NOTE: I am currently in Grad School and away from the majority of my games. If you want to trade feel free to send me a message; however, know that my time for games/trades is at a premium through June 2016.On Trading
Any games listed for trade are also for sale. I do consider trading games not on my trade list, just geek-mail me before you send official offers so we can discuss the details. On BBG Voice
I love discussing things. I tend to poke, think aloud, and evolve over conversation. I'm open-minded and my positions can be quite fluid in the throes of conversation. Feel free to jump in at any time.On Me (history)
I've always liked games. As a child it was the usual suspects: monopoly, scrabble, chess, checkers etc. In 2004 I was introduced to my first euro, Puerto Rico and half-way through that first session I purchased a copy and haven't looked back since.
I prefer medium-heavy games with a good depth:time ratio. While I acknowledge the contributions of gateway and party games I'd rather spend my gaming time elsewhere. My ratings and rankings are based on BGGs system and subject to change as I continue to play. No game is safe. If you're ever in the area and wanna play, my group meets Saturday nights 7pm-midnight. On My Collection
Over the past decade I have played and/or owned over 200 games. However I am a player not a collector and thus have taken to reducing my collection to include only those games I really enjoy playing. The following statement, adopted and adapted from user Breno K., explains my feelings in this regard.My "I like a small collection" microbadge, reflects a collection that is fine-tuned to my taste. I will likely not keep a game that's "okay" or merely "good". I actually like looking at my gaming shelf to see games that I could pretty much play anytime. For those limited cases of merely-good games, I take group availability and play probability into consideration.On Gaming Interests
To quote user MScrivner (thoughts on Pax Porfiriana):I want interesting...to think and act and play in ways that I don't get to do anywhere else.
What I find interesting are games where mutualism and player incentive management drives victory. Where decision ambiguity abounds and player decisions are non-trivial, butterfly inducing, long-term, and opaque in ramifications. In those rare cases where thematic experience is the primary draw (almost always Phil Eklund designs) I prefer the topic to be real-world business, historical, or scientific; I dislike fantasy.On Elegance
A singular word to describe my interests is depth. However, I have found that depth and complexity are often confused here on the geek. So in an effort to add some clarity, I have quoted definitions on depth and complexity from William Peng's blog on game design.
Depth is the number of emergent, experientially different possibilities or meaningful choices that come out of one ruleset. Games with high depth are still strategically interesting and fun even after you have mastered the game’s rules.
Complexity is how difficult it is for the player to understand the rules and their implications. If the game requires the player to track multiple rules at once, it makes it harder for the player to appreciate the depth of the game.
Elegance is something that has a high depth to complexity ratio
What I've been playing: