Research Article
Arranging the Pieces: A Survey of Library Practices
Related to a Tabletop Game Collection
Teresa Slobuski
Research Services
Coordinator
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Library
San Jose State University
San Jose, California, United
States of America
Email: teresa.slobuski@sjsu.edu
Diane Robson
Associate Librarian
Media Library
University of North Texas
Denton, Texas, United States
of America
Email: diane.robson@unt.edu
PJ Bentley
Public Services Librarian
West Slope Community Library
Washington County
Cooperative Library Services
Portland, Oregon, United
States of America
Email: paulb@wccls.org
Received: 18 May 2016 Accepted:
13 Nov. 2016
2017 Slobuski, Robson, and Bentley. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – The purpose of this study is to explore collection
development, cataloguing, processing, and circulation practices for tabletop
game collections in libraries. This study used the term “tabletop games” to
refer to the array of game styles that are played in real-world, social
settings, such as board games, dice and card games, collectible card games, and
role-playing games.
Methods – An online survey regarding tabletop games in libraries
was developed with input from academic, public, and school librarians.
Participants were recruited utilizing a snowball sampling technique involving
electronic outlets and discussion lists used by librarians in school, public,
and academic libraries.
Results – One hundred nineteen libraries answered the survey.
The results show that tabletop games have a presence in libraries, but
practices vary in regard to collection development, cataloguing, processing,
and circulation.
Conclusion – Results indicate that libraries are somewhat
fragmented in their procedures for tabletop collections. Libraries can benefit
from better understanding how others acquire, process, and use these
collections. Although they are different to other library collections, tabletop
games do not suffer from extensive loss and bibliographic records are becoming
more available. Best practices and guidance are still needed to fully integrate
games into libraries and to help librarians feel comfortable piloting their own
tabletop collections.
Introduction
Libraries
have supported games and play for over a century. The early 20th century saw the
emergence of toy libraries that were established to support families in need by
lending toys, board games, and other realia that support play (Moore, 1995).
Since the 1970’s, digital games have become the most visible and dominant
medium of play in our culture and in libraries (Nicholson, 2009). Although
video game sales remain prevalent, tabletop games have entered a new golden
age, beginning with the emergence of designer games in the mid-1990s. Since
2012, purchases of board games have risen annually by more than 25% as online
retailers have made them available to the mass market (Duffy, 2014). Recent
estimates placed total industry sales above $880 million in 2014 (ICv2, 2015).
This growth has been further accelerated by the advent of crowdfunding as a
means to finance and pre-order new games (Roeder, 2015).
As
the hobby gains in popularity, librarians are reevaluating tabletop games as a
viable collection for their patrons’ needs. For many librarians, it is not a
matter of whether to include tabletop
games in a library’s collection but a matter of how. Even though the establishment of toy- and game-lending
collections predates the establishment of libraries’ video game collections,
research about tabletop game collections lags behind the research on video game
collections. Librarians interested in collecting video games can find a
plethora of information on incorporating video games into their programs and
collections. However, a librarian interested in building a tabletop game
collection will find relatively few resources to guide them.
Despite
well-established benefits of gaming and booming growth in the tabletop
industry, only a small number of libraries circulate tabletop games. In a 2007
survey of 313 libraries, 44% circulated games with 27.9% of those libraries
circulating board/card games (Nicholson, 2009); that equates to 12% of
libraries overall circulating board/card games. Since this question has not
been surveyed since 2009, it is difficult to gauge the current proportion of
libraries that circulate games. This is not meant to imply that libraries are
not incorporating tabletop games into their services in other ways. Many
libraries provide games in their children’s areas, host chess and go clubs, and
run gaming programs (Nicholson, 2009). However, the practice of developing,
processing, cataloguing, and circulating a tabletop game collection is
relatively rare.
Tabletop
games, much like other types of realia, can be daunting to libraries because of
presumed cost, durability, and complexity. Because few resources address those
concerns, it is not surprising that few libraries have developed tabletop game
collections despite the growth of the hobby. This study was conducted to gather
information from the libraries that do have games collections in order to
determine their procedures and practices. The authors address some of the
perceived challenges and issues regarding tabletop game collections and offer
ways to improve access and management of this type of special collection
through the creation of standards and best practices.
Literature Review
Games
in Libraries
Modern
libraries include tabletop games in their services in different ways. To gain a
better sense of the history of games in libraries, it is helpful to expand the scope
to include other play media. In his 2013 article, “Playing in the past: A
history of games, toys, and puzzles in North American libraries”, Nicholson
makes clear how libraries have historically supported play through their
programs, services, and collections.
