The Board Game Podcaster Awards have been announced.

Best Gateway Game - On Board Games
http://onboardgames.net/

Best Game from a New Publisher - Garrett's Games and Geekiness
http://web.mac.com/dwgteach/iWeb/Garrett%27s%20Games%20and%2...

Innovative Concept - Boardgame Babylon
http://www.boardgamebabylon.com/

Best Game from a Small Publisher - The Dice Tower
http://www.funagain.com/control/viewblogpost?contentBlogPost...

Game of the Year - The Metagamers
http://themetagamers.com/

(Note: Some of the podcasts may be posted a little later - but all should be posted this week.)

The On Board Games episode is posted here: http://onboardgames.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=248032

Four of five so far - we've been assured that The Metagamers show is on the way soon! Only fitting, as they will announce the BPA for Game of the Year.

...Sheylon
www.boardgamebabylon.com

Best Gateway Game - On Board Games


Best Game from a New Publisher - Garrett's Games and Geekiness


Innovative Concept - Boardgame Babylon


Best Game from a Small Publisher - The Dice Tower


So far not bad.

After clearing up some technical difficulties, we will be posting sometime later today, or tomorrow morning.

Where would be a good place to discuss the winners? here?

Sure!

The Metagamers' episode is posted here:

http://themetagamers.com/index.php?post_id=248714

Okay I need to expand on this more later, but since I'm at work I need to cut it a little short for now. It should be noted that I am a big supporter of what you guys were trying to accomplish as can be seen in my posts on the other thread about this subject. I am not bothered so much by the choice of winners, since it would be wrong of me to say that any opinion that does not agree with mine is completly wrong, however that is most of the time the case.

My Gripe for now is on the execution. It has been admitted by the podcasters that they have not played all these games, which is not a complete negative since it's probably hard to get everything played, however I was bothered that in what seems most cases they didn't play a lot of the games, which does cast some doubt on the final decisions.
Take the Metagamers for example, all in all they didn't play 3 or sometimes 4 of the 5 games, and was just for the category they were covering, who knows how much of the games they missed playing from the other categories.
I understand that this is first run and all, but remember first impressions are the most important, however overall impressions of what you guys are doing is positive with me.

Now my first winner gripe:
TTR 1910 for Gateway game- I see that the announcers tried to spin it as this means the whole TTR game, but this is not plausible since your award is for 2006 games and TTR is 2004 i believe. Also this is not really a game at all, heck Thurn and Taxis Power and Glory expansion was more of a game then 1910, and I think it made the game even more user friendly for The base game Thurn and Taxis, then anything 1910 does for TTR.

Well got to go, I will continue my critique at later time, however I want to reiterate that I think what you guys are tyring to accomplish is very admirable.
Thanks for the Podcasting, and the time you guys put into it for Us.

Now for my continuation, however not really gripes just my opinions of decisions, that all.

Innovative Concept= Space Dealer, I can't really argue with this one at all and probably if i had a vote would pick it as well, as long as were talking about innovative concept not the game itself. I am really looking forward to other publishers taking the Real Time idea and making games with this mechanic it's really neat and revolutionary. Imagine a Mediteranian Trading Game using this realtime mechanic wow... Tom will love it for sure.

New Publisher = Gift Trap, well I've only played Gift Trap and Mr. Jack, yet read the rules aplenty on Through the ages. I would have to vote for Through the Ages jsut based on the rule reading alone. I think it probably was determined that it would win for small publisher so the award went elsewhere.

Gateway Game = TTR 1910, well I've already commented on this so not much about it. However my vote would probably go to Thurn and Taxis, Qwirkle is a great game however too abstract to be a Gateway Game. Also as I noted earlier Power and Glory really makes Thurn and Taxis a great Gateway game. Yspahan just has too much ways to score and has scared away a few new gamers at our group.

Small Publisher = Through the ages, I can't argue with this and I haven't even played the game. I have played the others and If I had a vote and would only vote for the games I've played it would go to Qwirkle. I really think Qwirkle needs some recognition, it's a great 2-4 player abstract almost on par with ingenious. However like I said i can't argue with the result here.

