Talk:Eurogame/move

Citadels link

I note that the Citadels link points to a page that is halfway to being a disambiguation page, which does not contain a mention of the "German board game" Citadels (which is actually more of a card game, but definitely German-style in the sense of this article). Should the link be moved to Citadels_(game), or perhaps Citadels (card game) given some of the other content on the current Citadels page? --AlexChurchill 14:11, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Too American-centred?

Nice article, but I think it is written too much from an U.S. point of view (and perhaps being a bit unfair towards American games?). If anyone familiar with the subject could try to define these kinds of games more independently of "lousy American games", it would definitively be an improvement. Jørgen 21:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Time Length

"They often take between 60 and 120 minutes to finish, although there are of course longer and shorter games."

This number seems pretty far off. Designers usual try to keep games no more than an hour, and certainly rarely over 90 minutes. A lot of the cult following of these games in the United States seems more interested in games around 90 minutes. But the vast majority of these games are in a window of mayber 30 to 75 minutes or so. (Of course, playing styles, number of players, etc affect this, but that is usually the target area.)

As a particular example, when Reiner Knizia was designing Euphrat & Tigris, many people were excited simply because it was very unusual for him to design a game that takes over an hour. (He was targetting about 1.5 hours, which is pretty accurate for that game.)

I would tend to agree that a 'German-style' game that took more than two hours would be exceptionally long. I suggest changing the description to 45 to 90 minutes, which I think is more indicative of the majority of games. --Millsdavid 02:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Either my friends and I have slower brains than you, or you didn't play enough of these kind of games. I've rarely finished a three-player or four-player game of El Grande under 90 minutes. Same goes for Domaine or Settlers of Catan with all expansions Wouter Lievens 09:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely games which break this rule, but they are fairly rare. Very few of the german-style games in Germany are even substantially over an hour. I think hobby gamers, myself included, often prefer the longer and deeper games. However such games are pretty atypical for the genre. Maybe the wording should toned down a bit though. Something like "unusual" instead of "rarely". Rdore 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-titling

In Germany, this style of boardgame is called "author game" (autorenspiel), or more appropriately "designer game", because they are developed with a design-related aesthetic. I think this may be a more appropriate title than "German-style". Morgenstraße 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

At least here in America these games are most commonly known as german-style board games, I've never heard them referred to as "author games", and i've played a long time. I also think it is Wiki policy to keep articles in the place where people would most likely look for them. I.E. the article for hobo spider isn't just titled Tengenaria agrestis, because most people aren't going to search for its binomial classification. Perhaps a redirect from Author game to this article, but I couldn't vote for moving the entire article... --Fxer 00:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Second thought: since "author game" is a mere translate, not a phrase with any real cultural currency in English, I tend to agree with you. "Designer game" might be better.

What term would be best would be one that actually describes, succinctly, for a person not familiar with these games, what kinds of games they are, and why they are nothing like what most Americans think of when they hear the words "board game". Morgenstraße 01:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Fxer, in my experience "German-style" is the most common description of these games. I don't think the term is misleading. On the other hand, I'm not sure most people involved in board games know what a "designer game" is - I do agree that a redirect would be good. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Millsdavid 04:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Most people don't bother including the word "style" in there. It's just "German board game". Or just "German game", since the genre includes many card games that lack a board (e.g. Bohnanza and Citades). If you're including the word style, it's because you're already worried about style and technical correctness. In such a case, it would probably be better to just use "Designer Game", which I've heard many more times than "German-style game". Rdore

You have a point. Certainly, we should get rid of the word 'board'. --Millsdavid 00:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I resigned myself to the fact that this page may need to be moved to another title. I've reverted the messy cut and paste move though (it's best to move pages using the 'move' tab because it preserves the history of the page). To move the page to "German game" might require an admin's assistance because the edit history is now non-trivial (I'm only guessing because I haven't tried). It could be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves for that.

By the way, I'm not necessarily endorsing "German game" as the title. I can see the value of moving the page to "German game" or "Designer game" but I also see the value of keeping it where it is. It's not a huge issue, I guess. It's just a shame that there's no clear option (as I see it). --Millsdavid 09:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I don't care that much about the title. Sorry I didn't realize the proper way to move an article. In any case I do want to add the revisions I made at the other location, since I spent more time on that, and consider it more important anyway. Especially it seemed disorganized - it basically had two different sections listing game designers for example. Rdore

Nice work on the big cleanup/reorganization job, the changes make the article much better! --Fxer 21:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I like "German" being somewhere in the title. I'm a gamer, so I already know what a "German" game is. I use this page to explain the term to friends who aren't familiar with gamer jargon. Iglew 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that it should just be "German game" but I don't know if it's worth squabbling over much in any case. "Designer game" is a more accurate description in my opinion, but it is somewhat less popular. Rdore 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for Designer game. I've also seen "Eurogame" used increasingly, especially on the 'geek. Percy Snoodle 12:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote strongly against Designer game, a term I have rarely seen in print (an have never heard) in over 20 years of play. "Eurogame" is, on the other hand, a term that is used just about as frequently as "German game", and is indeed used increasingly. All in all though, I can't see a compelling reason the retitle. AmbientArchitecture 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Being an author of these games, and not german, I am more and more biased against "german games", which seems to imply, well, that they're all german, and is less and less used. german-style games is better, since indeed this style of game originated from Germany, but Eurogames, or even better Euro-style games, sounds even better to me. Designer games, why not, but it doesn't give a clue as to what they are exactly.Bruno faidutti 15:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Skill Emphasis?