Hosting clubs
and offering programs seem to be the earliest means by which libraries
supported play. Nicholson (2013) notes the earliest mention of games in
libraries is a chess club at the Mechanics’ Institute Library in 1850’s San
Francisco. The relationship between gaming communities and the library has
evolved so that game clubs and gaming programs have become standard among many
libraries’ offerings. Nicholson’s survey of libraries (2009) found that 43%
offered gaming programs, most of which included tabletop games. In 2007, the
American Library Association began collaborating with game companies to provide
free tabletop and digital games to libraries that participate in International
Games Day. In 2010, around 1,800 libraries participated and in 2015, 2,157
libraries participated. The coordinators of the program surveyed participating
libraries; among those who responded, 57% had offered gaming programs in the
last year in addition to their
International Games Day event (International
Games Day @ your library, 2016). These numbers show that while there is not
much formal documentation about libraries and tabletop gaming, many libraries
are enthusiastically participating in the trend.
Libraries
have also supported play by building lending collections. Toy libraries emerged
during the Great Depression in North America and were the first to lend games
in addition to toys and puzzles. Moore’s A
history of toy lending libraries in the United States since 1935 (1995) documents these types of collections.
Her research starts at the first Toy Lending Library in a garage in 1930’s Los
Angeles. The library ensured that families that could no longer afford toys,
puzzles, or games could still access them. In 1970, the American Library
Association’s Children’s Services Division began reviewing toys for use in
libraries (Moore, 1995). Today two associations, the USA Toy Library
Association (USATLA) and the International Toy Library Association (ITLA),
exist to support libraries and librarians that manage toy collections.
Despite
this long history there is still reluctance to fully integrate games into the
library. As Bierbaum notes in her 1985 survey of realia in libraries, new media
is often decried as the destroyer of libraries as we know them. (Bierbaum, 1985).
In order to cater to their users' interests, libraries incorporate new media,
technology, and realia into their collections regardless of this outcry, but if
their emerging collections are not as fully integrated as standard collections,
they will be only partially accessible to the users they are intended to serve.
Collection
Development
The
need for collection management guidance is ongoing as both digital and analog
games evolve. Law (1976) stresses the need for librarians to become well-versed
in game collection management. Law’s concerns hold true today, including
keeping up with game resources and literature to evaluate games for purchase,
improving searching and finding in catalogues, the physical care of circulating
games, and loss prevention (Law, 1976). Bastiansen and Wharton (2015) note
additional challenges for toy libraries, such as adequate staffing, collection
visibility, and maintenance of materials.
Current
scholarly publications that directly address the topic of tabletop game collections
are practically non-existent. A few publications, such as Nicholson’s (2010)
book, Everyone plays at the library:
Creating great gaming experiences for all ages, provide advice for starter
collections or outline characteristics of good games for libraries. A few
articles focus on role-playing game collections. “Dungeons and downloads:
Collecting tabletop fantasy role-playing games in the age of downloadable PDFs”
and “Dragons in the stacks: An introduction to role-playing games and their
value to libraries” give overviews of major role-playing games. (Sich, 2012;
Snow, 2008). However, no substantial writings were found that explore board
game collection development.
Determining
what to buy is not the only issue that libraries face as they consider this
type of collection. Chadwell (2009) discusses the issues that managers face.
Many librarians and administrators see game formats as disruptive because new
procedures and policies are often needed to handle games. However, these
concerns are shortsighted because libraries are becoming more efficient in
other areas, such as automatically delivered bibliographic records, shelf-ready
item processing, and automated materials handling. This should allow libraries
time to handle new formats as needed, but again this survey shows that
librarians treat this type of format differently to other standard formats.
Cataloguing
Special
collections are considered hidden if not in the library catalogue. In the white
paper “Hidden collections, scholarly
barriers: Creating access to unprocessed special collections materials in North
America’s research libraries” the contributors state why all collections
should be catalogued if possible: uncatalogued collections are at greater risk
of being lost or stolen, are inaccessible to the community, and access is staff
dependent. (Jones, 2003) In her 1985 study, Bierbaum surveyed 218 public
libraries about three-dimensional realia collections of which toys and games
were the most popular category. Of these libraries, 163 collected toys and
games but many were not cataloguing these items. This survey noted a lack of guidance in
cataloguing non-print materials as a possible cause for the lack of catalogue
records.
