opener, closer, and beer & pretzels game)

heavy

adj. Having very complex rules and/or complex strategies that require deep thought, careful planning, and long playing times.

Before I get started it should be first note a slight difference in these definitions in that "light" refers to a game having simple rules and strategies and "heavy" refers to a game with complex rules and/or complex strategies. Apparently, in order to qualify for light the game needs to have both simple rules and simple game play. In order to qualify for heavy only the rules or game play need to be heavy.

The BGG's game weight rating should recognize the difference between complex rules vs. complex game play for games falling under the heavy category. It may be reasonable to believe that a game with heavy rules will most likely have heavy strategy but the reverse is certainly not true as often.


BGGers should be able to see a game weight regarding these two categories. Knucklebones magazine differentiates the ratings under the categories of: Learning Curve and Challenge.

Perhaps BGG should rank weight in 3 categories, which would be most helpful:
1. Rules Complexity
2. Learning Curve, and
3. Challenge/Strategy/Tactics

I sometimes spend considerable time trying to figure out whether a heavy rating refers to rules complexity, learning curve, and/or the games challenge level of strategy and tactics.

Hmmm, perhaps thats the catch, if I can't find the difference easily in the rating I will be required to read through all the reviews, sessions, and etc.. However, I often do and am still not enlightened.

This additional rating feature would be most helpful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Crypt Keeper
United States
California
flag msg tools
None shall pass!
badge
'Tis but a scratch.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a good point. The rules of Go can be explained in 5 minutes, but mastering the game can take a lifetime. On the other hand, Talisman and Return of the Heroes are very simple games that have tons of rules (and exceptions to the rules) that might take you several playings to get right.

As I recall, there was a lengthy debate about this when weighting was first introduced.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren M
Canada
High Level
AB
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
I actually think the weight system works fairly well. Everything is subjective and one person will always say a certain game is heavy while others feel it's moderate or even on the light side. I like that it's a simple 1-5 scale for weights. The average viewpoint is what we are looking for and after a few ratings the general consensus starts to reveal itself.

I'd like to see the same general simple system in place for both "game play length" and "best with X# of players" I think those stats would be really useful as well.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
idiot crow wrote:
Perhaps BGG should rank weight in 3 categories, which would be most helpful:
1. Rules Complexity
2. Learning Curve, and
3. Challenge/Strategy/Tactics
My own thought of it is complexity can be broken into complexity to learn and complexity to apply. Then in turn Learning and Applying hold true for
1) Explicit Rules (as laid out in the rulebook)
2) Implicit Rules (as mandated by gameplay conventions & essential strategy)
3) Theoretical Strategy (as gleamed from study the game effects outside the context of the game)
4) Empirical Strategy (as gleamed from exposure to strategy of others and effects during gameplay)

Note that 3 and 4 are quite subjective and if someone is unwilling or unable to take it to the next level can result in large variation in game weight:
1. past learning the rules you can choose to play a game without applying strategy
2. we play games with paradigms (e.g. Checkers is a children's game and has no strategic weight)

Also note that these elements reinforce one another (an empirical observation can open avenues of theory to explore and then exploring can occur during gameplay to lead to more empirical discoveries)

What I would be most interested in breaking apart is the difficulty (or learning curve) to solve theoretically vs the difficulty to solve empirically.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Butler
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The 1-10 game rating scale is useful because it generally measures how good a game is by a) how much people enjoy it, and b) how much people are willing to play it. These two characteristics go together, and most people agree on what they mean.

The weight rating is not very useful because it is vague and subjective and means different things to different people. Some people think of weight as difficulty, others by how long it takes to teach or play, and still others by "depth" of play. When I look at weight ratings, I have no idea what I'm looking at, and odd results frequently occur, depending on what players have rated a particular game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls