[HN Gopher] Simplifying Board Games
___________________________________________________________________
Simplifying Board Games
Author : luu
Score : 237 points
Date : 2020-05-31 20:34 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jefftk.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jefftk.com)
| agentultra wrote:
| This is how I introduced board gaming with my children. There are
| kids versions of some of the more popular games like Settlers and
| Carcasonne which can be fun as well. We also play _No Thank You,
| Evil!_ which is a lot of fun as my kids have wild imaginations
| and really enjoy playing pretend.
|
| Especially in this pandemic moment it has been a very useful
| technique to have around.
|
| Of course even in role playing one doesn't require a boxed game
| to play. A few dice and some cards often suffice. Simplifying
| Microlite20 [0] and throw in a kid-friendly setting with some
| problem solving is a great way to pass the time and see how your
| kids think!
|
| [0] https://microlite20.org
| funkaster wrote:
| I have been playing Hero Kids[0] with my 4yo son since he was 3.5
| and we have a blast every session. the best part of it, is how
| flexible are the rules and you can relax them as much as you want
| for smaller kids. I can def see how the approach in the article
| could make complex games more accesible to kids. As soon as my
| son is a bit bigger I'll try this for sure.
|
| [0]: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/106605
| bytematic wrote:
| I bought board game simulator recently to play with my friends.
| Many of the most popular games were just too intimidating to
| play, this would have really helped us haha
| dowakin wrote:
| I'm using same trick with my 5 years son. In past I've tried kids
| editions (like ticket to ride first jorney). But they become
| boring too fast. Plus kid like to play "real" game, not game for
| small kids.
| torgoguys wrote:
| These days there are so many board games out there that if you
| are looking for a "simplified ______", another game probably
| already exists and fills that niche reasonably well.
|
| Shout out here to Heroscape, which is my favorite game and is
| basically a simplified version of a miniature war game. It is an
| interesting case study for this article too because Heroscape
| comes with two rulebooks, one for a basic game and another for
| the advanced game. (Although even the "advanced" game is much
| simplier than most minature games). Heroscape also introduced
| complexity over time with its many expansions (primarily new
| miniatures which each of special powers).
|
| The game was discontinued back in 2010, but still has a community
| of fans going strong at https://www.heroscapers.com. The forums
| are great.
| rayalez wrote:
| For the past couple of weeks I've been trying to do something
| like that for DnD. Come up with a system that doesn't have
| countless intricate rules and tedious arithmetics, but instead
| focuses on the social/creative aspects of the game, encourages
| creativity, improvisation, and storytelling. Keeping the rules
| fun, simple, accessible, yet flexible and powerful. Something you
| can play with your kids, or introduce to non-gamer friends to
| have a fun evening or two (but also is capable of supporting
| longer campaigns if you get into it). You can learn everything
| you need to play the game by reading a couple of pages, or teach
| it in 10-15 minutes.
|
| The project is still in the very early stages, basically a draft,
| but I'd love to know what you think:
|
| https://playmirage.io/
|
| (For people who have some good ideas about the rules, or want to
| contribute ideas for spells, magic items, and adventures -
| project is open source and available on github:
| https://github.com/raymestalez/mirage)
| kej wrote:
| It sounds like you're aiming for something a little more
| advanced, but I want to mention Amazing Tales [1] just in case
| you aren't aware of it. It does really well as a "first RPG"
| for kids, with the focus heavily on the storytelling part of
| the game.
|
| [1] https://amazing-tales.net/
| blaser-waffle wrote:
| > For the past couple of weeks I've been trying to do something
| like that for DnD. Come up with a system that doesn't have
| countless intricate rules and tedious arithmetics, but instead
| focuses on the social/creative aspects of the game, encourages
| creativity, improvisation, and storytelling.
|
| No shortage of rules-lite RPGs out there, with varying degrees
| of similarity to D&D. FATE and FUDGE are the two that come to
| mind, but there are lots of others.
|
| There Is No Spoon, a simple RPG that was big on RPG.net a while
| back is another good example.
| funkaster wrote:
| You should try Hero Kids
| (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/106605), sounds a lot
| like what you're describing
| cpfohl wrote:
| Check out Amazing Tales for the kids. Very similar to what it
| sounds like you're describing.
| AlphaWeaver wrote:
| An interesting idea in this space is the concept of a "D&D
| microsystem," which I think seeks to solve some of the problems
| you mention above.
|
| I run games using a modified version of "Rolling for Shoes" [0]
| to much success with friends & family as a way to pass the time
| on long car rides.
|
| [0]: https://rollforshoes.com/
| sjbrown wrote:
| If you want critical feedback for your design and suggestions
| of other games that share some of your goals, you should peek
| into the /r/RPGDesign subreddit and The Gauntlet Forums.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| I really like OP's approach here but still, find that some kids'
| specific games are quite good on their own. In particular, Ticket
| to Ride: First Journey is a great adaptation to the full game.
|
| Another one that nobody believes me about (because it sounds like
| such a preposterous cash grab) is Super Mario Brothers Monopoly.
| But the changed some of the fundamentally boring aspects of the
| game to make it really quick to play and introduced the concept
| of "hero" characters with unique abilities to it.
| Spellman wrote:
| Indeed, there are also plenty of great board games that are
| targeted towards kids! Don't need to run simplified Adult
| games.
|
| The HABA publishing series is always a hit. Rhino Hero working
| for kids and adults alike.
|
| First Orchard teaches the basics of game mechanics to younger
| kids.
|
| Set Junior simplifies Set for kiddos.
|
| Ice Cool is a great dexterity game.
|
| The Magic Labyrinth (2009) involves mental mapping and
| memorization skills.
|
| Looney Quest is a great drawing game as you try to collect
| coins and avoid the bad stuff.
|
| Not to mention all the Junior games of heavy classics like
| Ticket to Ride: First Journey, My First Stone Age, etc.
|
| Obviously the downside is they likely will outgrow these
| simplified versions. So the value of hacking the games you love
| as an adult is definitely a big plus and lets you save money
| and work them towards great board games. But on the other hand,
| why strip out all the pieces when you can play something
| designed for that age demographic?
| jefftk wrote:
| The saving money and path toward more complex games are the
| main motivations for me, yup!
| larrik wrote:
| Super Mario Brothers Monopoly is good, but it's only 4 players,
| and I have 3 kids... :(
| moultano wrote:
| The game I've found with the most cross-generational appeal is
| Kingdomino. I've played it with 3 year olds and teenagers at
| the same time, and both enjoyed it. They only change we make to
| the rules for the younger kids is removing the 5x5 restriction
| on the size of your kingdom.
| nicoburns wrote:
| I also like this approach. And I've found the opposite way
| around also works pretty well: kids (say age 4-6+) are
| perfectly capable of playing the full adult versions of games.
| philsnow wrote:
| My oldest kid once mopped the floor with me, 7 games in a row
| at Love Letter. I didn't throw the games to make him happy,
| he just plain had a combination of good draws and good play.
| He was 7 at the time. Kids are amazing.
| m12k wrote:
| I've found the challenge isn't so much for them to understand
| the rules as much is it's holding their attention with
| something not as instantly gratifying as the other
| entertainment they are used to in apps and video streaming.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Ah, my siblings and I were only allowed an hour of screen
| time a week when we younger. So that wasn't really an
| issue. I think an hour a week is a bit extreme, but I
| definitely intend to put strong limits on my children,
| especially when they're young.
| svachalek wrote:
| Keep 'em off the drugs. Board games are excellent for
| building math intuition.
| dimitropoulos wrote:
| We've had really good success with Magic Maze Kids - as well as
| Ticket to Ride: First Journey and Catan Junior (both of which
| are fantastic). The thing that Magic Maze Kids has going for it
| is an _absolutely fabulous_ tutorial system that slowly
| introduces every mechanic of the game.
|
| Other games like Pigasus and Snowman Dice (both by Brain Games
| I think) have been a hit too.
| bradly wrote:
| What ages do you recommend those games for?
| sephlietz wrote:
| BoardGameGeek is usually a good resource for this.
| https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/125921/catan-junior
| dimitropoulos wrote:
| I think if you're willing to be VERY flexible with all
| rules, 2.5 is old enough to play all of the above.
|
| When we play with younger kids we try really hard to
| emphasize fun and downplay stringent rule following, for
| better or for worse.
|
| Some games, like snowman dice, are fun just for the sake of
| it. It's fun to roll the dice and push them around.
|
| I'd say Catan Junior is fine for a 3 year old, but make
| sure to spend the first few times just familiarizing the
| rules (i.e. making the connection between getting a
| resource and spending it by matching up the resources on
| your resource card).
|
| Ticket to Ride Junior is a little bit harder, but a 3 year
| old should do ok with help. Again, if you really "take it
| easy" about the rules a very young child can have a lot of
| fun with these if for nothing other than the colors and
| manipulatives/meeples alone.
|
| Magic Maze Kids we did starting at 2.5-3ish and it was
| fine.
|
| Pigasus, on the other hand, a 2 year old can do and really
| enjoy. That game is absolutely amazing because it's one of
| those things that a small child can do better than some
| adults (like... for real!). Also the sound the pig makes
| when you squeeze it is incredibly funny to most kids and
| very rewarding. It's a fun one.
| mpettitt wrote:
| My 3yo daughter can handle Ticket to Ride First Journey,
| and even now knows some of the city names (we actually
| have a German edition, since I couldn't find an English
| one at a sensible price). It plays a bit quicker than the
| full version, so tends to hold her attention longer.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| The one major improvement is that you're having to buy just the
| full game instead of 2 variants. The chances are you already
| have the original full game, and using that to teach a reduced
| set makes sense if you don't wanna (or can't) buy the smaller
| set because it will stop being fun in a year once the kid
| learns the main game.
|
| There is also the fact that some games won't even have reduced
| sets (Guillotine for eg), or will have it but it will be
| impossibly hard to get where I live. I can easily get a copy of
| TTR in India, but finding a copy of TTR:1st Journey is much
| tougher.
| karatestomp wrote:
| The best Monopoly is the one on the NES with a four-score
| adapter :-)
|
| All the standard rules, no-one can modify them, runs the
| auctions for you, plays _very_ fast. D-pad and four buttons
| (counting select and start) so even young kids (or oldsters)
| with no gaming experience can pick it up fast. I wouldn 't
| ordinarily recommend a video game as a complete replacement for
| the physical version of a board game, but in the case of
| Monopoly, yes, definitely, find the simplest video game version
| you can and use that.
| wallfacer wrote:
| My mom suggested I buy NES Monopoly when I was about 10. I
| protested at first, but I quickly fell in love and played
| endlessly.
|
| Monopoly is not a well-designed game to play with people but,
| surprisingly, amazing and interesting to play against an
| 8-bit computer.
| sephlietz wrote:
| Our family has also found this to be true for Catan Junior.
| It's a great game on its own with quite a lot of replay value,
| so we end up sometimes playing Catan Junior even though
| everyone has the ability to play Settlers of Catan.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Same experience
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Target (the stores) has been a really interesting force for
| encouraging board game designers to adapt their games to entry
| level. TtR: First Journey, Catan Junior, Evolution's base game
| rebranded and cleaned up to be an entry level game leaving
| Evolution: Climate the new "base game" for more experienced
| groups, Captain Sonar Junior. So far it seems that most
| designers that have accepted Target's challenge have built
| great adaptations that don't water down their main concepts too
| much and are great starting points to the deeper games.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| I've played Carcassonne with kids who couldn't read yet; it's
| great! No language dependence whatsoever!
|
| OTOH, I typically teach adults how to play Race for the Galaxy
| by starting out with a few hands of San Juan... It's a very
| similar, but much much simpler game.
| jordanpg wrote:
| A related concern that this brings to mind is the act of teaching
| complex rulesets to players who are playing for the first time.
|
| It's not unusual for only one person in a group to have taken the
| time to learn the rules, by reading the rulebook, or more often
| these days, by watching a video. Then, that person is informally
| responsible for communicating the rules to the other players,
| tutorial-style.
|
| For games beyond a certain level of complexity, I have sometimes
| found this process to be absurd. For example, it might be obvious
| that the rules are not being followed correctly or consistently.
| Or more frequently, players are playing their first playthrough
| haphazardly, with no real understanding of the games mechanics.
| And no one wants to be a rules lawyer.
|
| These things are normal and the games are meant to be fun, above
| all else, but at the same time, playing a game incorrectly or
| with partial knowledge is unfun to me, especially since it's not
| unusual to only play a game once these days.
|
| I think the suggestion for gamemakers to include graduated
| tutorial materials, written or video, allowing players to
| trivially pick up the basics and begin playing immediately is
| very useful, and will encourage players to come back to the same
| games more than once.
| pbuzbee wrote:
| As a technical writer, I often find board game rules suffer
| from poor writing. They often present information backwards:
| they start by telling you every thing about every piece and
| situation before you really understand the basics of play. This
| makes it difficult to piece together how to play the game.
|
| I'd much rather see board game instructions written as starting
| out with a VERY short summary of the game and its objectives
| (e.g. for Dominion: "in this game, you build a deck of cards
| that you use to purchase victory points. At the end of the
| game, the player with the most victory points wins."). Then you
| can follow that up with set up instructions, a simple
| explanation of a basic turn, followed by more detailed
| descriptions of gameplay and ending conditions, and finally
| close with detailed reference material.
| woeirua wrote:
| Wish I could upvote you more than once. Game designers need
| to be more focused on getting people into the game, and then
| progressively revealing more complicated mechanics as the
| game unfolds. I'd rather play a videogame if I'm going to
| have to read the manual for an hour before my first turn.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| A lot of board instructions also suffer from poor
| translations. It's a fun meta game my friends and I play
| where were try to figure out if it's a German creator based
| on the instructions.
|
| For example "When it is the players turn, the player must
| immediately draw a card and place it into their hand."
|
| compared to "The player starts their turn by drawing a card."
| ianferrel wrote:
| When I have played new games with people, what I try to do is
| just launch ourselves into it, play a few rounds haphazardly
| and maybe sort of by the actual rules, figuring things out as
| we go, then start over and play the game for real.
|
| It takes a little more time to replay the start of the game,
| but if people are in the spirit of it, the exploration phase of
| it can move quickly. You don't have to try to make the right
| play. Just try something. If there's a thing in the rules that
| can happen, do it and see what happens, even if you think it's
| probably not the right way to do it.
| jjnoakes wrote:
| My friends and I do this a lot on board game arena - it's
| nice because you can only make legal moves there (and trying
| to make an illegal move usually faces you with some context
| as to why it is illegal), so it's easy to explore part of the
| game's state space without having to know anything about the
| rules. Then after some number of rounds we'll read the rules
| and figure out how things worked that we missed, and then
| play a real game. It's quite fun.
| frooxie wrote:
| Before I introduce a new game, I start by watching a video,
| reading the rulebook, playing a couple of games against myself,
| and then practicing and refining a script so I can teach it as
| effectively as possible. It's a lot of work, but I like working
| out an optimized rules explanation, and if I'm inviting people
| over to play my new game, then it seems impolite to waste their
| time.
| suyjuris wrote:
| I have listened to a fair number of people explaining board
| game rules and I feel quite strongly that most of these
| explanations present too much information at once. Often
| someone reads the rules, and then basically tries to present
| them all at the same time, which leads to people unfamiliar
| with the game feeling overwhelmed and not processing the
| information. Later, when playing, you can observe the actual
| learning happen, once people ask what moves they can make and
| observe what the other players do.
|
| I think that it is much more efficient to simply drop the first
| part and go straight into the game. Whenever an action is
| required, simply tell the person their options and focus on
| reducing the information as much as possible.
|
| Like, if you were teaching someone to play chess, you could
| prepare the board and play as white, while your friend plays
| black. Then move a pawn while explaining the way pawns move.
| Let your friend move a pawn. Continue until the capturing rules
| for pawns become relevant. Explain those. Then, one-by-one,
| introduce the other pieces and their movement over multiple
| turns, when they can actually move. At some point, a check will
| happen (or you can make it happen). Now you can go into the
| check rules, and how a game is won. There is no need to explain
| everything in the first game either, things like castling, pawn
| promotions or en passant can be postponed until they become
| relevant.
|
| Also, there is no need to involve strategy. The focus should be
| on teaching to play, i.e. take valid game actions, not on how
| to play well. In addition to being unnecessary information,
| there is also a lot of fun in figuring things out by yourself.
|
| Usually, for board games the designers thought about the best
| way to teach the rules and the manual is helpfully structured
| in that way. So it will first describe how to prepare the game,
| then the turn structure, then the possible actions, and so on.
| Often you can start a game parallel to reading the rules, which
| is handy when no one knows the game.
|
| Simplifying the game, as in the linked article, is also quite
| useful. There are some good examples of explicitly changing the
| games to be simpler, but you can also do some more subtle
| manipulations. For example, in Go (the board game, not the
| programming language) beginners play with the full rules (which
| are already simple enough) but on a smaller board, which leads
| to shorter, less complex games. In Magic: The Gathering, you
| can teach someone by preconstructing the deck to contain only
| simple cards. (I have seen some board games incorporate this as
| well, but there it is usually framed in terms of 'extensions'
| to the rules.)
| jefftk wrote:
| Depends on your gaming culture. If you're friends with a lot of
| people who play games, and you learn games from each other,
| then it will be very rare to have a game that no one present
| has ever played before. When I think through the games I play,
| I remember being taught all of them by other people.
|
| I wonder whether maybe game-makers are usually in this sort of
| environment, and so don't think as much about the experience of
| a group of four beginners sitting down to try out a game?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > If you're friends with a lot of people who play games, and
| you learn games from each other, then it will be very rare to
| have a game that no one present has ever played before.
|
| Only if you and all of your friends play from a very limited,
| range of games. In my experience, people like this
| exclusively play games that are currently or have been
| recently heavily marketed.
|
| I'm friends with a lot of people who play games, I own a
| disturbing amount of games, and I sit at a table and play a
| game that no one at the table has played about weekly during
| normal times, maybe biweekly now that I'm stuck online. As a
| person who researches and finds a lot of games, it's very
| often me who's teaching the game that none of us have played.
|
| In my experience, people who are really into games are
| constantly playing oddball, older, and obscure games, from
| the rules.
| a-saleh wrote:
| I do simmilar things :-)
|
| I.e. have been playing Carcasone when my was 4y, we just didn't
| play with the 'farmer' or we played KingDomino, and she just
| didn't have to adhere to the rule that your kingdom needs to fit
| 5x5 grid.
| cptskippy wrote:
| A few of the games mentioned don't really need simplification.
| I've been playing Carcassonne with my daughter since she was 3
| years old. She can't do the scoring but she understands all the
| rules and how to earn points. The only thing we simplified
| originally was just not using Farmers.
|
| We recently got a game called Outfoxed! which says it's for 5+,
| she picked it up after the first round. The hardest concept for
| her was moving diagonally and that you aren't allowed to in the
| game. It's a great game for learning to read names since all of
| the Foxes have unique and not trivial names to pronounce.
| iso947 wrote:
| Yes my youngest loves carcassone, we played. He's 5 now and we
| also play ttr (first journey and London), catan junior, and he
| is a big fan of Station Master, which is an odd little game we
| picked up pre kids. We went through a phase with outfoxed And
| guess who, but he preferred the rest now.
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| after all this years - poker and neapolitan[0] cards apart - the
| most fun and interesting "board" game I played is still Bang![1]
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_playing_cards#Napoleta...
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang!_(card_game)
| thom wrote:
| I have enjoyed tabletop games less and less as the number of
| 'things' has increased. There are way too many games that require
| 15 different piles of things, which is not just physically
| annoying in terms of setting up and playing, but also such a
| cognitive overhead in the game.
|
| Somehow even quite deep games like Magic: the Gathering or D&D
| (or indeed chess) manage their complexity more elegantly, by
| having fewer concepts iterated many times (although in the case
| of D&D this is managed by the DM who certainly has a terribly
| complex job).
|
| For example, Mage Knight in some sense tries to create a
| simplified version of parts of D&D, but it does it with so many
| moving parts that I freak out at the thought of event getting it
| out of the box. Whereas I can play actual D&D with one dice and
| some words.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| I think the complexity is part of the fun, but yeah, I can see
| how it goes overboard sometimes.
|
| Agricola is a good example. It's basically a resource
| management game from hell. You've really got to be in the right
| headspace with the right participants to get into it.
| svachalek wrote:
| Agricola is also a good example of simplification, as the
| "family" game is built in (although it's still in the medium-
| high range even with those rules). Actually I've always
| thought the base rules are too much, the family game would
| have been an excellent shipping game and the occupations and
| minor improvements could have been relegated to an expansion.
| ryanianian wrote:
| Agricola actually got this "right"--did kinda what the
| article talks about--by introducing a 2-player version that,
| while still kinda parts-heavy, is much simpler and
| friendlier. You can explain and understand the rules in about
| 5 minutes, it's fun, simple without being easy, and very
| replayable.
| mcguire wrote:
| On the other hand, I'm told that there are actual, physical
| people out there who like World in Flames
| (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1499/world-flames) or Rise
| and Decline of the Third Reich
| (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1563/rise-and-decline-
| th...).