Thirty
years later there is still little in-depth information beyond the basic realia
cataloguing rules set forth in the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second
Edition (AACR2) and Resource Description and Access (RDA). Olson (2001) uses a
tabletop game as an example and does state the need to include information
about the number of players, recommended age, and purpose of the game. In a slideshow presentation for the
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS), McGrath (2012) includes helpful hints
for tabletop game cataloguing. However, Moore (2014) reflects different
practices for game cataloguing. Piascik (2002) briefly reviews the cataloguing
and circulation of special materials but notes that sixty-nine percent of their
materials lacked records in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). The original
cataloguing needed in such cases requires advanced knowledge if the catalogue
records are to be complete and useful.
At
this time, professional organizations have not provided best practices for
cataloguing tabletop games or for assigning subject or genre headings to these
materials. Librarians continue to need more guidance in these areas if they are
to provide satisfactory access to tabletop games.
Game
Preservation and Processing
More
publications address the preservation of video games than of tabletop games.
This imbalance exists because of the real danger of losing digital games to
media format obsolescence. Lowood et al. (2009) detail many of the issues
surrounding video game preservation. There are no readily available
publications for analog game preservation or processing. Circulating
collections require additional steps not necessary for personal use
collections. Piascik (2002) gives a few tips for processing games, including
advice to use bags for pieces and to make creative use of conventional library
materials. Most of the information on tabletop game preservation is not
library-specific and exists only on gaming blogs and in forum posts.
Although
articles about games and their value are readily available there is not enough current,
in-depth research about tabletop games in libraries. Tabletop game collections
will remain niche experiments in libraries until literature that provides
guidance for collection development, cataloguing, processing, lending, and
preservation finds its way into professional and scholarly publications.
Aims
The
lack of resources and baseline data specific to tabletop collections in
libraries contributes to misconceptions about practices and can hinder
librarians who are considering establishing game collections. The researchers
designed a survey to gather information about current practices for these
materials with the belief that the results would provide practical information
on how tabletop game collections are implemented and maintained both for librarians
who are exploring the possibility and those who are looking to improve their
existing collections. The specific goals of the study were to understand the
norms and related issues regarding tabletop game collections. The study focused
on the following research questions:
·
Are
libraries cataloguing their tabletop game collections so they are discoverable?
·
Are
libraries circulating their tabletop game collections outside of their
buildings?
·
What
barriers are libraries facing in fully integrating tabletop games into the
library?
Methods
An
online survey was developed to gather information from libraries with game
collections. Input was gathered from several academic, public, and school
librarians to craft the questions. The survey was created using Qualtrics
research software and was tested by members of the American Library
Association’s Games and Gaming Round Table. The responses were collected in
June and July of 2015. Participants were recruited utilizing a snowball
sampling technique involving electronic outlets and discussion lists used by
librarians. The request to participate included an explanation of the purposes
of the research and a link to the survey.
Results
Demographics
The
results included responses from 119 participants with 66% of the participants
from public libraries, 28% from academic libraries, 3% from special libraries,
and 3% from other (3 curriculum resource centers and 1 school library). The
respondents were from urban (21%), suburban (26%), and rural (31%) areas, with
17% indicating mixed and a few libraries reporting other. Total library budgets
ranged from $50,000 to $5 million plus, with the majority from libraries with
$1 million to $4.9 million budgets. Of the 119 respondents 81% have a tabletop
game collection and 19% do not.
Table 1
Overview of Practices Based on Library
Type
|
|
|
Which of the following best describes your library? |
|
||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Public |
Academic |
Special |
Other |
Total |
|||
|
Do you create catalogue records for tabletop games for your OPAC? |
Yes |
15 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
29 |
|
|
No |
42 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
48 |
||
|
Sometimes |
10 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
17 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
67 |
20 |
3 |
4 |
94 |
||
|
Do you create item records with barcodes for your tabletop games? |
Yes |
17 |
13 |
2 |
4 |
36 |
|
|
No |
33 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
||
|
Sometimes |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
55 |
17 |
3 |
4 |
79 |
||
|
Do you circulate your tabletop games? |
Yes |
17 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
34 |
|
|
No |
38 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
44 |
||
|
|
Total |
55 |
17 |
3 |
3 |
78 |
|
|
Do you offer programming around your tabletop games? |
Yes |
41 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
55 |
|
|
No |
13 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
23 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
54 |
17 |
3 |
4 |
78 |
||
Collection Development
Collection development and curation of
tabletop game collections is unique to each library and its patrons’ needs. The
survey included several questions about these practices. Surveyed libraries’
collections range from very broad and informal ones that include mostly
donations to well-curated collections that support institutional goals.