Game of the Year = Battlelore, well i dont' know how close the votes were, but I pretty much predicted this before the results were known. Through the ages was handicapped because I was sure it had minimal exposure to play. My choice Arkadia I know isn't meaty enough to be a game of the year winner, I am glad that it didn't get last place, that designation was to the game I thought best deserved the 5th spot Yspahan which is not a bad game just not a Very good game. If I had to make a second guess as to what the winner would be it was certainly Pillars of the Earth which I recognize as a very good game, just one that I dont' think is better then Caylus or even other similar games. My one gripe about Battlelore is that it's incomplete and was designed and marketed for only one thing to make gobs of money $$$$.

Well I do hope that this is repeated next year. I think you guys are on the right track. However do consider finding a way to get the games to the table before vote time.

And shame on the Big Bad Game Company for wanting to make a profit & give their employees a salary & their investors some return on their investment. Bad, bad company... now go back out there & get yourself into bankruptcy like a good, ethical company should.

Turning the sarcasm off, I continue...

Battlelore is an expensive yet very playable medieval/fantasy war game with great figs, excellent customer support, a designer who's been tweaking the system for his own enjoyment for nearly 20 years, and the potential to become a permanent fixture as the miniatures/boardgaming crossover game. If it makes gobs of money, that isn't because Days of Wonder is a bunch of cynical hacks - it's because they've published a design that appeals to a wide variety of gamers.

Hi Mark,
I think I was a little off the mark by making my comment without any details to the comment so it seems that I have some huge issue with Days of Wonder and the game Battlelore. I actually like Battlelore the game, however I do have issue personally in how it's marketed.
I can fully understand a company needs to make money, but they do not market the game in that way. They market the extensions as optional (which in essence they are) while in reality in some of the cases it's actually seems that it's parts that were taken out of the whole, not really extensions. Also they seemed to make it clear that there was no need for a second copy of the game to get full enjoyment, unlike memoir which needed multiple games to do overlord (it should be noted though that I've never played the overlord and may be incorrect in this assumption it's just been explained to me in this way), however to really play the epic battlelore to it's fullest i'm very sorry but you do need a second copy period.
Again I understand making money, but there are right ways and wrong ways to do that. I am not saying DOW is evil, just that they have bought into the idea that it's best to keep people feeling they need more when it really should of been there to begin with. Much like Microsoft and lot's of other companies have adopted.
I can remember a computer game "Command and Conquer Tiberium Sun"?? I think that was it anyway it was the second in the series. This game had in the rule book a certain unit that wasn't in the game. Later someone found this unit and a few others in the code and made a program that allowed access to these units. EA and Westwood sent him a letter to cease distributing this tool. Everyone wondered why, until an expansion came out a little later that low and behold had these same units. Meaning that these units always existed in the game, and one of them was even in the manual, but they took them out of the game so that they could sell them in expansions.
This is how I feel Battlelore was made, it had a whole part such as that you see in Call to Arms, Epic, etc. And decided to take it out and sell as blister packs. Sure it's optional, but they just like Microsoft and EA/Westwood realized that for the mass market it's not optional it's mandatory. Because without some of them the game feels incomplete.
Anyway it wasn't the point about this post. I was just saying why I wouldn't of voted for Battlelore, but I certainly see it as a great game as a whole. So let's say that the Award for Game of the Year goes to Battlelore and it's expansions...
This is actually the most fun I've had in a forum post in quite some time. Hope we can keep the discussion up and enjoy eachother's opinions and insight.

edit:
I just wanted to say, that I really wished that more of the reviewers for this award played Through the Ages, I think it would of had a fighting chance maybe. I haven't played it, but it seems like an awesome game.

This makes a lot more sense... and I appreciate your willingness to explain yourself in such a gracious way. (Makes me feel a bit squidgy for having lapsed into full sarcasm mode... but just a bit!)