| joe_the_user wrote:
| There are plenty of simple games out there. I'd recommend a
| trip to a local game store. My friends Chris and Will run It's
| Your More on Telegraph Ave 51st street in Oakland. I can
| promise they can find you a board game with a degree of
| complexity you would like, since available run gamut from
| extreme simplicity to extreme complexity.
|
| That said, I think complaints about complexity sometimes miss
| the way elaborate steps can be a sort of calming ritual rather
| than a part of the game as intellectual strategy and one's
| preferences there are personal. I personally love the game of
| Go, a game that probably achieves maximal complexity among
| face-to-face strategy game but I have seek out other players of
| this since none of my friends are interested.
| Lazare wrote:
| > I have enjoyed tabletop games less and less as the number of
| 'things' has increased.
|
| There are many, many, MANY games exploring the opposite end of
| the design space. If you want simple, there are designers and
| publishers working on that.
|
| I mean, there's also Mage Knight, but lots of people love Mage
| Knight. It's a big hobby! Very few games will appeal to more
| than a small subset of the fan base.
|
| I don't want to recommend anything as such (I have no idea what
| you're into!) but games like Azul, Splendour, and Patchwork
| have been _super_ popular recently, and are very clean,
| minimalist designs. Or a couple steps up the complexity level,
| Wingspan.
| drdeadringer wrote:
| About 15 years ago I came across "Cheapass Games". They sell
| you the bare minimum of what you need to play the given game
| you're buying on the assumption that most people//gamers
| already have all the dice, play money, and tchotchkes
| otherwise needed to fill out what's needed to play the game.
|
| Obligatory "I just bought an item, no other affiliation"
| notation.
|
| https://cheapass.com/
| chris_st wrote:
| And now they're free to print and play!
|
| So go now, and play "Give me the brain", "Lord of the
| Fries", "Kill Doctor Lucky", "Spree", and "Unexploded Cow".
|
| On the other hand, skip entirely "Bitin' off Heads", "Devil
| Bunny", and "The Great Brain Robbery".
| drdeadringer wrote:
| The one I bought and kept is "Witch Trail".
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Sticking with RPG as the genre, Pathfinder the card game is
| much more simplified. Even more simplified would be Roll
| Player. Even more simplified would be One Deck Dungeon, or
| Four Against Darkness.
|
| There are so many games out now, the choices are
| overwhelming.
| mixedbit wrote:
| Have you tried Dixit? It is beautifully made game with very
| simple rules that lead to a very complex game play. Dixit is
| the only game that I know in which I think a computer would not
| be able to beat humans unless it is able to pass the Turing
| test.
| RussianCow wrote:
| There are tons of games in this "give a careful clue"
| category, if this is something you enjoy--I really like
| Codenames, Spyfall, and Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. The
| great thing is the learning curve for all of these games is
| virtually non-existent and they play fairly quickly, but it
| takes several playthroughs to get really good at them, and
| they are highly dependent on who you play with, so there is
| plenty of replay value.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Mysterium is another missing from your list. It's easily
| described as "Dixit but Clue".
| a-saleh wrote:
| I think it is kind of "to each of their own" :)
|
| I.e. sometimes I am really in the mood of having 40+ little
| colored cuber in neat stack on my table ... other times I just
| want to sit around the table and insists that I am _not_ the
| Mordred /Hitler/Werewolf ... the other guy _is_ :-)
|
| I.m.o. Mage Knight doesn't really attempt a D&D ... more of a
| simplifies Heroes of Might and Magic ... but then he goes and
| invents Galaxy Trucker and Code Words :D
|
| I remember meeting Vlaada Chvatil when he was designing the
| boardgame port of Factorio and some of his friends were kinda
| dunking on him along the lines of "Nice game, but don't you
| think it would be better as a strategy on a PC" :-D
|
| Usually use Shut Up and Sit Down as my recommendation engine,
| because while they can really appreciate a good mechanic, they
| seem to be most of the time in the theme over complexity camp
| :-)
| bradly wrote:
| Originally, with Magic: the Gathering the exploration and
| interpretation of the rules was part of the game itself. At
| this point, Magic id mostly taught by other people that know
| the game well and introduce it to new players. I think there is
| less of a family that has never played and buying a bunch of
| packs to build decks and play. Magic just isn't setup for that
| today.
|
| Anecdotally, I tried to find a fun solitaire game to play
| during lockdown and ended up getting Arkham Horror. After
| reading a ton of rules and even watching some YouTube videos, I
| still felt like I never truly understood the game and haven't
| really played it. I can't image cracking something like
| Gloomhaven and reading through the rules.
| rantwasp wrote:
| yes. mtg has less physical items but they more than make up
| for it with rules. if you want to have a laugh look up the
| full official rules.
| thom wrote:
| This is true to an extent (and in basically any pro
| tournament even the best players in the world can disagree
| about complex interactions and need a judge). But I've
| rarely found it matters with beginners - just start with
| vanilla creatures and simple removal if you're worried, my
| kids learned the structure of your turn, paying for spells
| and combat in about 10 minutes. Everything beyond a few
| keyword abilities is just reading the cards, you don't
| _really_ need to refer to the rules for the most part. This
| is in stark contrast to Yu-Gi-Oh, we've found, where you
| can't just play what's in front of you.
| burlesona wrote:
| Gloomhaven is actually pretty straightforward. My group
| played about three games before everything clicked -- BUT,
| those first three games were a ton of fun and still "worked"
| even though in hindsight we weren't following all the rules
| correctly. It does have too many parts, but there's an app
| available (gloomhaven helper) which replaces 2/3 of the parts
| and makes the game very much easier and more fun.