Unlike other media, most games are
unavailable through library vendors. Nevertheless, games are being added to
collections. There were 77 libraries that acquire games through both purchasing
games (84%) and accepting donations (66%). Of the 65 libraries that purchase
games, most (74%) use online vendors such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble, 57%
purchase from physical game stores, 32% purchase from physical chain stores,
18% purchase from online game vendors such as Cool Stuff Inc., Funagain, and
Miniature Market, 11% purchase from library vendors, and 5% purchase from
“other,” including thrift stores, garage sales, and eBay.
The budget for purchasing tabletop games
ranged from $0 (all donations) to over $500. Out of 76 libraries, 46% have a
budget of up to $249, 30% have $0, 12% have $250 - $500, and 12% have over $500
to purchase games. Libraries with lower budgets tended to favour general
vendors, both online and physical. Selection criteria range from purchasing
popular, family friendly, or award-winning games to solely purchasing games
that support coursework and classroom instruction.
Table 2
Vendor Usage by Game Budget
|
|
What is your budget for purchasing
tabletop games? |
|
|||||
|
$0 |
$1 - $249 |
$250 - $499 |
$500+ |
Total |
|||
|
What type of vendor do you use to
purchase your games? |
Online general vendors (Amazon,
Barnes & Noble, etc.) |
9 |
26 |
7 |
6 |
48 |
|
|
Online game vendors (Cool Stuff
Inc., Funagain, Miniature Market, etc.) |
0 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
12 |
||
|
Online library vendors (Ingram,
Brodart, etc.) |
0 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
||
|
Physical chain stores (Barnes
& Noble, Books-a-million, Target, etc.) |
5 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
19 |
||
|
Physical local stores (Game shops,
comic books stores, etc.) |
8 |
17 |
5 |
5 |
35 |
||
|
Other (please specify) |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
||
|
|
Total Respondentsa |
11 |
34 |
9 |
9 |
63 |
|
a
Respondents could choose more than one vendor type.
Although book donations to libraries are often
castaways, donated games are not always from the back of someone’s closet. Many
game companies understand that more gaming is good for their business. There
were 50 libraries that provided insight into game donations. Of those 50, 45
accept donations from patrons, 25 receive games by participating in
International Games Day, 19 accept donations from publishers, 17 from local
businesses, and 8 from “other”, including staff and local thrift stores.
Donation criteria range from accepting only complete games in good condition to
anything that is offered. Some libraries accept any type of game regardless of
age range or content, but others only accept games that are appropriate for the
library’s collection needs.
Cataloguing
Despite the fact that cataloguing is a
cornerstone for discovery in libraries, survey results reveal that cataloguing
practices of tabletop game collections are inconsistent. There were 94
libraries that answered the question “Do you create bibliographic catalogue
records for tabletop games?” Of those 94, 31% do, 51% do not, and 18% answered
“sometimes.” There were 39 libraries that responded to a question regarding
what types of tabletop games have catalogue records. Board games are most
frequently catalogued with 79% of those libraries reporting these kinds of
records. Libraries also catalogue card sets (54%), roleplaying guides (54%),
and “other” (13%) games. “Other” games include puzzles, totes with multiple
games, and games tied to curriculum goals. Libraries that “sometimes” create
catalogue records were most likely to create them for Roleplaying (RPG) guides
with 73% of the libraries that sometimes catalogue tabletop collections having
this practice. These results do not show an increase in game cataloging when
compared to the findings of Bierbaum’s survey of public libraries (Bierbaum,
1985).
Table 3
Catalogue Records for Different Tabletop
Game Types
|
|
Do you create catalogue records for
tabletop games for your OPAC? |
|
|||
|
Yes |
Sometimes |
Total |
|||
|
What types of tabletop games get
catalogue records? |
Board games |
23 |
8 |
31 |
|
|
Card Sets |
16 |
5 |
21 |
||
|
RPG guides |
10 |
11 |
21 |
||
|
Other |
3 |
2 |
5 |
||
|
Total Respondentsa |
24 |
15 |
39 |
||
a Respondents
could choose multiple types of games.
Standards in cataloguing also vary. Of
libraries surveyed, 22 libraries use OCLC to catalogue their games.
