There's been a lot of discussion around the online boardgame circles recently about a blog article that Hiew Chok Sien wrote about how "We are not Game Players".  It's a great article that raises some fantastic discussion about the nature of game buying and playing.  You really need to go and read it (either there or on GeekDo where he also reposted it).  

But anyway, the culmination of his post was the defining of a new category of gamer, existing somewhere between a Game Collector and a Game Player, which he called a Game Taster.  And by his definition, I (as would many of us) fell firmly into the Game Taster category as well.

But I don't like that.  There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of "tasting" a variety of games (which I thoroughly admit that I do), but why does that necessarily preclude me from being called a Game Player as well?  It really sort of offends me, in a not-truly-offended-but-sort-of-don't-like-what-it-implies kind of way. 

Hiew's main argument is based on the assumption that to be considered a "Game Player", one would need to be considered a "Player" of some relatively high (but still mostly arbitrary) percentage of the games you own.  Sort of on the order of a 'Magic (the Gathering) Player' or 'Bridge Player', who would enjoy these games "so much that he has no need for and has no interest in other types of games" (direct quote).  And he even gave some possible requirements that would determine whether you played the game enough to be a real player.

But I just have to ask, "Why?" 

First of all, why does playing some games have to preclude interest in other games?  One of the big reasons that I don't just commit all my time to Magic or some miniature wargame is that I like the variety afforded by modern boardgames.  I love games, and part of that is that I love to see and explore all the different mechanics and utimately, what exactly the heck people can pull off within the confines of a boardgame.  Sure, that's what he sort of defines as "tasting", but in order to do that, aren't you playing those games?

And so, why does playing different games not "count" towards determining if you're a player or not?  Sure, I can see if you only played a couple of times a month or so that it might be hard to define yourself as a player, but I get in around 30-45 games a month (which is obviously more than one game per day).  But just because it's with 20 or so different games, they somehow don't count?

Why is it such a sin to have games in your collection that don't get played all the time?  I own 316 boardgames right now, and I'm sure that there are some in there that I haven't played more than a couple of times since I got them.  Some may well never get played again.  So why do I hold on to them?  In a few rare cases, there may be some sentimental or nostalgic reason.  But mostly, it's because I like having a wide variety of games available to play at any time.  But even if I just wanted to own them for no other reason than to own them, why does owning unplayed games make me less of a game player?  There's just no good reason why one would have to preclude the other.

Why is it wrong to like trying new games?  Sure, I guess that I fall into the "cult of the new" a lot of the time, but at others I'm one of the main people trying to get some "classics" to the table as well.  But why make a value judgement about which game plays are more important than others.  If you personally are feeling unsatisfied trying out one new game after another, then stick to the games you already love.  But for me, I want to do both, and I don't think that it should get my status as "game player" revoked.

And finally, why should my lack of time and money cause me to be less of a game player?  Because, really, if I had unlimited resources and time, I'd own thousands of games, and I'd almost kill myself trying to get them played.  New ones, old ones, good ones, great ones... I'd play and play.  Because as I said above, I freaking love games!  But since I have to deal with the reality of a limited budget and, more importantly, obligations that drastically limit my time to play, I have to make choices.  But I guarantee you, none of those choices make me any less of a game player.


Okay... so I got sort of on a roll there.  I hope it doesn't come off sounding too antagonistic towards Hiew, because it's not meant that way at all.  I just don't like the assumptions or the conclusion that he drew with this particular article.  

But what do y'all think?  Does "Game Taster" sound good to you, or are you similarly offended?