This article emphasizes the skill component of these games, and suggests they tend to involve almost zero luck. I think this is misleading, and shows a bias towards what American enthusiasts of the games prefer. Usually "german games" refers more to games that have (some of which are mentioned):

• High player interaction. The idea is that gaming is a social activity.
• No player elimination and minimal downtime. In the same vein, the goal is to keep everyone interested and involved. Trading and/or quick rotation of player turns is common.
• Quick to play and/or hidden scoring. Similarly, it's no fun for players to be sitting in a clearly losing position for several hours.
• Novel, but simple rules. The game should be fairly clever and unique, but quick to teach.
• Minimize direct conflict. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but the games usually have players reaching for some goal, and interacting through eachother by trading, competing for limitted resources, etc., rather than direct battles. It has been suggested that this is a strong anti-military conflict attitude in Germany after WW2.
• Highly variable setup or postioning. The game should keep being interested and different for many games. Usually there is at least some sort of randomness used here.

These games have become popular in other places because people are looking for more interesting games than the stuff you can buy in Toys R Us. And this usually means they gravitate towards the more heavy, and deeply strategic games. (Although anybody likes a game if it's just plain fun!) Take a look at the winners of the Spiel_des_Jahres award, usually considered the most prestigious award for such games. Popular heavier games such as Puerto Rico, Tigris and Euphrates, and Princes of Florence are all missing from this list. Related to that, I think "They usually finish in less than 2 hours" is a huge overstatement. It is very rare that a game in this genre is designed to take more than 90 minutes. Of course, if you play with player who spend a lot of time thinking out there moves, these targets can be exceeded. Rdore

I agree with most of what you say here. We should of course include characteristics of both games that are 'heavier' and ones that aren't. Of course, this is a wiki, so feel free to change whatever you think needs changing. As I said above under "Time Length", I thought that 2 hours was too long as well, and reduced it to 45 to 90 minutes. It was changed back recently, so it may take a while to get some consensus on that point, at least. --Millsdavid 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Game market in various countries

Plenty of the games are designed and published in such places as France, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In other markets, such as in the United States, they remain largely at niche status.

If there is a dichotomy to be drawn here, I doubt very much that all the countries have been placed on the right side of it. In particular, I defy anyone to name a single aspect of the UK designer-game market which is better than the US one (except that the shipping from Germany is cheaper). In my experience the UK gets nothing but a few imports of English-language editions of German or US publishers—and often pays a premium for importing them from the US.

For that matter, can anyone substantiate the claim that the situation in France is any better? —Blotwell 08:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It definately is a lot better in Belgium and the Netherlands. I know of several stores which have in stock virtually any German-style game that was published in the last decade. Wouter Lievens 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

value of "Influence over related genres" section

I don't like this section much at all. First it makes very strong claims about how influential German games have been on games in general. I'm not sure if this is true at all outside of other hobby gaming spheres (wargames, collectable card games, etc). And even in other types of hobby gaming I think the suggested level of influence is too strong. Secondly, it talks a lot about magic in a very vague way. All I could really get out of reading it was Magic came out after this, wasn't well balanced, and there's a lot of luck in shuffling. I don't really see the point of saying any of that in this article. I'm certainly not opposed to discussing influences German games may have had on other genres, but to be honest I'm quite skeptical about how much that has even occured. Rdore 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple Rules? =

I don't think you should say that German-Style games have simple rules, learning to play El Grande or Carcasonne or Domaine took me a bit longer than learning Monopoly or Risk, which have trivial rules. Wouter Lievens 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Designers

Although the article doesn't actually say so, the reader will be tempted to assume that the games listed here are all "German" games, but some of them clearly are not. I like Twixt, but surely it is about as un-German as a game can be. Iglew 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that list is definitely in need of some cleaning up anyway. Go ahead, be bold. Rdore 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Try at Characterizing German Games

I considered editing the article: "be bold" but "don't be reckless". For now, I think I'll just suggest things to those who have invested a lot of time in the article.

First, I object to "board games". Settlers of Catan can be argued as a variable board, but Carcassonne is more akin to dominos, as is Alhambra. Puerto Rico has playing mats, but these are not boards in the traditional sense: the city and plantations could be equally represented as a tableau of 1-12 cards/pieces/chits each with cards/markers representing colonists. I suggest "Euro Game" or "Designer Game" as the base article (since the trend is expanding from Germany), though German Board Game should link to that article.

I think in characterizing German Games it's important to say what they're not and to relate them to the most popular existing games, ideally to traditional games that provide cross-cultural references, like chess. Here's my stab at defining them:

Euro games are by their nature hetrogenous, but as far as generalities can be made about such a huge and diverse number of games, generally:

• They do not have a fixed number of players like chess or bridge (though two-player exceptions exist); six player games are somewhat rare (or they require expansions, such as Catan or Carcassonne).
• Each each player plays for himself.
• They use a wide variety of mechanics, many innovative, and tend to avoid commonly used mechanics like rolling dice and moving, capture, or trick taking. [Or, do they commonly use a German game family of mechanics? "Buy and place" is a very common mechanic: Catan, Puerto Rico, Princes of Florence, maybe Torres.]
• While economic themes and mechanics are common, direct accumulation of wealth as a game goal is not.
• Combat themes are uncommon and player conflict is often indirect, as in competing for a scarce resource.
• If a game has a board, the board is usually irregular rather than uniform or symetric (like Risk instead of chess or Scrabble); the board is often random (like Settlers of Catan) or has random elements (like Tikal).
• They have a theme instead of being abstract, like Monopoly, not like go or backgammon.
• While they often have a simulation-like theme, they do not attempt to simulate, like kriegspielen (war games), Risk, or Monopoly.
• They are designed for international audiences, so they are not word games and usually do not contain much text outside of the rules.
• Numbers are usually small, often under ten, and the math is trivial.
• The random elements do not usually dominate the game: bridge and backgammon have more randomness than all but a few German games. [Catan comes to mind as a high-randomness game; since it is so well-known, I think varying randomness needs to be acknowledged. The author would be happy to play backgammon with anyone who thinks it's a random game--for money. :) ]
• While rules are light to moderate (rarely as complex as chess), they have depth of play, usually requiring a shift of tactics through the game and often with a chess- or backgammon-like opening game, mid game, and end game. [I don't think "simple" can be applied to Puerto Rico, Princes of Florence, and many others in the genre.]
• Great care is taken with the look and feel of the game. They commonly have wooden pieces.

Your suggestions sound pretty good. I would say go ahead and edit the article, and if someone feels passionately about a particular part more discussion can ensue. One thing, though, is that this article is already too list laden already. It would be better if you incorporated it in a prose type format. Rdore 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the dog who caught the car. :) Some notes: I didn't include no player elimination, a direct example being the Italian(?) card game Bang! and an indirect example being Settlers, where a player can be effectively eliminated by heming him in. "Heavy interaction" is a judgement call; I'd say Risk is heavy interaction, and few German games have that direct interaction. I dropped the minimum time to 1/2 hour; I regularly play Carcassonne that quickly, though with some players tic-tac-toe seemingly requires long pauses for tactical analysis ;). I didn't think "mechanics over theme" was justified considering the various Catans that reuse the same basic mechanics; German designers are as prone to milking a cash cow as anyone else it seems. Prices would have to be constantly updated, and exceptions exist on the low end for card games and at the upper end: Starfarers of Catan and the US$300 Catan anniversary set come to mind; in any case, the article mentions a number of German games and prices are readily available on the internet, via the linked Board Game Geek, for example. Prose as requested: it probably needs a proofread.

Don't get too hung up about the exact definition of the word "board game". It doesn't necessarily literally mean a game with a solid board; it's more of a genre title to, say, distinguish it from videogames. I own Carcassonne and have played Settlers of Catan a lot and we all agree they are "board games" despite having no single static board. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would distinguish "manual games" from "video games". Within manual games, I would distinguish card games (like San Juan), dice games (like [Call My] Bluff by Ravenburger), tiling games, and board games--at least. My concern is not primarily taxonomy, but whether we are confusing the reader.

Ok for definitions clear to a reader, think of your school days. Sports. Video games. Card games. Dice games. Board games. eg to most people Mah Jong was something played by either a "board game" club or a "card game" club until you got really specific, or a really general "indoor game club". Eurogames are almost always "board games", even if there is no board. Anybody who is going to mention "tile" in conjunction with "game" is already pretty close to the hobby space. --61.68.61.239 08:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Joe Grundy

ps Settlers of Catan has a non-trivial random element, but I assert that like backgammon (which I also play) the skilled player usually wins. Somewhere there was a mention of shutout in Settlers, but personally I've won a number of times only having built one additional road and settlement. I don't think Settlers is a great counter-example for either phenomenon.

What's a "German game"?

I don't quite agree with the definition given in the article, but perhaps I'm mistaken. The article, among other things, states:

• a huge and diverse group of games'
• usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a social gathering

This may apply when considering all games from Germany with credited authors, but I'm used to see "German Games" as a more specific term, also implying certain aspects of game mechanism

1. competition for resources
2. auctions
3. map

In exchange for #2 or #3 missing, the resource handling may be very diverse and/or multi-step, like in Puerto Rico.

I'd like to hear some more comments on this.

Another point: While rules are light to moderate (rarely as complex as chess). Come on, the rules of chess are easy, only mastering the game is complicated. I know many German Games which have far more complicated rules (O.K., not as epic as classical Avalon Hill war game, but compared to chess).

Pjacobi 17:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of those three is a requirement at all. I can easily think of a half dozen examples that break each of those categories, and which I would definitely call german games. On the chess thing, I agree that statement is a too strong. (But you might be underestimating the rules of chess a little bit - things like how pawns move including en passant, castling, and various ways of drawing.) Rdore 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote much of the current definition. I disagree with your three elements. Competition for resources can be thought of as nearly universal (competing for squares in tic-tac-toe), so it really isn't good as part of a definition: it's like a dictionary starting out by saying, "It's a word...." PR has neither auctions nor a map--a map implies position is significant, and positions are not significant on PR playing mats. Many games have neither auctions or maps, or only one; and games like Alhambra and Carcassonne which have map-like graphics are arguably domino mechanisms--dominos would be considered a map only in an arcane mathematical sense.

You have a point with your comment on chess. My intent was to compare German game complexity with the most commonly known complex board game. In addition to Rdore's comment on special cases, let me add that chess seems less complex because we've all known it since childhood. I will definitely agree that PR and Caylus are more complex than chess, but they are exceptionally complex. I think a lot of game complexity depends on how many rules must be memorized: most German games are very good about reducing memorization by use of rules put on pieces, tiles, or cheat sheets. But fundamentally, it would come down to a census of all German-style games. Only PR and Caylus come immediately to mind as definitely more complex than Chess, while the Catans, Carcassonnes, Ticket to Rides and Empire Builders (several games each), Bluff (FX Schmitt), Bang!, Torres, Tikal and others come to mind as less complex than chess. This is a subjective evaluation, admittedly. Another factor is, are we talking about number of games created, number of games sold, or number of games played? Especially the last will weight heavily to the lighter, shorter games. A final point: the target reader of this article is someone not experienced in German-style games--his introduciton to German-style games is very likely to be a game less complex than chess. Thus, I will argue for keeping the current wording on the basis of utility to the target audience.

PS: Spiel des Jahres nominees have just been announced, along with a special award to Caylus, the complex game award. SdJ seems to feel that Caylus is a very good game, but too complex to compete against usual German-style games. The point is that exceptionally complex games like Caylus and Puerto Rico, though excellent and very popular on BGG, should not bias the discussion of the broad range of German games: they're outliers on the bell-curve of German-style game complexity.

Still, it only takes a person a few minutes at most to explain the rules of chess. They can be written down in like 10 lines, a half sheet of paper would do. You can't do that for even the simpler German-style games, such as Catan. Perhaps Fjord is as simple as chess, but it's on the other side of your curve :-) Wouter Lievens 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no way you could get the rules of chess in 10 lines. You need to describe how all the pieces move, including blocking. You need to mention how pawns move, including first move, caputring, en passant, and promotion. You need to describe castling and all the restrictions. You need to cover how you can't put yourself in check. You need endgame rules, including repeated postions, the 50-move rule (and when it's extended), stalemate, and insufficient material to checkmate. The rules of Carcasonne certainly aren't any more complicated than that. Rdore 20:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Including the rules for castling through threatened spaces, castling with a moved rook (you can't), en passant, pawn promotion, the criteria for a involuntarily drawn game et cetera? I doubt those can be written precisely and tutorially in ten lines. It's one thing to teach interactively, another to create a cheat sheet, and still another to write a clear but comprehensive tutorial.

But the practical, writing question remains, if not chess, then what other complex game is widely known enough for comparison? Or would you prefer treating the whole game, "German games are far simpler than chess"? I feel strongly it would be a positive harm to the target audience of the article (see above) to imply that German games generally have anything close to the complexity of chess.

Joe Grundy comments: I agree most eurogames have rules more complex than chess. But not a whole lot more complex. What the eurogame group shares as a whole though is that unlike chess you can launch into your first sitting of most "euros" and have a sense of objective and structure that's absent in most pure abstract games and buried in most complex wargames. In this sense, sorry to blaspheme, monopoly is a "eurogame". Where monopoly misses out on the classification is the huge influence of luck over skill, the lack of balance, the lack of real choices, and the literal presence of "roll and move". (There are very few sequential boards in eurogames.) ie Monopoly lacks the range of choices to allow style and significant skill at the game. Some eurogames do indeed have the potential depth of chess, and almost all have more than monopoly. btw I don't think having Spiel des Jahres considering Caylus as too complex for their recommendation is really part of the definition of a "eurogame". They are a body recommending games for general consumption amongst a particular community much as a game like Cranium can win choice awards for being well designed for a particular community. Spiel des Jahres are not an arbiter of use of Engligh language.

In one sense the question is largely whether the whole article is about games as played in Germany, or is it about a gaming style which has massively expanded over the globe in the last twenty years?

As for a commonly known game of similar complexity... "Risk" made it into rock music so there must be a vague handle on it. Personally I never played it so it wouldn't have helped me. The article might have to give up on looking for a direct similarity and position eurogames as being more strategic than monopoly, more colourful and accessible than chess.

Requested move

Per the above discussion, I've requested that this page be moved. My rationale given at WP:RM is:

1. Not all the games described are German - they just led the field during the 1990s.
2. Not all the games described are board games
3. The only thing the games have in common is that they credit the designer

It's also worth noting that at least two other wikipedias, including de:, use a name meaning "Designer game".

