In playing tons of various games (video, board, card, so on), I’ve noticed a lot of little categories for games. There are the games that are intended to be played by serious hardcore gamers who have years of gaming under their belts. I’m thinking the Warhammers and the way oblique Fantasy Flight stuff that require serious reading of the rules and understanding of mechanics before you can really start playing a game… these are games that you need to have someone else show you how to play. At the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got the Milton Bradley kind of games that “anyone can play”. The Candylands, the Monopolies, the Old Maids. In the middle, there are the Scrabbles, the Boggles, the Pokers, the Gins, the Gos. The quintessential “minute to learn, lifetime to master” games that have a broad appeal because, on the surface, they’re easy enough for kids to play but have deep complexity which means that people who are good at the game will, pretty much, always beat the people who are new to it… which brings me to the question:
How do you make a game fun for different people with different gaming experiences and different skill levels?
I’m talking about a game that everybody can sit down at and look forward to playing for reasons other than “I get to spend time with my loved ones”. I understand that some parents out there hate Eleanor Abbott (the creator of Candyland) with a deep and intractable hate… but it’s not like you can teach the kid how to play Risk at that age. Candyland is a social tool that teaches kids how to take turns in the guise of a game. Shuffle the cards and the winner is predetermined right there. Fated. The only thing left to do is go through the motions and maybe explain to your kids how the chocolate monster used to be a molasses monster… but, strange thing is, this allows for the little one to be just as likely to win as the mom or dad or older sibling (and thus increasing the fun level for the little kid exponentially from, say, a Connect 4 game where they’re likely to get whupped).
So to account for the lowest skill levels in the game, there has to be some measure of random luck. Dice rolls, drawing cards, that sort of thing… but, certainly, that can’t be the only dynamic. Chutes and Ladders, for example, is based entirely on dice rolls and, lemme tell ya, that’s only the shortest step up from Candyland. Well, you can tell stories about the kids on the various parts of the ladder. That said, adding an element of pure luck is something that can make the outcome be in doubt. Otherwise, the game won’t be fun for the kids at the table because they know that they’re most likely going to lose.
Surely luck can’t be the only dynamic that can keep things close, though? (Or, surely it can’t be as obvious as the difference between rolling a 3 and rolling a 5.) So there’s a handful of things that I think might work to keep things interesting (sadly, these concepts are all pretty sophisticated… so I don’t know that you can make them work with 5-year olds but you could probably make them work with 8 or 9-year olds who have mastered the concepts of waiting their turns, rolling dice/drawing cards, and, most importantly, losing):
Modular rules. You can have certain rules apply to the grownups that don’t apply to the kids. For example, in Scrabble, you can have the kids change out their pieces from the bag without giving up their turns (but the grownups would have to). Or, in Descent, the adult (who I assume would be the GM) would not use creature summoning cards. The creatures on the map when it’s set up are the creatures, period. If the kids start winning two or three games in a row on a regular basis, allow the DM to summon only skeletons or only beastmen until something approaching parity is achieved again.
Multiple goals worth different things. If in a board game, say, you can have the option of collecting the most blue pieces, or the most green pieces, or have the same number of each color of pieces, it would allow for different people at the table to go for different goals in different ways (and, perhaps introduce luck that doesn’t feel like a dice roll by having the scoring for the different ways be hidden until the end… maybe blue pieces are worth 5 points, maybe they’re worth 6 or 4… something like that).
Dungeon Master has an interesting dynamic where certain things kick in automatically when certain thresholds are met. If a player is sufficiently evil, the Paladin will be part of the forthcoming hero dungeon excavation… so there is reason to be only *THIS* evil without going over. Unless, of course, the payoff for being evil is really, really good (like because you got a dragon or something) and it’s worth having to face the paladin (and if someone else has made this particular decision, you might decide to be evil over the line but not quite as evil as the other guy… the lesser of the two of you, if you will).
That rule, in a different form, can be a kind of “rubber band” for those behind. Automatic rules that automatically help the person in last place when the person in first place gets a little too far ahead (or, maybe, *ALWAYS* helps the person in last place). Automatic rules that automatically hinder the person in first place. (Mario Kart, actually, has little rules like this. The powerups picked up by the player in last place tend to be awesome while the powerups picked up by the player in first tend to be… less so.)
These are the little things that I’ve been chewing on when it comes to making a game that the hardcore can enjoy when they play with the n00bs…
Surely I’ve missed several.
How would *YOU* answer the question “How do you make a game fun for different people with different gaming experiences and different skill levels?”
Love the post, particularly because I have a 3 year old and have been thinking about how to do this in the upcoming years. When you have any game that brings in player though instead of just a random element then the very young kids will be at a disadvantage. You, as the adult, can just throw the games or throw parts of the game for yourself, but I do not think that makes it much fun for you. I think one of the best ways is along the line of your modular route, but I call it handicapping. You make up rules you need to follow, but they limit what you could normally do in the game to make the play fair. My best example is Carcassonne. Normally each player has 7 Me-ples, the young player has that many, while you have less, depending on young person’s skill.
Great piece, JB. My question is this: Does changing the expectations slow the learning development of the “weaker” players? This seems, in a way, like an affirmative action program for games. One criticism of affirmative action is that by lowering the expectations, you ultimately harm the group you’re seeking to help since they aren’t challenged to reach the top.
To your question, I should say that you addressed my first two responses in the piece itself: I would have initially said, “Play more games with a luck/random element,” and then I would have said, “Different rules for different players.” Since you answered both of these, another possibility is to have the better players play at less than their best. This is likely only possible if the better players are adults, but in much the same way a dad won’t post up his 8-year-old son and dunk on him during a game of driveway basketball, there is no reason for a great Scrabble player to drop a 200-point word down. That may take some of the fun away, but if the goal is to come together and play as a family, I see little real impact if the person is truly mature.
As you know, I teach young kids and there is naturally a spread amongst them when playing any game. Typically, randomness is often enough to mix it up, but every now and then, you do have a child who truly dominates. Adjusted rules would probably serve to over-complicate the scenario and the gap between the best player and the rest is rarely big enough to justify such an action. Often, I use it as a teaching moment: some things are going to be hard for you; some people are going to be better than you at things; some things take a long time to become really good at; if you keep working hard and trying, you’ll probably get better; etc. Of course, I’m approaching the situation from a very different perspective than a parent or other participant in the game might.
If the kids are of the same age, then I would let things fall where they will. To me, it is more when you know the kid is at a disadvantage because of his age. Sports are a great example of this and why there are age brackets, but in board games, there is nothing like that. You have to make your own rules to make the game challenging, or you just goof around and not have as much fun yourself. I think finding that place where both you and your kid is challenged is the best place to find.
I do exactly as DMan suggests with Carcassonne, and give myself fewer Meeples than I give my kids. They are interested in learning Magic The Gathering, and I have let them start with two basic land cards already on the battlefield so they can start summoning stuff right away. In Pokemon I let them use whatever color cards to power their attacks. In strategy games, I don’t let them make egregiously bad decisions.
I’m reminded of the scene in “Black Sheep” where Chris Farley and David Spade play checkers…
Good idea bout Magic. I will have to try that with my son when it is time. What age did you start teaching them the game?
My younger son just turned 7. It’s too complicated for him in many ways, but as long as he’s interested and motivated I can help him along. My older son (now 10) has something of a “don’t harass me with all these rules” attitude which makes him more difficult to teach.
When my older son was learning chess, I’d warn him when he was making a risky move about three out of four times. On the fourth move, I’d go ahead and take his piece. He’s got a good grasp of the game mechanics in Descent, and I usually have to fight him for GM when we play.
My younger son doesn’t have the affinity (or as much interest) for the strategy games, so he requires a little more coaching. Typically, one of us will make suggestions as to what he should do during his turn and let him decide which course of action to take.