I wonder how else you can market this style of game, though, and still create an entry level price point. The base system is $70 MSRP... which seems to be at the high end of the hobby. (It certainly is for me - I have over 800 games in my collection but it's much easier to plop down $40 on a new game than it is $70 - there's some kind of mental barrier there.)

The expansions have retailed at $15-$25 each (I'm not sure what the MSRP was on these, as I bought them over the web)... and none of them is essential to play the base game. They each add some interesting stuff... but you can still do battle with the basic box.

If you started throwing expansions into the main box, what happens to the price point? Do you end up with a base box that people admire but don't actually buy?

I don't know quite how to respond to your comment about Epic Battlelore... as a fan of Memoir '44 (who owns 2 sets so he can play Overlord scenarios), I was really looking forward to Epic. So far, though, I haven't particularly enjoyed playing Battlelore with multiple players (by the Epic rules). So I'm not the best person to answer your Q's about Epic.

You noted that "without some (of the expansions) the game feels incomplete." Which, I think, goes with the territory. You're creating a combat system in a fantasy world using a wide variety of molded figures & variable terrain. There is no way that the original release in that kind of system can be complete... and I'll just reference a few comparable systems to make my point: Duel of Ages, Heroscape, Battlegrounds, Star Fleet Battles, Cosmic Encounter, Talisman, Runebound, Descent, Prophecy, Dungeonquest, Doom - you get my drift.



I have no quibble with that... I think that it's pretty much impossible to divorce the enjoyment of many of these games from the entire system.



Agreed... it's this kind of dialogue that makes the Geek fun!



I haven't played it, either - but I'd certainly like to give it a try.

You are absolutely right. The games were nominated, and we voted right after. If there were any nominated games that we didn't get a chance to play, we didn't have time (or money) to make sure they did.

This is also the problem with the BGG (and many other) awards. I doubt many of the Golden Geek participants will have played all the nominated games either. Now if we had time in-between nominations, and the game companies want to send us all all of the nominated games, then that would be great! Short of that, we do what we can.

Also, but not a big deal, your numbers are off. I played 2-5, Jay 1-5 and Jim 3-5 I believe. Not great by any account, but it is what it is.

Fair enough, I know there is likely no way you guys can play all these games, it just seemed like no one played some of them, however I know that is'nt the case. As for the number of games played by the people on yoru podcast you are right, I was thinking for some reason that 6 games were nominated for best game, and I knew one of you only played one game so that is where I got the number 5.
I believe it was you that played Through the Ages right? I was just wondering, is the game as good as what i get from the rules. Is it a game that deserves the attention it's getting. I've never been so anticipated to play a game after reading the rules, as this one.

I wrote a blog about my impressions of the inagural Board Game Podcast Awards, if you care to check it out.

Otherwise, I'll base my responses on Jonas' comments:

Yeah, this was my biggest "disappointment" of the awards. I love TtR (as a gateway), but giving this award to an expansion seemed a little bit cheap to me. A "gateway" game should be something that a person new to the hobby could play a time or two with experienced players and then pick up for themselves to play at home. In this case, they'd have to pick up both the base game and an expansion, which is just not too good.


Even though I haven't had the chance to actually play it, I agree.


That's pretty much what I thought as well, but I was impressed that they were open-minded enough to both nominate and vote for a party game. I'm a big fan of party games, especially with certain groups of people, and I'm glad GiftTRAP got some love.


Once again, that's exactly my thought as well. I predicted it would win based solely on the reviews I had heard from these podcasters and the scuttlebutt here at BGG. I hope to eventually get a copy now that it will finally be widely available here in the US.


First of all, my choice would have been Arkadia as well. That aside, BattleLore would have definitely been my second choice of the nominees. I disagree, however, with your assessment of BattleLore being incomplete and too expensive. The biggest reason that it was so expensive is that DoW wanted to provide a base game that was totally playable on its own. There are tons of units available, several scenarios to play, and great other componenets that are modular and could generate an almost infinite variety of battles. The $70 is not just a "buy in" cost (like picking up a CMG starter or something), where you don't get enough components to really give you a sense for the whole game. You could never buy any of the expansions and it would be at least as "complete" a game as most other board games out there.