Move - obviously I'm for it, I requested the move. Percy Snoodle 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Move - "German-style board game" is unnecessarily convoluted. "Designer game" is a good alternative. "Eurogame" or "German game" are other succinct descriptions I've commonly heard. Rdore 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Move - But to Eurogame, not "Designer game". The rational for "Designer game" is weak, it is a less-frequently used term, and it is inaccurate. "Eurogame", on the other hand, is widely used to refer to precisely the range of games covered by this article, including card games, non-German games, "euro-style" games from the US, and games with "euro" elements not credited to a specific designer. AmbientArchitecture 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move - "Eurogame" is a much better designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.252.252 (talk • contribs)

Don't Move - Designer Games is not a common name for these games. On the other hand, BoardGame Geek still uses "German Style Games" to distinguish them in their Gamer Database. "Eurogames" would also be a valid alternative, as that seems to be a name gaining wide acceptance. I believe that it was a term originated mainly by wargamers. Check Consimworld and you will find it bandied about all the time. Also, Rick Thornquist of Boardgame News wrote a column touching on this term within the past week. It would be far more accurate than "Designer Games" if a move has to be made. PSauberer 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move - "Designer games" is not in common usage in English. "Eurogames" would be fine. Morngnstar 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move- Among those most familiar with these types of games, almost none use the term "Designer Games", and many have never heard the term. On the other hand, everyone who has any knowledge of these types of games is very familiar with the widely-used term "German games". "Eurogames" would be an acceptable alternative, as it is a term already gaining in popularity. Ruprecht33 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move- It's a perfectly normal thing to refer to a particular style of something by the region in which it was popularised ("French Fries" (though actually Belgian), "Mexican Food", etc.). The Germans have been at the forefront in designing, developing, and marketing this style of game for the past 15-20 years, and "German Games" is therefore what they are most commonly called around here (Regina, SK, Canada) and in most parts of the English-speaking world, it seems. The title of the English Wikipedia entry should reflect actual usage, rather than the wishful thinking of those who don't like the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.235.36 (talk • contribs)

• Comment The three unsigned, IP-address users have led me to look at PSauberer and Morngnstar's contributions. Lo and behold, they have only ever edited this talk page. Likewise 83.235.252.252 and 71.71.41.204. Hmmm. Percy Snoodle 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, PSauberer and Morngnstar were only created on 29/6. Doubly hmmm. Percy Snoodle 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The unsigned users are probably coming in from BoardGameGeek. There is a thread there about this rename discussion: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/115813 --Dyfrgi 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. I notice the thread was started by "Aldaron" - the username AmbientArchitecture would like. I'll let him know on his talk page that this is unacceptable per WP:SOCK. There used to be a template to let newcomers know their votes might be discounted (though it seems about 50-50 so far in terms of real votes, so they may well get their way), but I can't find it. Percy Snoodle 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Done: User talk:AmbientArchitecture Percy Snoodle 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure the policy you cite applies. I simply asked an informed community to contribute to a discussion that was clearly uninformed. I have no stake in this other than improving the quality of Wikipedia and my purpose was simply to engage a group that has relevant information. My purpose was not "to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias" but simply to encourage people with relevant and informed views to have a say. The question at hand is, after all, "what do people call these games" -- this seemed a pretty straightforward way to answer that question. If it is truly Wikipedia policy to prohibit such discussions, then I will certainly post a message on the thread on BoardGameGeek asking users there to withdraw their posts. AmbientArchitecture 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I will admit that I found this thread from a post on BGG. I had never registered with Wikipedia before, but have used it. This was really the first time that I could contribute in an area of my own expertise. If that makes my contribution invalid, then so be it. However, another portion of the Sock Puppet explanation includes the following, "Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion." IOW, Wikipedia is a place to reflect what is, not a place to try and say, "Wouldn't it be great to redefine something as X?" and campaign to get that listed as "official." So, regardless of whether my contribution, or those of others who have found this site officially "matter," the information provided by us should be taken into account in the decision. The fact is that "Designer Games" is not a common appellation for these types of games, regardless of how much some people may think it should be. I have provided references, as have others, that show "German Games" and "Eurogames" are widely accepted, whereas thre are no corresponding citations for "Designer Games" other than references to a non-English term. If some want to bring about this change they would be better served by backing up their proposal with facts rather than by disparaging knowledgeable people who are only trying to increase the accuracy of Wikipedia. PSauberer 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move- The French Fries argument makes perfect sense. It is the term used today. Wouter Lievens 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move- But only to to "Eurogame". "Designer game" is not the right term for this class of games. It is not commonly used to refer to them. Also, wargames are sometimes referred to as "designer games", and they do not fit into the class described by this entry. While "designer game" is better than "german-style board game", it's still not a good choice. "Eurogame" would be much better, or the archaic, but still popular, "German game", as they are both in common usage. Eurogame