| RussianCow wrote:
| I have thought a lot about this concept of using a
| smartphone app to replace some physical components of a
| game, and I'm surprised more games don't do it. On top of
| being less cumbersome, using your phone would allow for
| some mechanics that simply aren't feasible (or even
| possible) with physical parts. The flip side is that you
| have to "sync" the app state with the state of the physical
| board, and you need a clever solution that doesn't require
| doing things twice. (Plus, I'm sure some would argue that
| having parts of the game be digital would take away from
| the immersion, though I personally disagree.)
| kuang_eleven wrote:
| I've seen more and more games do that, from XCOM and
| Space Alert, which mostly use it to provide randomness
| and a timer to Mansion of Madness, which is mostly
| facilitating exploration.
|
| Those games work well, but for me, I wouldn't want to
| play a board game that leans on an app any more than
| Mansion of Madness; at that point it's a video game, and
| while I enjoy those, it's not why I play board games!
| hsndmoose wrote:
| Anecdotal: The on-ramp to Gloomhaven is quite smooth,
| compared even to many "simpler" games. It feels like there is
| an MVP-design of a game initially introduced and then as you
| play more features and complexity are added.
|
| I highly recommend it, even as a solitaire game. There is a
| digital version on Steam as well, which approximates the
| mechanics and gameplay well.
| kuang_eleven wrote:
| The Gloomhaven spin-off Jaws of the Lion also has a much
| more explicit ramp-up, as well as being a simpler game in
| general.
| Ntrails wrote:
| I think I played gloomhaven varying levels of wrong
| (monotonically decreasing) for the first 15 or so
| scenarios. The classic "wrong attack modifier deck",
| "elements only move up 1 when you generate", "Monsters
| cannot move through each other", "That monster has flying"
| are a smattering of my misread rules.
|
| Who cares? The game was still fun, now we play more
| correctly (God knows what I haven't noticed I do wrong
| yet). I'm a firm believer in playing early, and learning
| from mistakes / as you go.
| nerdb4itwascool wrote:
| I agree that the trend is for more "things" on the table, but
| there are still plenty of new games coming out with an eye on
| simplicity. Give Azul a try -- it's nothing but tiles (20 each
| of 5 different colors) and a board to help you count. Simple,
| elegant and deeper than expected
| the_af wrote:
| > _I have enjoyed tabletop games less and less as the number of
| 'things' has increased_
|
| I feel you! There's a niche of complex boardgames where they
| try to "simulate" things, like a colony or a submarine or a
| spaceship or a party of RPG characters, and I think... this is
| what _computers_ are good for. This is a videogame. Boardgames
| ought to have a different design space. If there are lots of
| things to keep track of, that 's a bad sign for a boardgame.
| Some even try to have a computer do the bookkeeping, which in
| my opinion is just a band-aid over inadequate design.
|
| All in my opinion, of course. And I do love "lite" dungeon
| romps and "lite" RPG-like boardgames. But adding complexity I
| think is both a temptation and a mistake.
| loganmhb wrote:
| I have this feeling sometimes too, but I think there is an
| important aspect of complex board games, in particular
| strategy games that is missing from computer games. When you
| play a board game, you are forced to understand the rules
| (because you are the one executing them) so you are able to
| more fully consider their implications on strategy. (Of
| course, the mechanics must be tasteful in addition to complex
| in order for this to actually be a benefit.) In a computer
| game, my experience is that it's much easier to revert to
| playing by feel and lose that effect, and much harder to
| design a game where the full mechanics are obvious to the
| players. As a wargamer this is the main reason I prefer
| playing board wargames, even though they are not able to
| simulate in nearly as much detail as computer wargames.
| the_af wrote:
| I am a wargamer too! Are you familiar with Arty's
| "Crossfire"? That's a marvelous wargame (the best WWII game
| in my opinion) with a very basic set of rules. The
| complexity comes from scenario design and gameplay itself
| -- the rules are trivial.
| smogcutter wrote:
| Another fellow wargamer here! I'll second that Crossfire
| is fantastic. It totally captures the rhythm and feel of
| what it's trying to represent, without getting bogged
| down in irrelevant detail. It's also one of the only
| really _innovative_ sets of wargame rules I've ever
| played, most of which are essentially the same mechanics
| combined in different ways.
|
| Another old set with some great ideas is Loose Files and
| the American Scramble, for the American Revolution.
| Originally a magazine article (from the 80s I think?),
| you can find the pdf floating around online. Three pages
| of rules, and super tightly focused on what makes the AWI
| unique. 100% worth a look if you have any interest in the
| period.
|
| I think you're right about computer games when it comes
| to hardcore number-crunching simulation. Computers being
| better able to portray fog of war is also a huge
| advantage. But I think tabletop games can do certain
| things better, especially when it comes to things like
| command friction. On the tabletop, when an order fails to
| go through or an unlucky break sees your units dissolve
| in a rout, you can easily understand what happened and it
| just becomes part of the story of the game. But in a
| computer game not having precise control can be very
| frustrating, like you're at the mercy of opaque mechanics
| and the RNG.
| loganmhb wrote:
| I have heard excellent things about Crossfire but alas
| have not had the chance to play it -- hopefully one of
| these days!
| foobiekr wrote:
| What broke me was Arkham Horror. Because of the very long setup
| time, we played less than half a game and decided never to
| touch it again.
