There’s the “Top Hits” feature in iTunes, build your own wish list in Amazon, and VH-1 is constantly ranking the hits from the 80s — so why not rank our gaming experiences? Being the self-reflective gamer that I am, the exercise sounded pretty neat and can really help illustrate how you tick as a gamer. Ready for some gaming honesty? Read on!
The Exercise
On the surface it’s pretty simple: take your top ten gaming campaign experiences and rank them, in order, from best to worst, and by “worst” I mean simply, “less enjoyable” than the ones above them. The first few shouldn’t be hard at all; in fact you’ve probably already thought of them so you should certainly go with that. Don’t spend a lot of time on this…write down ten campaigns/games that you’ve played/run as quickly as you can as they pop into your head. The most memorable (i.e. “enjoyable”) games should be readily available to you. In my case, gaming since 1980, that’s a lot of ground to cover, but even so that top ten list came pretty quickly. Don’t do one-shots or individual sessions; we’re looking for sustained gaming experiences.
Now start ranking them. Again, the first few are really easy but as you get deeper, start evaluating the games against each other. (“Would I rather play ‘X’ again or ‘Y’?”) As you rank them, include the year that you played the game and who ran them; games that you ran certainly do qualify!
After that it’s pretty easy to look down the list and try to draw some parallels. For example, note the dates: when were most of those “great” games played? Look at the systems and genres: any common threads? How about who ran the games? Are/were you tying your gaming experiences to a few? How have your groups changed over the years?
The Example
I’ve done self-reflections like this on Abulia Savant before, so one more won’t hurt in giving you a glimpse into my shockingly disturbing gamer psyche. Here is my Top Ten list straight from my brain to your computer screen:
- Marvel Super Heroes (Kim) / 1987
- Palladium Fantasy RPG (Mark) / 1989
- Beyond the Supernatural (Rick) / 1992
- D&D “Mithril Star” (Doug) / 2003
- Star Trek “Gallant” (self) / 2000
- Stargate SG-4 (self) / 2004
- Star Trek “Kodiak” (John) / 1995
- Star Trek “Galaxy” (self) / 1996
- Rolemaster Shadow World (self) / 1996
- Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Marc) / 2004
Now for the painful part. What do we see?
Well, for one I was surprised to see four games that I ran on the list, although the highest is #5 and two of the games were Star Trek. My recently-deceased Stargate game surprised me in two ways: how high on the list it ranked and the fact that it is one of only two recent games to make the list. More on that later.
Marvel being at the top was easy; I’ve always considered it the greatest game ever and was our “breakthrough” game in Idaho that got us out of AD&D finally. That game, I believe, lasted three years. I still have the character sheet. Hell, I still have the character stats memorized! A great game should make that kind of impression on you, I feel. A great game makes you think about it between sessions. A great game inspires you to write fiction about your character, or place yourselves in their shoes. Do your games right now — today — do that to you?
It’s pretty amazing how high some pretty crappy systems rank, too. Let’s not kid anyone folks: the Palladium “d20″ system was a joke in the late 80s, even more so today. So was it the group, the GM, or the immaturity of the gamer? I’d say a little of all three, but not so much the latter; I haven’t changed that much as a gamer over the years. I’d have a harder time of having fun playing Beyond the Supernatural today, but part of the reason it was so much fun back then really had nothing to do with the system.
Two d20 games make the list, one of which is a very highly-ranked D&D game. So we might be able to put to rest that “Don hates d20″ argument, or can we? Maybe because two d20 games make the list that’s why I’m always open to giving d20 a chance but am ultimately disappointed that those games don’t live up to their predecessors.
Lots of Star Trek on the list, although I’m unabashed as to my preference for Trek gaming. I find it enjoyable, but that’s just me. I consider myself VERY fortunate to have gamed with groups willing to play Star Trek; experience has shown me that most people aren’t attracted to this style of play.
Of these great games, nearly all were character-driven. That is to say, the games were more about the characters and their relationships rather than the overall campaign plot or story. At least three of these games were with less-than-optimal (i.e. “good”) gaming groups, so it’s certainly possible for me to have a great gaming experience with a dysfunctional group. Speaking of which, three games on the list include “Psycho Gamer John,” whom I no longer associate with.
Of the six games on the list that I played in, five of them were with female characters. Whoa.
Three games are fantasy, the rest are sci-fi or contemporary. This fits my observance of my personal preference towards “modern” games. Over half the games are based on licensed properties. Interesting!
I’m not married to any one group or GM; nearly every one of these games is with a radically different group of players. My current gaming group is not represented on the list.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about the list are the dates: only three games on the list are within the last five years. Of those, only two are within the last two years (#6, #10), and of that last one, it barely made the list! The late 90s were very good to me, though.
This gives me a moment of thought: has my gaming experience peaked? In theory, I’m a better gamer today then I was yesterday, so shouldn’t my gaming experiences be getting better, not worse? Is it the games? Is it my group? In any case, it’s a depressing thought that my best gaming days may be behind me.
Anyway, there you go! I didn’t load this exercise and as I type this, some of the results are still giving me pause to think. It’s always interesting to see one’s evolution as a gamer.
So, what does your Top Ten list tell you about yourself?
You know, I find myself wondering the same thing, Don.
Are my best experiences in the past? I find myself enjoying the games I play or run, but wondering if I’m just going through the motions of late.
As for my Top 10, I’ll be honest, good games are like my kids. I find it hard to rank one over the other. There may have been games I didn’t particularly enjoy, but they all seem to have at least one redeeming memory, even if it’s poking fun at the game after the fact…
“Are my best experiences in the past? I find myself enjoying the games I play or run, but wondering if I’m just going through the motions of late.”
This is my feeling as well. Anymore I feel as if I’m gaming for the sake of, well, just because that’s what I do. It’s like being on autopilot.
Yes, there have been plenty of poor games that have been enjoyable; I consider that a testament to the people you game with. Even a bad game with good friends can still be time well spent.
I’m amazed that you can remember specific years for all of your campaigns, Don — the best I could do was “late 90s” and the like, at least for most of them.
Great idea for a post, and it was an interesting way to learn a bit more about my gaming tastes.
I’ve discovered, doing my own self-evaluation of the games I’ve played and run, that oft-times I view older games through rose-colored glasses. Alternately, the circumstances and people that made a game work once don’t often persist to make a return to the game as enjoyable sometimes discoloring the memory.
What that means is that the games are frequently misrepresented in my head in disproportionately favorable light. I find this is often why I look back fondly on a lousy game.
With that said, I still think there is value in looking at what we’ve done and why it worked. After all, this process of self-discovery (even in the context of a hobby) is part of how we learn.
I’ll have to see about putting a list of my own together to see what I can figure out.
Oh, and on the gaming peak and marking time:
For me, gaming is a lot like a novel or film. Every now and again, you get something like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Aliens, the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Highlander or what-have-you. These are experiences that in themselves express what we love about the medium (and yes, this list will vary for everyone).
Very few films, books, or games will meet this watermark of achievement, but we keep coming back hoping that the next cover we crack or ticket we buy will be the transcendentally inspiring experience we know it can be. Because of this, I don’t look at each new game as less than the others, but as an opportunity to experience something wonderful all over again. At the very least, they serve as a way to compare and contrast what works and why.
Anyhow, good read, thanks!
Re dates: These were ballparks, but they’re pretty close. Mostly using the benchmarks of high school, moving out, death in the family, etc. let me place those dates. When you have children everything is then dated against their age! (“Alloryn was a newborn when we started Doug’s Star Trek game…”)
Marc, I agree with your points: the past does tend to be viewed more favorably. However, on a long enough timeline and all things being equal, I think everything gets a fair shake, more-or-less.
Putting those two Palladium games on the list — or ranking them so high — wasn’t a quirk; we literally played the Palladium Fantasy RPG for five nights in a row and went on a gaming binge of debauchery that I’ve yet to match in 20+ years. It was one of the most fun and “pure” gaming experiences I ever had. Even back then we agreed the system was total crap but play it we did.
In the case of a more contemporary game, such as Doug’s D&D, it ranks quite high not because of the system, the group, nor any great characterization on my part. It had that certain je ne sais quoi that is difficult to articulate and almost defies explanation. I feel that great games (and gaming experiences) transcend the setting or system and achieve this particular level of deep involvement.
To circle back around, I don’t discount your comments but at least in my case, there have been less memorable games these past several years than in the past. That gives me pause for consideration…and concern.
I’m in 100% agreement about that hard-to-articulate “thing” that makes a great campaign.
My clearest personal example is my late 90s FR campaign (#5 on my list), which was 95% improvised, didn’t hang together worth a darn, etc. — but man, it was fun. And my players have said it stood out for them as one of their favorite campaigns, too, even years later (so it’s not just me
.
This is my feeling as well. Anymore I feel as if I’m gaming for the sake of, well, just because that’s what I do. It’s like being on autopilot.
Exactly!
Yes, there have been plenty of poor games that have been enjoyable; I consider that a testament to the people you game with. Even a bad game with good friends can still be time well spent.
Too true. Guess I’ve just been lucky to have (on the whole) good friends to game with.
In the case of a more contemporary game, such as Doug’s D&D, it ranks quite high not because of the system, the group, nor any great characterization on my part. It had that certain je ne sais quoi that is difficult to articulate and almost defies explanation. I feel that great games (and gaming experiences) transcend the setting or system and achieve this particular level of deep involvement.
You know, I ran the game and don’t understand it, either…