is even commonly used to describe games in this class which are not of European origin. --Dyfrgi 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move - If there is a move to Eurogames I would understand it, as people here actually use it. But calling them Designer Games is worse than the unwieldy German-style board games. rellekmr 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Move or Move to Eurogame or European-style board game. These are genuinely the terms in popular use. I've never heard them refered to as designer games. Bluap 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move, preferably to 'Eurogames'. Well, I'm not German (even when I don't care the least about nationalities) Bruno faidutti 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Bruno is a highly respected and well known game designer and member of the gaming community. Will you discount his vote too? (You'll notice BTW, that not everyone on BGG feels that the move is inappropriate: it is a knowledgeable community with a great deal to say about the issue at hand, not all of it consisting of "likely known views and bias" AmbientArchitecture 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move I heard them called "designer games" prior to Euro- or German-. Perhaps that is due to the fact that the first author credited games that I played were not from Europe, and this was prior to the explosion of popularity of these types of games in the USA. Though many of the great publishing companies are located in Germany the designers and players are world-wide. I think one notable point is the fact that they are called "author games" in Germany. If we truly want to be in the tradition of "German Games" why not call them what they are called in Germany? --pronoblem 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronoblem is also a highly respected member of the gaming community. Will you discount his vote? I hope this begins to prove my point that regardless of how biased my inital post on BGG may seem to you (that's how we talk to each other on BGG) I fully expected to hear from "both sides". AmbientArchitecture 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move I've never heard about Designer game but I also never used German-styled boardgame. Around here we use Eurogames. That would make alot of sense since those games have a tendancy to be similar in style (no player elimination, strategic, less randomness...). And anyway, what is a Designer Game? A game designed by someone. Would'nt you say that all of them are like that, even Monopoly!? 24.202.228.245 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not move. Having read significant amount of current literature about board-gaming over the past few years, and enjoying the hobby myself, the term "designer game" does not reflect current usage and is an inaccurate designation. "German-games" or "Euro-games" are the terms most widely used, and Wikipedia should reflect this. Gregorytopov 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to one or the other (Eurogames or Designer games). I'm a bit mystified by votes such as the one above which begins "Do not move" but then advocates two titles neither of which is the current title; but I digress. To me Designer games is unquestionably the best name: it's accurate (I think everyone agrees that a distinguishing criterion is that these games are credited to their designers); it gives the right impression to people to whom the term is new (because it's comparable to Designer X for other X; and it's the accurate translation of the German Autorenspiele (because we usually call them game designers, not game authors). BUT if you think this argument is too prescriptive for WP (personally I feel that having accurate titles is not too prescriptive—compare the person on the BGG discussion who pointed out that aeroplanes are at "fixed-wing aircraft" on WP) then go with Eurogames which people seem to agree is a popularly used term which is a damn sight less ugly (and marginally less nationalist) than the current title. 18.87.1.192 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The reason why some people will vote "Don't Move" and then suggest a move to another title is that they are voting against "Designer Games," which is the subject at hand, and suggesting alternate titles which are in more general usage. They are not objecting to a move per se, just a move to a term that is not as generally accepted as others. The reasons proposed for this particular move are not germane. All of them address reasons that the proposer believes why these game should be called "Designer Games" but do not provide any evidence that the term is the most used, or in fact, is in much use at all. Citing a foreign term and then suggesting a translation of it is not a particularly good reason in the absence of evidence that the English term is actually being used and especially there are other terms in general use. If there were an equivalent to www.germangames.com or if there were citations that several merchants were using "Designer Games" as a category, that would help bolster the case. As it is, even those that have championed the use of the term, such as Erik Arneson of about.com, have more links to sites that use the terms "German Games" or "Eurogames" than use "Designer Games." This "What should we call these games?" controversy has been around for years in the hobby, getting debated in forums such as the Spielfrieks Yahoo group. The term "Designer Games" has never gotten enough traction to become an accepted title. No matter how well some think that it does to describe this sort of games, the fact is that it hasn't made it. It has been proposed and rejected. If Wikipedia is to be a site devoted to reflecting things as they are, and not how some wishes them to be, the legitimate titles to choose from are "German Games" or "Eurogames." "Designer Games" just isn't a factor. Whether or not it would be a "better" title is entirely irrelevant. PSauberer 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts In Australia "Designer Game" is effectively unheard of and "German Game" would be recognised but is not in common use in my experience of two cities of gamers. We use "Eurogames"... the term acknowledges origins of cultural influence of the now global phenomenon, nothing more. Cosmic Encounter is a "Eurogame". Acquire is a "Eurogame". It's simply the language as used. A language other than English may well call this style of game by some other name, but we don't. Someone pointed out googlefight shows around 2 million hits for "eurogames" vs around 140 thousand for "German games" and 25 thousand for "Designer games". This seems a reasonable test to consider for current internet usage of English language. --61.68.61.239 07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Joe Grundy