These libraries were asked to approximate the percentage of
games they have catalogued which already had OCLC records. There were 11
libraries that responded with 4 answering less than 25%; 5 answering 25% to
49%; and 2 answering 50% to 74%. No libraries reported that over 75% of games
they catalogued already had records in OCLC.
Both subject headings and classification
numbers are essential for access to collections. However, out of 36 libraries,
only 22% find Library of Congress subject headings sufficient to aid in finding
tabletop games in the OPAC. Out of 39 libraries, 22 (56%) create local subject
or genre headings using other resources, including Board Game Geek
(www.boardgamegeek.com), Father Geek (www.fathergeek.com), game descriptions,
and reviews. Librarians are also creating subject terms that include curricular
area, grades, awards, and mechanisms. Standard call numbers are not as widespread
for these collections. Of 37 answering libraries, 16% use Library of Congress
(LC), 32% use Dewey, 46% use local call numbers, and 5% use no call number
“none”.
Figure 1
Subject heading sufficiency.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many libraries
still have reservations regarding cataloguing and processing tabletop games.
One respondent stated, “Keeping all the pieces is not easy and we have become
more wary of entering new items into the catalog.” Besides material concerns,
the unusual nature of these items causes some to be hesitant or doubtful of
their cataloguing ability. One respondent’s comments could ring true for any
size library when first starting to provide access to these materials: “I am in
a one person library and I am in no way good at original cataloging which has
held me back from cataloging a lot of our board games. Best practices for
original of board games would be great.” However, as seen in the above results,
libraries are still attempting to provide access to their tabletop games. One
library stated that they “add a color-coded sticker and letters to indicate the
primary audience(s) for each game,” to aid browsing the collection. Another
notes that, “It's important to mark and indicate every item in game (I like to
put in individual baggies), to ensure that materials are not missing when
loaned & returned.” The complexity of most games could be daunting for a cataloguer
unaccustomed to cataloguing realia since there are no best practices to follow.
As more libraries collect and catalogue
games, the availability and quality of records in OCLC should increase. The
survey did not include perception questions for the 51% of libraries that
indicated they are not currently cataloguing their tabletop games. However, we
can infer by responses to other questions that the in-house usage and small
size of many of these collections negate the perceived need for bibliographic
records. The lack of sufficient subject and genre headings and classification
is also a barrier for finding and using games. The combination of perceived
complexity of cataloguing with a dearth of standards means that these
collections are more hidden than others in the library.
Processing
While cataloguing provides intellectual
access to collections, processing is key to providing physical access.
Questions specific to processing tabletop games were included in the survey to address
topics such as item records, barcoding, and physical processing of games.
As with cataloguing, processing procedures
remain inconsistent for tabletop collections. Of 79 respondents, there is an
even split of 46% of libraries that create item records with barcodes for their
tabletop collection and 46% that do not, while 9% only barcode sometimes[1].
Even the process of barcoding is quite variable when compared to traditional
collections with 38 respondents putting barcodes on the game box, 5 putting
them on the game’s instructions, 5 putting barcodes on each of the bags or
pieces/cards within the game, and 10 placing them on other parts of the game.
Also, barcoding is sometimes limited to game types, with one respondent noting
that “RPG guides” are the only items that get barcodes, which may mean only
those would receive item records.
From the answers to this survey, few games
are processed to increase longevity and reduce wear-and-tear. However, of the
79 libraries that answered questions regarding processing, 22% reinforce the
game’s box; 54% separate games pieces into bags; but only 6% put plastic or
archival sleeves on cards to protect them from damage. For some libraries, how
their collection is used negates the need for extensive processing. One
respondent stated, “In our library the games have been considered just to be
used within the building - they are cheap and easily replaced. Not much money
or effort is put into ‘preserving’ them.”
However, some libraries with games for
in-house use only do carry out extra processing. One library noted that they
“put a security strip in the board game boxes so that the board game collection
can only be used in the library.” Another library “keep[s] the reinforced game
boxes in a very visible area and [has] all of the guts behind the desk. We
don't check them out or have them cataloged. We feel that this strikes a nice
balance for our patrons to know that we have these games and that they are
there to be played with, but also keep good track of the pieces, etc.”
Furthermore, some libraries are even more conscientious about their processing,
especially those that provide out-of-library checkouts. One survey participant
wrote, “I put library stickers and a library name stamp on everything.” Another
library provided a unique way to manage the many parts of some tabletop games
without individual barcodes: “We weigh the various types of components of each
game with a digital scale and attach this information to the game. That way, we
can tell if all items have been returned when they're checked in.” While
unusual, weighing could allow for clearer check-in procedures for circulation
staff. As with cataloguing, the processing of tabletop games remains an area
without clear library standards. This lack of standards leads to an unwarranted
fear, not seen with print materials, concerning damage and loss for this format
(see below).
