Shelf of Dust

by | Apr 18, 2024 | Blog

Want to hear my voice read this post? Catch it on Episode 6 of the Talkin’ Tabletop Podcast

As board gamers, we’re all acquainted with the idea of a ‘Shelf of Shame’, or ‘Shelf of Opportunity’ if you’re looking to put a positive spin on your pile of unplayed games, but recently I found myself thinking about my Shelf of Dust. The games that have gone the longest since I last played them, and yet, they’ve survived multiple rounds of culling, selling, and trading.

What are these games that are just gathering dust on my shelf, and what are the qualities that keep me from moving these games out of my house? I think first I need to examine why I move games out of my collection.

The primary reason for me to move a game on is space. I have a game closet, and the agreement with my partner is that I keep all of my games in that one closet. Now, it’s full, but definitely not bursting, but if I want to acquire a stack of new games, I need to make room for them. The second main reason I move games out is for money. If I can sell a game, I turn around and use that cash on a new board game acquisition, and I love getting new-to-me games! I recently sold Massive Darkness, which I had last played in 2018 for $150, and used that cash to buy Castles of Mad King Ludwig: Royal Collector’s Edition. A worthwhile trade in my opinion.

The third reason I move games out of my collection usually comes down to the fact that I’m just not playing those games anymore. Games that I feel like I’ve played enough, and I’m not likely to be pushing my game group to revisit, gets the boot. I’m lucky in that I haven’t had to re-acquire any games I’ve gotten rid of (yet), as I feel like I have a pretty good handle on knowing when I’m done with a game.

So, what are my dusty games and why have I kept them around?

Some games are just so small, that I literally have no reason to move them along. The Castles of Burgundy: The Card Game was last played on August 5th, 2016, but the box is less than the size of a paperback book, and I’m not exactly going to reclaim a lot of space. There’s no real point in getting rid of it, but if I’m not playing it, there’s no point in keeping it, right?

Other games are fairly precious to me because they were fairly influential in my origin as a board gamer. Forbidden Desert (last played on October 6th, 2018) was the first cooperative game that my wife and I got REALLY invested in. We have a ton of coop games now, but every time I consider which games I want to get rid of, I look at the metal tin and immediately think “Not that one, moving on!”

Some games are games I’d really love to play more, but my current game group just doesn’t allow for it. Games like Tak (last played December 24th, 2018) and Le Havre: The Inland Port (Last played June 12, 2020) are because I’ve pretty well stopped playing 2 player games. I used to play two player games a ton with my wife, but since our kids were born, we’ve both been too tired in the evening to play a game against each other.

Writing this post has encouraged me to pull a few games off my shelf and put them up for sale. Games that I KNOW I’m never going to play again (The Settlers of Catan, Apples to Apples, Harry Potter: Codenames). There is great value in keeping a well curated collection. More choices aren’t always better, and if you’re not going to play these games, getting them out of your space gives you more room to manoeuvre. Maybe you’ll feel less stress when you look at your games as they’re precariously stacked and crammed into every spare square inch. Less stress means you’re more encouraged to go to your games and pull one off the shelf!

What are the games in your collection that have sat dormant the longest? What’s kept you from moving them out of your collection to make room for new games? Let me know in the comments below, especially if your games are dustier than mine!

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

Kronologic: Paris 1920 – Board Game Review

Kronologic: Paris 1920 – Board Game Review

Last week I wrote about Turing Machine, a deduction puzzle that fascinated me with its cardboard computer but ultimately left me a little cold with the multiplayer experience. This week I’m talking about designers Fabien Gridel and Yoann Levet’s follow-up game, Kronologic: Paris 1920. It turns out the same designers have taken some of those clever ideas and turned them into something that feels much more like a game you’d actually want to sit down and play with other people.

Why do People Rate Games a “1”?

Why do People Rate Games a “1”?

Why do people give a game a 1 on BoardGameGeek?

It’s a question I’ve been mulling over for years, and one that tends to pop into my head whenever I’m browsing an upcoming release and trying to get a sense of what people are thinking. I scroll past the preview images, maybe skim a few comments, and then my eyes drift over to the rating… only to see that bar graph with a giant foot, the 1 ratings outnumbering every other number by a large margin. Also, why the heck are there ratings on this game if it isn’t even out yet? These 1s aren’t low scores from disappointed players, they aren’t thoughtful critiques explaining why something didn’t land. These 1s feel more of a punishment than anything else. And I always find myself wondering: what is that number actually trying to say?

Turing Machine – Board Game Review

Turing Machine – Board Game Review

I’ve always had a soft spot for puzzle games. From Tetris to those logic puzzles you find in the Penny Press game books, to word games and Sudoku puzzles. I love the moment when I sit down in front of one, utterly clueless, then start teasing at the edges, working the system to slowly unravel the answer.