Re: Next years Origins

From: Carol Mulholland <Carol@flagship-uk.demon.co.uk>

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:15:49 +0000

Greg Lindahl wrote:

> A print magazine can kind of address the issue

Flagship runs an annual ratings report. It's organised by a
separate editor to guarantee its impartiality, with the games
divided into categories like Fantasy Wargames, Sport, etc etc.
One aspect that I think is important is that the votes are
cast for separate qualities for each game: Anticipation, GM
Quality, Depth, Interaction and Value for Money. We list them
according to Anticipation, but players looking for a new game
may care more about something like Interaction.

This avoids quite a few of the problems but, as you point out,
no system dealing with a huge range of different types of game
can ever be perfect.

Any system can be abused - giving low votes to 'rival' games,
things like that. And one oddity is that games with a large
player base often do disproportionally badly: voters who
only play one small game will often vote 10 as an expression
of loyalty to the GM, whereas people who play a lot of games
tend to signify enjoyment with 7s and 8s.

I remember one PBM convention, years ago now, where the winner of
the Best New Game category was an imaginary one dreamt up by
funsters the night before, and canvassed furiously on the day:
Rock Star Boxing...

Carol

References

Next years Origins
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:26:03 +0000
Re: Next years Origins
Hugh Bayer <hughb@vbe.com>
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:47:45 +0000
Re: Next years Origins
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:11:15 +0000

Referenced By

Next years Origins
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:26:03 +0000
Re: Next years Origins
Hugh Bayer <hughb@vbe.com>
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:47:45 +0000
Re: Next years Origins
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:11:15 +0000