Table 4
Barcoding and Processinga
|
|
Do you create item records with barcodes for your
tabletop games? |
|
||||
|
Yes |
No |
Sometimes |
Total |
|||
|
What parts of the game get their own item
records/barcodes: (choose all that apply) |
box |
30 |
2 |
5 |
38 |
|
|
instructions |
4 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
||
|
bags of each type of pieces/cards |
3 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
||
|
others (please specify) |
6 |
3 |
1 |
10 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
35 |
5 |
7 |
47 |
||
|
Do you leave your games in their original
containers? |
Yes |
34 |
32 |
7 |
73 |
|
|
No |
2 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
36 |
35 |
7 |
78 |
||
|
Do you separate game pieces into bags? |
Yes |
21 |
19 |
3 |
43 |
|
|
No |
15 |
16 |
4 |
35 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
36 |
35 |
7 |
78 |
||
|
Do you sleeve your individual cards with plastic
sleeves? |
Yes |
3 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
|
|
No |
33 |
34 |
6 |
73 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
36 |
35 |
7 |
78 |
||
a Respondents could
select multiple parts to have item records or barcodes. Respondents also could
answer regarding parts, containers, bagging pieces, or sleeving cards even if
they had previously stated “No” or “Sometimes” in regards to creating item
records.
Table 5
Circulation Practices for Tabletop
Collections
|
|
|
Count of Responses |
|
What is the loan period for tabletop games in your
collection? |
Less than 1 day |
6 |
|
1-3 days |
4 |
|
|
4-7 days |
5 |
|
|
7-14 days |
10 |
|
|
14+ days |
12 |
|
|
Total Respondentsa |
34 |
|
|
Can patrons place a hold on a tabletop game? |
Yes |
23 |
|
No |
10 |
|
|
Total Respondents |
33 |
|
|
Can patrons renew a tabletop game? |
Yes |
26 |
|
No |
8 |
|
|
Total Respondents |
34 |
|
a Respondents
could select multiple options to indicate that some tabletop games have different
loan periods than others.
Circulation
Cataloguing and processing a collection
prepares it for potential circulation. Librarians on social media and blogs
have discussed how to circulate tabletop games without undue hardship on staff,
and the researchers hope this survey offers some insight for libraries
considering circulating their games.
Much like cataloguing and processing,
there are no best practices for circulating a tabletop collection. Of 78
responding libraries, 44% report that they circulate tabletop games. However,
if in-library, in-school, and out-of-library borrowing are considered together,
it is clear that more libraries are circulating games. Out of 77 answers, 65%
of libraries report that they allow in-house library use only, 1% in-school
only, and 34% lend outside of the library or off the premises. From the
difference in the results from these two questions, it is clear that some
libraries consider in-library/school use as circulation, while others do not.
Perhaps this is due to the lack of catalogue records for items that are indeed
available for use in the building. Of the 44% of libraries that indicated that
they do circulate this collection, 82% let all of the library’s patrons check
out games, 9% have age restrictions, and 3% have other restrictions such as
checking out to faculty/staff members only. The loan period varies from less
than 1 day to 14 plus days, with the majority (35%) being 14+ days. Seventy
percent of these circulating libraries allow holds to be placed on games, and
76% allow renewals.
As noted above in the cataloguing section,
51% of the respondents do not catalogue their collections, so actual visibility
is important for finding their collections. Of the 80 libraries that answered
questions regarding tabletop collection storage, 25% store collections behind
the counter but visible to patrons; 36% stored them behind the counter but not
visible to patrons (closed stacks); and 39% store theirs in public areas (open
stacks). Of the 31 libraries with open stacks for their games, 23% are in the
Teen’s Area, 19% are in the Children’s Area, 19% are with media items, and 65%
are in “other,” which includes displays near front desks or entry points,
community resource areas, lounge areas, curriculum collection areas, and in toy
and game libraries.
Loss prevention is one of the leading
concerns that can cause a library to not circulate tabletop games. Questions
were included to help gauge procedures related to loss prevention. Regular
inventorying is one common method to prevent loss. As with cataloguing and
processing, inventory procedures are varied with 48% of 80 respondents counting
pieces at each return while 28% never count their pieces. More rarely, 18%
count pieces yearly, 6% monthly, and 1% weekly. It is unclear if any of the 28%
of libraries that do not inventory use alternative methods to ensure games are
complete, such as the weighing system mentioned earlier.
