Jump to content

Talk:Board game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ydd (talk | contribs) at 00:09, 2 June 2002 (Proposal to revamp board games section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

We definitely need to come up with a better classification here, at some point. It's a good start, but games like Abalone and Die Siedler really defy any coarse classification. Perhaps nested classification pages, with games existing on multiple pages? I'm planning on adding entries for a few more games that we play regularly, most of which won't quite fit anywhere in here. Don't take this as anything other than a random thought. :) -- Phil Bordelon

Some useful classifications of games may be:

  • minimum and maximum number of players
  • whether all information is available to all players
  • whether a random generator (dice, card shuffle, etc.) is used before and/or during play
  • in games that use randomness, whether the players have any control over the outcome of the game. Games for small children that are entirely based on chance include Candy Land, Chutes and Ladders, and Care Bears Warm Feelings.

I agree that the present classification scheme is inadequate, and the article as written is confusing. "Proprietary games" is a ridiculous category, for starters, and the "war game" category has a big description with no examples. I have several suggestions which I will implement as time permits if there are no objections.

"Proprietary game" is a game protected by a patent in a major market. --Damian Yerrick
Right, my point was not that the category is ill-defined, but that it is not very relevant. For example, the proprietaty game Balderdash is almost identical to the non-proprietary game Dictionary or Fictionary. For 9 out of 10 readers, Balderdash and Dictionary should be in one group, and chess and Abalone in another group. It would be less useful to have Balderdash and Abalone in one group (proprietary) and chess and Dictionary in another (non-proprietary). --Karl Juhnke

I suspect that this page has become too cluttered because it is more active than some other pages. If there is a better category, we should offload from this page to that page, and merely link.

  • We should move all word games which merely happen to be board games to the "letter games" page. Anagrams is played without a board and Scrabble is played with a board, but those games bear much greater kinship to each other than either does to chess.
  • We should create a page for "Party Games" that large numbers of people (say 8-15) can play. Charades, Outburst, Trivial Pursuit, Balderdash and so on belong together even though one game has a board, another uses words, another is about guessing, etc.
  • Wargames, if they are not abstract, probably also deserve recognition apart from board games. The attraction of such games has a great deal to do with simulation, and spills over into miniatures games where there might not be a board. The distinction between a simulation-type wargame and boardgame abstracted from war simulation is fuzzy, of course, but real. Chess, Stratego, and Risk are all abstract enough to be boardgames, whereas Axis and Allies, Advanced Squad Leader, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, and Flintloque are all more interested in simulation.

That leaves the board game article to deal with

  • two-player games of perfect information (chess, Abalone)
  • two-player games with chance or imperfect information (backgammon, Stratego)
  • mulit-player no-elimination games (Clue, Empire Builder, Settlers of Catan)
  • multi-player elimination games (Diplomacy, Monopoly)

Certainly this outline won't catch all types of games; some board games will fit two categories and some won't fit any. Still, since there must be some grouping, let the grouping be based on the way people tend to think about games when they are considering what to play of an evening.

I am very interested in other opinions, both before and during my re-organization. --Karl Juhnke

I'd say split two-player games with chance or imperfect information into games where imperfect information known by at least one player dominates (Stratego), games where chance dominates (backgammon), and games where neither dominates. I'd also create an additional category for multi-player "games" completely determined by chance, where the players have no control of the outcome. These tend to be played by small children. Examples include Candy Land, Chutes and Ladders, Care Bears Warm Feelings, etc. --Damian Yerrick

I agree that children's games deserve their own category. --Karl Juhnke

I think this section needs a bit of revamping, it is disorganized and vague. I'd be willing to redo much of this section if I'm given permision. I edited the page earlier since there wasn't a direct link to Xiangqi, which really shouldn't be just a sub-section of Chess. I've been playing abstract games for a long time and know them fairly well. I've been playing Chess since I was 5, Shogi and Xiangqi since I was 12, and countless others (from Alma to Royal game of Ur). Additionally I wrote a few strategy games for Zillions of Games, which are available for download on their website.

I by no means intend to sound like I'm blowing hot air =P I'm just trying to say that I think I could work on this page fairly well. I'd be completely happy to fix up existing game articles and enter new ones that should be added (I.E. Pachisi, Senat].

My name is Alex by the way, I'm new =) flame me at will!!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Board_game&oldid=84131"