|
| "Traders of Genoa" is one of the few games where the bits are
| relevant to game play. So often the bits are just window
| dressing to distract from otherwise uninteresting game
| concepts.
| grawprog wrote:
| Personally, I find D&D's gotten more and more simplified over
| the years i've played it. I started with ad&d first edition
| rules. The DM guide is jam packed full of tables of info for
| literally every insignificant detail of your world. It's still
| my favourite edition.
|
| Every edition after streamlined things and took away detail.
| The biggest changes came when wizards of the coast bought up
| tsr and the 3rd edition came out. It barely felt like playing
| the same game. I haven't played the newest editions, but i've
| read through the player and DM's guide for them, much of the
| original complexity of ad&d is gone, in its place are systems
| that seem.complex, but are far more simple to grasp and play
| using.
|
| Not just the systems, but the general feel and flow of the game
| seems to be simplified. It was more about being a fantasy
| adventure simulator before, where as now the purpose seems to
| be a fantasy hero story game.
|
| Much of the darker grittier aspects of the game were toned down
| and generally gone through that sanitizing process most niche
| things go through when they become popular.
| ng12 wrote:
| I think it's a side effect of the cultural impact. D&D
| inspired role playing videogames, those inspired MMOs, and
| MMOs now inspire D&D. Playing 5e feels very much like playing
| World of Warcraft or something similar.
|
| It's still fun of course -- when I was young we would play
| D&D with no character sheets and just a few dice -- but I
| agree some of the spirit is lost. I'm sure there are some
| custom settings out there with the depth of detail you're
| looking for.
| grawprog wrote:
| I usually just designed my own settings and worlds. We
| tended to play fairly loose with some rules and had a bunch
| of custom tables and rules and stuff. Honestly, I almost
| prefer that part of it to the actual playing. An old friend
| of mine and I years ago actually started working on our own
| roleplaying system, but we ended up moving away and getting
| busy with life and stuff so we never really finished it. I
| think most of it's still sitting in my boxes full of random
| d&d stuff.
| smogcutter wrote:
| I think kickstarter has something to do with this phenomenon.
| Something with lots of bits and pieces (especially molded
| miniatures) has more obvious "value" and wow factor in a
| kickstarter pitch than something simple but elegant.
| renewiltord wrote:
| D&D with digital assist is actually really good.
| ryanianian wrote:
| The focus of the article is primarily around how to simplify
| existing games and gradually build them back up. Unfortunately
| many games, like you say, have a very large number of parts,
| but it's not straightforward to modify gameplay to not require
| them while still having an interesting and balanced game.
|
| I really wish more board-games had a "low-parts mode" or a
| "trial" mode where you could experience the gestalt of the game
| without having to cram all the minutiae. Basically: do what
| this guy did for his daughter but put it in the rule book.
| dmurray wrote:
| One game with a version of this mechanic is Fabled Fruit.
| It's a worker placement/ hand building game. There are 6-10
| possible actions you can take each turn: the initial 6 are
| relatively simple but as the game goes on, old actions get
| discarded and new ones, often with more complex mechanics,
| take their place. You're encouraged to keep the game in the
| new more complex state the next time you play it.
|
| Even the initial state is too complex for young children but
| it might suit what you're looking for if that's not actually
| a requirement - I don't think you'd really enjoy playing
| phase 1 of his Carcassonne adaptation either.
| zacharycohn wrote:
| I collaborated with the designer of the notoriously complex,
| 23 pound box game Gloomhaven to do exactly this for the
| upcoming small-box, mass-market oriented Jaws of the Lion. We
| built a 5 scenario on-ramp tutorial I called Fischer-Price
| mode.
|
| We included new, simpler, components in the game that are
| exclusively for this tutorial, have players add mechanics and
| components and systems one or two at a time. During
| playtesting we went from about 2+ hours to read and semi-
| understand the rules enough to play, to playing in about
| 10-15 minutes.
|
| It can be done, but it can add significant cost (materials,
| development time) to the game.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Hey this looks cool, glad you mentioned it. Will probably
| grab it in August when it comes out!
| zacharycohn wrote:
| I don't get any royalties, but you should! I got one of
| the early production copies and I'm two scenarios from
| finishing the campaign with my wife. It's lots of fun.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| This is kinda how extension packs work.
|
| For example we got Carcassonne recently and it includes an
| "extension" (Abbots & Farmers). The rules has an additional
| sheet, so you can play the raw game and pick up the extension
| later once you've grokked the normal rules.
|
| Settlers of Catan does a similar thing, they have a slightly
| more basic gameplay in the rules for people starting out.
| dustinroepsch wrote:
| I wonder how much demand there would be for a dedicated board
| on boardgamegeek for homebrew "rule progressions" like these
| WorldMaker wrote:
| In some ways rule reveals/progression is a defining feature
| of the "Legacy" style of board games. Generally the focus on
| such games isn't _about_ rule reveals /progression, because
| the core idea of Legacy as a style is about board games with
| permanent changes that last through a story campaign of some
| sort, but rule reveals/progressions/rule tweaks are key
| storytelling tools in that style.
|
| Some of the games are notorious for having half-empty rule
| books that you will eventually fill with stickers for more
| rules.