What's cool is that it is expandable, so that (if you choose) you could add into your game more of the kind of things you really like. If you like the fantasy elements, add in the new Dwarven and Goblin expansion packs. For historical simulation, get the 100 years war stuff. To play on a bigger scale, pick up the Epic expansion, and to have a different way of deploying your troops, grab Call to Arms. But, on the other hand, if you're happy with the base game, then just stick with it and have a great time.


Me too! With a little more time and planning, I think that this could end up being one of the most respected "fan-based" awards out there.

Chris, nice blog!

As for playing games, it's probably right that we had too little time between nominations and voting (about a month), but I tried to get as many plays as I could in. I've played all nominees except three, and I read up on those as much as I could.

Again, I would expect to see some more structure for next year (website, etc.), and we're already working on such things now.

While I question the need for yet another set of awards, what really bothers me about the Podcasting awards was that the winners were announced via podcasts only. Yes, they are podcasting awards, but why make us listen to a variety of podcasts to learn who the winners are? Why not just announce them in print?

What is the purpose of the podcasting awards? To recognize good games or simply a blatant attempt to increase listeners? If the purpose is to recognize good games, then well and good. Post the list of winners and interested parties can listen to the podcasts if they want to hear the discussion. If the reason is simply an attempt to increase the number of listeners, then all of the podcast awards are suspect as the games being recognized are secondary to the reason for the awards.

Accept my apologies if the winners were posted in a forum somewhere. The one announcement I saw (at the beginning of this very thread) simply consisted of pointers to the various podcasts.

And yes, I have seen the winners listed in various forums and threads (including this one) since the winners announcement. My point is that as far as I know the winners were not originally announced in text form. I object to the requirement of listening to multiple podcasts to learn all of the winners.

I believe most (if not all) of the participants agree this is something that could use more diligence in the future. By starting the process now for next year, we should be able to minimize or eliminate unplayed games for the final round. Sadly there is no way all of us can play all games to get to the "nominated" list, but as a group people who care enough about games to podcast on them try to play new games on a regular basis.

Maybe we should make a Board Game Podcast Awards so anyone interested in the process can provide suggestions.

http://onboardgames.net/

My understanding is they would be posted on the web after the first week of the announcements.

The Board Game Podcast Awards were created by podcasters, not by bloggers, webpage designers, or magazine publishers. So it makes perfect sense to break the list on participating podcasts, because it was an award created by podcasters to recognize worthy games for our friends and fans. A magazine that gives awards does not push the results on secondary venues when the news is still "hot" in the magazine itself. A one or two week delay between the announcements on the associated podcasts and web posting is not an unreasonable thing. (The same way that most podcasts don't post a review rating in the show notes.)

That being said, it is cool that some of the friends and fans of the podcasts have enough interest to talk about the awards, results, and our mistakes, in whatever forums they see fit. I hope they keep it up!

Do you also object to the Oscars, Emmys, Tonys, and other award shows? They follow the same model - make the initial announcement in the show. Few people object because there wasn't a text listing of all the winners ahead of time in the show.

I know we are trying to get a Web presence together, but as with anything done by committee, it all takes a while. I would expect that the winners will be posted there, but it will not be the first place they are posted.

If you want to find out right away who the winners are, you will need to listen. If you are willing to wait a bit, then you can see them all listed in text form. (I think one hope is that we get all of the segments with the winners put together into a show as well.)

Hats off to all the podcasters who voted on this one.

I don't think I was disappointed in any of the "winners". I have still not played BattleLore but I expect to enjoy it once I get the game, it is currently tied up in a "pre-order" buy so once Making of a President comes out I will have BattleLore too.


The one thing I really liked was finding some new podcasts to listen to, since I don't seem to have the time to put out my own any more. I almost have a podcast for almost every day of the week. I really liked "On Boardgames" and "Metagamers", I had not heard any of their prior podcasts but I will be searching them out now.

Tom Thanks again for putting this together and to everyone else for their input and discussions.