Comment I also came here via the evil BGG article. I also have never edited a wikipedia article before, though I am a frequent user of this resource. I have no idea who this Aldaron person is and I expect never to meet him/her. As such I (and others) hardly fall under the Sock policy thing. BGG is an international community of gamers with an active membership in the tens of thousands... not the only community for sure, but to discount the comments of those who are interested enough to contribute here would seem ... well, self defeating anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.61.239 (talk • contribs)

Comment As the notice above states, well-reasoned arguments are welcome and will be considered; I'm glad that so many new users are turning up, and I hope that they stay and help to improve wikipedia's game articles. I'd like to apologise to anyone who sees my concern with Aldaron/AmbientArchitecture as anti-BGG; it isn't. IMO, BGG is the foremost board game resource anywhere, and I've always referred to it while editing board game articles here on wikipedia; I created, and defended the notablility of the wikipedia article on BoardGameGeek, and I created Template:bgg to point interested wikipedia readers to BGG. My concern is instead that AmbientArchitecture broke wikipedia's rules in order to push his agenda, and that that behaviour is unacceptable under wikipedia policy. Percy Snoodle 09:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is simply this: has the discussion here improved and become more informed as a result of my post? That, as I've stated repeatedly, was my only intent. I would (again) request that you remove the discouraging warning you posted above and stop accusing me of "unacceptable" behavior. As I hope you can see (and has some here have explicitly pointed out) the BGG community is hardly the place to recruit for "likely known views and bias" or to "strengthen one side of a debate". It is, however, the best place to go to improve the quality of a discussion on any matter related to gaming. That, I would hope, is not "unacceptable". AmbientArchitecture 14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not "is the debate more informed" - it's "did you solicit votes to stengthen your side of the debate". You posted, "hurry and stop them!", in clear and deliberate violation of WP:SOCK. That the incoming users' views are mixed doesn't alter what you did or why. But the place to discuss this is your talk page. Here, we should be discussing whether or not to move this article. Percy Snoodle 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just responding to this: "AmbientArchitecture broke wikipedia's rules in order to push his agenda, and that that behaviour is unacceptable under wikipedia policy." If you want to keep that discussion on my talk page, then, please do. 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we shouldn't be debating this move at all, as it does not come anywhere near falling under what is listed as valid in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). "Designer Games" is neither "the most common name of the...thing" nor would the "average user of Wikipedia put [it] into the search engine" nor is it a "well accepted alternative" to a "misleading" common name. The arguemnts in favor of it are a) it is a transliteration of a term in a different language, b) "I think that it would be a better name" and c) "Well, I use the name." None of those meet the guidelines set forth. If the Wikipedia policies are to be strictly followed, then this request should be withdrawn. PSauberer 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed "well accepted alternative to a misleading common name", but I'd say that sums it up pretty well; thanks for pointing it out. A newcomer might well be misled into believing that German-style board games were a) executed in a German style, which they're not and b) board games, which many of them aren't; and a good proportion of those commenting here seem to consider it "well accepted", as does the text of the article at the moment. Percy Snoodle 15:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Twisting one of three conventions to possibly cover the change, while leaving "Designer Games" as obviously not meeting the other two substantially weakens the case for the move. It serves to show that the move should never have been proposed in the first place, espceially since it also runs counter to the statement that "Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion." The problem with your argument is that it keeps boiling down to "because I (and a handful of others here) say so." Unfortunately, that doesn't stand up in the face of the overwhelming evidence that "German Games" and "Eurogames" are far more common titles. Google shows "Designer Games" lacking. There are no retailers of "Designer Games" cited. The sites that might be used to show the term in use actually shows that "German Games" as far more common. Even in this discussion here, "Designer Games" is lacking in any sort of consensus as a common term. Unless there is actual valid evidence to be used to support an argument for a move, Wikipedia guidelines should be followed and the request withdrawn. A request to move it to "German Games" or "Eurogames" would be a different matter.PSauberer 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not move. When it comes to these sorts of games, I'd like to think that I've been around the block quite a few times. First, this debate has been popping up for a LONG time (ever since SvC came out and wrested rec.games.board out of the hands of the Star Fleet Battles fans...) and it appears impossible to settle. Second, (to reiterate what many have already said) I've heard "designer games" actually spoken VERY rarely and when I have it was either a joke or followed by an awkward rationalization or apology. I use "Eurogames", but I really don't think it matters too much as long as it isn't called "these games of ours". That one is yucky. Shumyum 13:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Shumyum, it may appear impossible to settle this debate with the people in those communities. Here at the Wikipedia it is up to the editors to decide. The result of this name change here on the Wiki article will not settle the debate elsewhere. The thing is that all three terms suggested for these games: Euro-, German- or designer- all have not been around that long and as a result I think that popularity of usage of the three should not be the indicator as to what they are called, rather what makes the most sense. They are not called "German Games" in Germany and there are publishers, designers and gamers outside of Germany involved in these types of games. While the Wiki entry titled German-style board game does well at a general description of these types of games (except for that one thing that I edited out about the rules of Chess being "complex") there are plenty of exceptions to what is outlined for what I have heard many people call "German Games": some have fixed numbers of players, while "themed" many are abstract (Chess more theme than many "German Games" by the way), some games have conflict, some have wealth accumulation as a mechanic and some are heavy in math. The only common feature in these games is the designer credit. --pronoblem 15:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is most emphatically not the job of the Wikipedia editors to decide what these games should be called. The only reason to move this article is if it has been demonstrated that "Designer Games" is in the most common usage of any terms for these games. Whether it is "better" than the current title or "the best" of other titles is completely irrelevant. Any argument that rests on why "German-style board games" is a "bad" name or "Designer Games" is a "better" name is not germane to the discussion. On that note however, your statement that "The only common feature in these games is the designer credit" is flawed at both ends. If you do an advanced search on Boardgame Geek by designer and search for "uncredited," you will find games like these in there, so it is not a universally commmon feature. On the other hand, you will find many games (e.g. wargames) that prominjently feature the designer's name, so the feature is not exclusive, either. PSauberer 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Less flawed than calling them German or Euro? I think so. Maybe we should call them Fixed Wing Games (see airplane entry here on BGG that was mentioned above). The majority of the people that advocate "German Games" are people not from Germany. If the heritage of the games is linked to the people of Germany that play / design / publish these games we should be looking towards what they in Germany call these games. However, the games are not specifically created by, played by or published by those living in any one region. The games are international. Wargames have enough distinguishing features to have their own entry... there is some crossover, but two different types of games on the whole. Yes, BGG has some uncredited games... many games before the 1960's are uncredited and BGG is not the authority. --71.192.207.168 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment"Less flawed" is irrelevant and not germane to the discussion. If "Fixed Wing Games" is the predominant term that is currently in use in the English speaking world, and that is what most users would do a search for, then that is what the Wikipedia entry should be titled. The burden of proof for a move is on those who are advocating a move. They should demonstrate that the term "Designer Games" is the "most common" name. This has clearly not been done. The best that has been advanced is a reference to the German name for the games and an argument made that therefore a transliteration should be used on the English site, regardless of a current lack of use of this transliteration in English. However, the logic with that is faulty because it could just as easily be said that the entry on the German language site should be moved to something like "Deustschespiele" or some other transliteration of the name on this site. I feel as if I am going around the same track again and again but trying to make an argument that "Designer Games" is a more apt term for these games is irrelevant to the discusion at hand. That is a debate that has gone on for years in other forums. Wikipedia is not concerned with what should be, but rather what is. And the fact is that "Designer Games" is not the most common name and no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that it is. No matter how many times anyone says, "I think 'Designer Games' is a better name" it advances the argument for a move no farther than it did the first time because it is still just as pointless to the issue. PSauberer 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment You state: "If "Fixed Wing Games" is the predominant term that is currently in use in the English speaking world, and that is what most users would do a search for, then that is what the Wikipedia entry should be titled." I hear "Airplane" more often, and that is not what Wiki catagorizes it as. We are not talking common usage, we are talking correctness. I understand that you feel threatened by the change. You should simply call the games what you desire and not worry about the accuracy of the Wiki.