Although 73% of responding libraries
conduct inventories, only 34% purchase new pieces when they are lost, and most
(77%) do not charge patrons replacement fees. One library that charges a
replacement fee noted, “None charged over last year at 5 branches. Replacements
have been minor.” Another mentioned that they would charge but that the situation
has yet to come up at their library. The types of pieces replaced include
instruction booklets, game pieces, tokens, and cards. Libraries that do replace
pieces have many ways to manage the replacement process. One respondent wrote,
“I sometimes buy duplicate copies of games at thrift stores and garage sales,
so that I can use them for replacement parts as needed.” Several noted that
many games can be played even when some pieces are lost, so replacing the
pieces is not always necessary. “We would make replacement judgments based on
the specific game. We would try to work with users to get pieces back, but
would charge if significant pieces were missing.” Another noted that they were
able to get the publisher to send them a replacement piece.
Overwhelmingly, it seems the fear of lost
pieces should not be a deterrent against circulating tabletop collections,
considering comments such as: “The largest concern with circulating board game
were missing or broken pieces [sic]. As of nearly a year of circulating 50+
games, we have had only one missing piece. It was gladly replaced by the
publisher”; “We have not had any instances of lost pieces or damaged games, so
we haven't developed too many policies yet to handle these issues”; and “Lost
pieces was the biggest fear, and it was for naught. Although some pieces do go
missing, it does not happen at a high rate. And many games are completely
functional even if some components get lost.” These comments should assuage the
fears that libraries that are new to collecting or circulating games may have.
Table 6
Tabletop Programming by Library Type
|
|
Which of the following best
describes your library? |
|
|||||
|
Public |
Academic |
Other |
Special |
Total |
|||
|
Do you offer programming around
your tabletop games? |
Yes |
41 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
55 |
|
|
No |
13 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
23 |
||
|
Total Respondents |
54 |
17 |
4 |
3 |
78 |
||
|
Which programs do you provide
which involve tabletop games? |
Family board gaming events |
28 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
|
|
Game jams |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
||
|
Board game design events |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
||
|
Adult gaming events |
17 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
27 |
||
|
Teen gaming events |
28 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
31 |
||
|
Other tabletop gaming events |
9 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
||
|
Total Respondentsa |
41 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
55 |
||
a
Respondents could choose multiple programs they offer.
Programming and Events
Programming and events continue to grow in
all types of libraries. In nearly all libraries with tabletop collections,
programming is a key element to the collection. Although the majority of the
survey did not consist of questions regarding programming, write-in responses
such as, “We don't circulate games to patrons, just to staff for program use”
occurred throughout the cataloguing, processing, and circulation sections.
When asked about offering programming
around tabletop games, 78 libraries answered with the majority (71%) confirming
they do offer programming with their collection. These programs include teen
gaming events (56%), family board game events (53%); adult gaming events (49%),
board game design events (15%), game jams (7%), and other events (27%)
including game days, tournaments, lectures, and club meetings.
Many of these libraries elicit help from
outside agencies for gaming events. This help comes from staff and faculty
(49%), teen/student clubs (29%), local board game meetups (24%), game retailers
(13%), and professional agencies (4%). Connections to volunteers, community
game stores, and local gamers bring visibility to programs and help ease the
pressure on staff. Although not a focus for this research, it is clear that
tabletop collections provide an outlet for libraries to connect to patrons as
well as to other community stakeholders.
Conclusion
This research provides an extensive first
look at tabletop game collections in libraries. The results show that libraries
are fragmented in their procedures for creating, employing, and maintaining
these collections, which is not surprising since each library must develop
their practices locally or at best through informal communications with other
libraries. However, this research also reveals commonalities among many
libraries. For those who catalogue tabletop games, they benefit from having
bibliographic records available from OCLC while at the same time they find that
subject and genre headings remain inadequate. For those who circulate games,
most find that the fear of lost pieces was misplaced and that circulation can
be accomplished by using procedures that make sense for their location.
Overall, many comments show that while different from mainstream library
formats, tabletop games can find a place in a library’s collection.
Understanding the surveyed libraries’ current practices should encourage other
libraries to pilot their own tabletop game collections or increase access to
their existing collections.
