Tony Petrangelo

The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book

In the summer of 2026 I was winding down the research part of a completely different project, for which I had been reading nothing but non-fiction the previous seven years. I felt it was time to read something entirely fictitious for a change. One day in a used bookstore I came across Guards! Guards! and was hooked. I'm the type of person that when I get hooked on a thing I tend to make spreadsheets about it. With the Discworld[1] the thing I wanted to make a spreadsheet about was which books were the best.

What makes this The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book anyway? Great question! Other people call their rankings Definitive, but they are being cute, this ranking is actually Definitive. You see, this ranking was created using the magic of aggregation. It's not a single person's ranking, it is an average of many rankings. This is the same basic technique all the cool stats wizards use these days for sports and politics, so why not apply it to the Discworld as well? And unlike all of the other people who call their rankings Definitive, my opinions played no role in the creation of this ranking, it is aggregated entirely from other people's rankings.

The process of creating The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book started with compiling all the rankings I cold find, but within certain parameters. I limited my search to rankings published as posts on websites, under a person's byline, and bypassed rankings posted on places like reddit. I was able to find six complete (or almost complete, more on that below) rankings that fit the criteria, as well as a crowd sourced ranking from Goodreads.[2] That is the data that The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book consists of, as more data comes to light more editions of this ranking may be released. With the seven rankings in a spreadsheet, an average was taken of the rankings for each book. The books were than sorted by their average ranking, and that is how The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book was created.

For any of the individual rankings used in The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book, one will find quirks and biases unique to that ranking. The magic happens when you use maths and average them all together. Doing this the individual biases of each ranking have less influence, the quirkiness of each individual author is largely blunted, and the resulting ranking can truly be termed The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book.

It's also possible that in calling this ranking The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Even though this ranking is no doubt more Definitive than any single ranking on its own, what are the chances that this ranking is actually Definitive? Probably about a million to one.

The first column of the ranking table, "Rank," is the actual rank of the book in the ranking. The "Title" is the title of the book and the "Year," the year it was published. The "#" category, is the number of the book in publication order. The "Sub-series" is the Sub-series that the book belongs to, using the Sub-series defined by the publisher.[3] The last column, "Ave," is the average of all the rankings for that book.

Rank Title Year # Sub-series Ave
1 Night Watch 2002 29 City Watch 3.3
2 Men at Arms 1993 15 City Watch 8.7
3 Small Gods 1992 13 Standalone 9.3
4 Going Postal 2004 33 Moist von Lipwig 9.6
5 Guards! Guards! 1989 8 City Watch 10.6
6 Witches Abroad 1991 12 Witches 11.4
7 Wyrd Sisters 1988 6 Witches 11.6
8 Hogfather 1996 20 Death 13.0
9 Mort 1987 4 Death 14.1
9 Lords and Ladies 1992 14 Witches 14.1
11 Feet of Clay 1996 19 City Watch 14.3
12 The Truth 2000 25 Standalone 15.1
13 Monstrous Regiment 2003 31 Standalone 15.9
14 Reaper Man 1991 11 Death 16.4
14 Carpe Jugulum 1998 23 Witches 16.4
16 Thief of Time 2001 26 Death 17.9
17 A Hat Full of Sky 2004 32 Tiffany Aching 18.1
18 Maskerade 1995 18 Witches 18.3
18 The Fifth Elephant 1999 24 City Watch 18.3
20 The Wee Free Men 2003 30 Tiffany Aching 18.6
21 Wintersmith 2006 35 Tiffany Aching 21.0
22 Thud! 2005 34 City Watch 21.3
23 Equal Rites 1987 3 Witches 22.1
24 Moving Pictures 1990 10 Standalone 22.9
25 Pyramids 1989 7 Standalone 23.6
26 Making Money 2007 36 Moist von Lipwig 24.1
27 Jingo 1997 21 City Watch 24.3
28 The Last Hero 2001 27 Wizards 25.1
29 I Shall Wear Midnight 2010 38 Tiffany Aching 25.4
30 The Shepherd's Crown 2015 41 Tiffany Aching 25.6
31 The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents 2001 28 Standalone 26.3
32 Soul Music 1994 16 Death 27.6
33 The Colour of Magic 1983 1 Wizards 28.4
34 Eric 1990 9 Wizards 31.0
35 Interesting Times 1994 17 Wizards 31.3
36 Snuff 2011 39 City Watch 31.9
37 The Light Fantastic 1986 2 Wizards 32.9
38 Sourcery 1988 5 Wizards 33.9
39 Unseen Academicals 2009 37 Wizards 34.0
39 Raising Steam 2013 40 Moist von Lipwig 34.0
41 The Last Continent 1998 22 Wizards 35.0

Additionally, the averages of all the books in each of the various Discworld Sub-series were calculated, those are presented in the table below.

Sub-series Ave
Witches 15.7
City Watch 16.6
Death 17.8
Standalone 18.8
Moist von Lipwig 22.6
Tiffany Aching 21.7
Wizards 31.4

A few miscellaneous observations about The Definitive Ranking of Every Discworld Book:


  1. The Discworld is a flat and circular world, with a ten mile high spire-like mountain jutting out of the center, and an encircling sea that waterfalls off the edge of the world into space. It rests on the backs of four gigantic elephants, who in turn stand on the shell of an even more enormous turtle, A’Tuin. It's also a fictional universe created by Terry Pratchett, spanning 41 books and numerous short stories. ↩︎

  2. The seven rankings used were: a crowd sourced ranking from Goodreads, and rankings published in Cultured Vultures, Pratchett Job, Den of Geek, Shots Mag, Left Inside, and Metro UK. ↩︎

  3. https://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/book-series/discworld/ ↩︎

  4. In pretty much every ranking there is wording about how even the worst Discworld books are still good, so the word "hate" is being used rather flippantly here. A better description would be "merely good," instead of "very good" or "transcendentally great." ↩︎