Board Game Endings, Ranked

This is my tier list for "ways that board games end." Either the trigger for the ending or the way you evaluate the results or whatever. Anything having to do with the ending of a board game. Many of these are mutually compatible, obviously.

I've put them in order of worst to best, and I've included some examples of board games for each one. However, that doesn't mean I'm rating the whole game based on that tier. Diplomacy remains my beloved.

This post is an olive branch to Quinns after my last post.

Broken Hearted

"Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot."

You have likely seen or been recommended the newest episode of Quinns Quest, in which Quintin Smith finally makes his long-awaited foray into the OSR by reviewing Mythic Bastionland, the latest game by Chris McDowall.

His review is very positive, and reception to the review has likewise been very positive. Yay! But also, he's gotten a bit of shit for this snippet near the beginning:

I'm not here to dunk on Quinns. But this moment inspired me to write about something that's been percolating in my mind for the last year or so, as I feel like I've heard similar sentiments more and more frequently. He's just the unlucky voice in the chorus who's easiest to direct these feelings at.

(But seriously, Quinns. Expensive? That's one of your complaints about the OSR? Cairn is literally free)

Seven-Part Pact: Authority

Continuing my posts about The Seven-Part Pact (7PP) and some of its nifty mechanical design ideas, I want to discuss this game's approach to authority.

This is, of course, a pretty huge topic in RPGs. There've been tomes written on different models of authority you can build a game around. GM-as-god, GM-as-player, GM-as-umpire, rotating authority, location-based authority, etc. In classic Jay Dragon fashion, 7PP doesn't even have a GM, instead trusting everyone to share the responsibility of adjudicating the rules and simulation.

But the notable thing about 7PP specifically is that it's not just a simple "everything is adjudicated by consensus" kumbaya. So much of this game is about struggling for power. Against the world, against the other Wizards, against the other players, and against the system itself.

Seven-Part Pact: Consequences

Continuing my posts about The Seven-Part Pact (7PP) and some of its nifty mechanical design ideas, I want to discuss this game's approach to consequences.

Jay has often explained this design idea by articulating a distinction between "laws" and "rules," but I personally have some quibbles with the particular language and framing and blablabla. Well, this is my blog, so I get to explain it how I want to. But the underlying idea is what's important, not the terminology.

Seven-Part Pact: Combat

Continuing my posts about The Seven-Part Pact (7PP) and some of its nifty mechanical design ideas, I want to discuss the rules for combat.

I've already talked about this a bit in my posts on initiative methods, but I'll repeat that info here and expand on it further.

I also want to say up front that I'm not writing about the combat rules because I think they're especially prominent or essential or anything. Every Wizard codex includes its own mechanical subsystem for that player to learn. The Mariner gets the travel rules, the Hierophant gets the companion rules, the Sorcerer gets the rules for researching magic, etc. I played the Warlock, which meant I got the combat rules. So I'm writing about it because it's just the one I know really well. Trust me, every one of those other subsystems is at least as interesting as this one.

As before, I'll help you out by explaining the rules first, then discussing them afterwards.