However, comments and the variety of
responses to the survey questions reveal that libraries and researchers have
much work to do in this area. The demand for tabletop games in the wider
marketplace is increasing. Libraries should be meeting the cultural,
recreational, and educational needs of their users by meeting this demand, but
they are falling behind. Many tabletop games go out of print. Libraries should
be collecting tabletop games in order to preserve them for study and future
use, but in this area they also fall behind. Most libraries are not collecting
or offering the format in any significant way while those that do must create
local practices. For this reason, researchers and professional organizations
should be developing resources and best practices that empower libraries to
successfully meet the needs of their users. At the same time, as revealed by
the survey results, libraries do not need to wait for codified standards in
order to launch tabletop game collections that are discoverable,
well-preserved, and available to borrow. Current attempts can be imperfect
while still providing significant access.
There should be no insurmountable barriers
to incorporating this format into a library. Most of the problems are based on
misconceptions instead of reality. We should not let another 30 years pass
before we start to fully integrate tabletop games into the library. Standards
would help ease unwarranted fears, but a shift in attitude about this type of
collection also needs to take place. Libraries have supported games and play
for over a century, and now librarians and researchers have the opportunity to
strengthen this tradition for another century by establishing standards and
best practices for tabletop game collections.
References
Bastiansen, C., & Wharton, J. (2015). Getting
ready for play! Toy collections in public libraries. Children and Libraries: The Journal of The Association for Library
Service to Children, 13(4).
13-16,29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/cal13n4.13
Bierbaum, E. G. (1985). The third dimension. Public Library Quarterly, 6(3). 33-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J118v06n03_05
Chadwell, F. A. (2009). What's next for collection management
and managers? User-centered collection management. Collection Management, 34(2),
69-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462670902731081
Duffy, O. (2014, November 25). Board games' golden age:
Sociable, brilliant and driven by the internet. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/25/board-games-internet-playstation-xbox
ICv2. (2015). Hobby games market climbs to $880
million. ICv2: The Business of Geek
Culture, 88(Fall), Retrieved from
http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/32102/hobby-games-market-climbs-880-million
International
Games Day @ your library. (2016, January
12). Retrieved from http://igd.ala.org/2016/01/12/igd-2015-final-roundup/
Jones, B. M. (Ed.). (2003). Hidden collections, scholarly barriers: Creating access to unprocessed
special collections materials in North America’s research libraries [White
paper]. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/hidden-colls-white-paper-jun03.pdf
Law, G. (1976, Oct.). The librarianship of games. The 15th Conference of North
American Simulation and Gaming Association. Raleigh, NC, USA.
Lowood, H. (Ed.), Monnens, D., Vowell, Z., Ruggill, J.
E., McAllister, K. S., & Armstrong, A. (2009). Before it's too late: A
digital game preservation white paper. American
Journal of Play, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.journalofplay.org/issues/2/2/special-feature/its-too-late-digital-game-preservation-white-paper
McGrath, K. (2012). Cataloging three-dimensional objects and kits with RDA [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from http://downloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/03282012_RDA_3D_Kits_Slides.pdf
Moore, J. E. (1995). A history of toy lending libraries in the United States since 1935.
[Master’s Research Paper]. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED 390 414).
Moore. J.R. (2014). Cataloging 3D Objects & 2D Graphics Using RDA and MARC21
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://olac2014.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/1/9/25198051/olacmoug2014-moore-3d2d.pdf
Nicholson, S. (2009). Go back to start: Gathering
baseline data about gaming in libraries. Library
Review, 58(3), 203-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00242530910942054
Nicholson, S. (2010). Everyone plays at the library: Creating great gaming experiences for
all ages. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Nicholson, S. (2013). Playing in the past: A history
of games, toys, and puzzles in North American libraries. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 83(4), 341–361. http://doi.org/10.1086/671913
Olson, N. B. (2001). Cataloging three-dimensional
artefacts and realia. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 31(3-4),
139-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v31n03_01
Piascik, J. M. (2002). Cataloging and processing of
special format science curriculum materials. OCLC Systems and Services, 18(3),
153-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650750210439377
Roeder, O. (2015). Crowdfunding is driving a $196
million board game renaissance. In Fivethirtyeight.
Retrieved from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/crowdfunding-is-driving-a-196-million-board-game-renaissance/
Sich, D. (2012). Dungeons and downloads: Collecting
tabletop fantasy role-playing games in the age of downloadable PDFs. Collection Building, 31(2), 60-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604951211229854
Snow, C. (2008). Dragons in the stacks: An
introduction to role-playing games and their value to libraries. Collection Building, 27(2), 63-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604950810870218