Comment The Wikipedia:Naming conventions specifically state that common usage takes precedence. "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." If a case can be made that "Designer Games" is what a majority of Emglish speakers would most recognize, then feel free to make it. If the best that can be done, however, is advancing an argumetn of "But I want it!" and making personal attacks, then I believe that the move is doomed to rejection. PSauberer 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is neither "but I want it!" or personal. The games are neither German or Euro. Those terms when entered into the search could still redirect to the correct entry of Designer Games. Those readers serching for German or Euro would not be left out, as well they would be educated as to the correct terminology.

Comment on the contrary; for flawed, read "misleading", and it accords perfectly with the policy you cited earlier. Percy Snoodle 19:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The policy I cited earlier states three factors as far as naming conventions are concerned (in order): 1)the most common name 2)what the average user would put into the search engine and 3)a well accepted alternative to a misleading common name. Even if we stipulate that the current title is "misleading," in order for "Designer Games" to be an acceptable substitute you have to move past the first two qualifications, which it clearly does not meet, and apply the third only after bypassing not one, but two terms that are in more common use. If that is the best argument that can be made, then the move should not be made. If there is a better argument showing that "Designer Games" fits all three criteria then, by all means, make that argument. PSauberer 20:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

'Comment' I think you misunderstand the way moves work here - perhaps I should explain for you and the other new guys. If this article is moved, users are still free to enter "german-style board game", "german game" and "eurogame"; they will be redirected to the correct article, whatever happens. However, if we do go ahead with the move, the article won't mislead them into thinking it describes board games in a style invented by the Germans. That, AIUI, is the reasoning behind the "misleading common name" policy, and that is the sense in which it applies. Percy Snoodle 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative move proposal

Leaving aside the solicitation of votes for now, I notice that there appears to be a lot of feeling against "Designer Games", but no-one has objected to "Eurogame". I would therefore like to suggest that we open up the debate. Please comment in the relevant sub-section below. (And leave the question of solicitation to whichever poor admin has to tidy up whis mess)

Option 2: Move to Designer game (or Designer board game)

Support --pronoblem 19:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Support They're not all German (or European, for that matter); they are distinct in that they credit their designer. German-style games is a misleading common name and should be avoided per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it. Percy Snoodle 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment They don't all have designers listed on their boxes and not all games with designers listed on their boxes are "Designer Games." How is that not misleading? PSauberer 03:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Support per Percy Snoodle. —Blotwell 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Option 3: Move to Eurogame (or Euro board game)

Support Bluap 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Support AmbientArchitecture 19:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Support --61.68.15.107 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Joe Grundy

- I for one was playing euro games with various groups for about eight years before I started being aware of designer credits. Designer crediting may well be a common feature of these games, but it's not the dominant common feature.

- If you put Scott Abbott and Chris Haney on the box of Trivial Pursuit it still wouldn't be in this category. If you took Klaus Teuber's name off Settlers it still would be in this category.

- "Euro Game" (as opposed to "Eurogame") vastly outweighs any other alternative as a term in common use (eg check Google, eg I've never heard "designer game" or "german game" as a categorisation at all in Melbourne or Sydney gaming).

- The term is no more "misleading" than "french window" (usually designed by your local manufacturer without reference to current styles in France), "hamburger" (now considered by the world to be essentially an American food), or the names given to hundreds of constants and formulae in science which were independantly discovered by multiple researchers but attributed only to a significant early famous one.

- Basically labels for things enter the English language via many vectors, and they become themselves. "Euro games" are already not necessarily assumed to come from Europe. (Nobody uses the term "Euro board game" either.)

- I believe the dominant wiki policy is common use, unless it is significantly incorrect. ie "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase." The euro game label is in (majority) common use and is not significantly incorrect. Of itself, disambiguation shouldn't be the reason to change the article title. Or you could use "Euro games (board games)" or similar?