|
| One particular well regarded Legacy game for it's slow,
| careful reveal of rules is Seafall (which is noteworthy for
| being the first non-licensed Legacy game by the Legacy
| genre's "father" who built the original Risk Legacy and has
| contributed to many others like Pandemic Legacy). I've got it
| on my shelf and have been hoping to find the right group to
| play it with, so I've mostly tried to avoid spoilers, but the
| way it was described to me is that it is a full 4X (strategy
| gaming acronym from videogames for Explore, Expand, Exploit,
| and Exterminate) that starts with only the rules for Explore
| and expands out from there. (And it is proper exploration
| with players encouraged to sharpie their discoveries to the
| board.)
| dustinroepsch wrote:
| If you're looking for simple but deep games, highly recommend
| most things made by Oink games, especially "Startups".
| twic wrote:
| I am a bit of a fan of the games of Carl Chudyk - primarily
| Glory to Rome, but also Innovation; i haven't really got into
| Mottainai yet.
|
| His games comprise a deck of cards, and then perhaps a few
| supporting items like money counters or victory point cards.
| There are two characteristic things about the cards. Firstly,
| each card can serve several purposes. In Glory to Rome, it can
| be a plan for a particular building, raw material for a
| building, an action somehow related to building (starting a
| building, adding material, robbing your neighbours), or a
| member of staff who carries out an action. Secondly, one mode
| of a card will have some sort of ability on it that modifies
| the rules, or lets you do different things. In Glory to Rome,
| if you build the insula (a Roman tower block), you can have
| three more staff than usual; if you build the scriptorium, you
| can now complete any building using one card's worth of marble.
|
| The basic idea is fairly simple (but not trivial, because of
| the multiple uses of a card). But there is enormous emergent
| complexity. My brain fires on all cylinders while playing it.
|
| This looks like a reasonable explanation of the rules:
|
| https://ultraboardgames.com/glory-to-rome/game-rules.php
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| As someone who got Innovation for the cheaps off Craigslist I
| have to highlight the concept that there is enormous
| complexity to really get the rewards in Carl's games...
|
| It took us 4 tries to REALLY ramp up Innovation to the point
| where everyone (group of 3) understood how you could combo up
| and compete against others who fell into certain card
| combinations. It did get particularly fun at that point even
| as we would regularly discover new Age 9 and Age 10 cards
| (with somehow even more absurd mechanics)
|
| It is definitely not a game I would recommend for children
| though :/
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| Mage knight has also one of the most thick books I have ever
| dealt with.
|
| To me the problems are the "micro rules", those that apply to
| very specific circumstances and are very hard to remember.
|
| These kind of games get also obliterated by those with a short
| ruleset but same type of depth.
|
| I'm thinking of Azhul, 7 wonders duel, century. Those 3 are
| very deep, but the rules are barely a few pages comoared to the
| 40 pages of mage knight.
|
| Granted that i do like mage knight, committing to it is
| problematic to say the least. And I have a board game table to
| keep it out!
| JamesSwift wrote:
| I agree, but I also don't think its fair to compare to 2 of the
| most successful games of all time and expect others to meet
| their bar. Also, different strokes for different folks and all
| that.
| tgb wrote:
| My family plays the Harry Potter Battle for Hogwarts game,
| which is a cooperative deck builder. Part of the enjoyment of
| it is definitely that there are lot of things happening and a
| lot to keep track of. Technically a cooperative game like this
| could be played by one player. But having four players means
| the others can butt in with "oh and that triggers the horcrux
| ability" when you forget. The other neat thing about the game
| is that it's broken into 7 "books", and the rules get more
| complicated as you progress. It's basically a formalization of
| the idea that the blogpost here gives, though the starting game
| is still modestly complicated.
| chapium wrote:
| I think I've enjoyed card based games more over time for this
| reason. Lots of variety in game pieces look great on sites like
| kickstarter, but end up being boring. The modern games from the
| 90's a d 00's seem to have hit a sweetspot in terms of fun
| rules and complexity.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| If you want a really fun, complex, and good two player game
| that gets even better when multiplayer, try Star Realms (or
| Hero Realms for fantasy).
|
| The rules are fairly simple but there are a whole lot of
| variations and the game is very dynamic.
| nathanmcrae wrote:
| Something that I think goes somewhat in the opposite direction
| is the Piecepack[0], which tries to maximize the number of
| games you can play with the minimum components.
|
| "Piecepack is to board games what a Standard Deck of Playing
| Cards is to card games"
|
| Since it is a common denominator, it enforces some economy in
| games that are designed for it or adapted to it. I recall a
| Catan adaptation that had several simplifications in the spirit
| of the OP.
|
| [0] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2860/piecepack
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| Loony Pyramids (aka icehouse pyramids) are another attempt at
| this sort of thing. They're just nestable, stackable pyramids
| in three shapes and several colors, but people have invented
| or adapted a hundred or so games for them.
|
| They pair well with piecepack or playing cards.
| abnry wrote:
| Learning all the complexity at once is very, very painful. It
| is my least favorite thing about playing board games. However,
| once you play a board game often enough it can become a bit
| boring without more surface complexity unless you really find
| pleasure in playing it like it is a full time job. (This is why
| I don't ever think it is worth it to become great at chess...
| too much effort for too little reward.)
|
| I think expansions are the sweet spot. Produce a base game,
| then add complexity with expansions.
| hinkley wrote:
| Gloomhaven is pretty much only playable with a set of
| organizers in the box, (which lifts the lid by an inch), and
| frankly it could have been done as an episodic. Fifteen map
| sections, a dozen monsters, 8 character boxes and half of the
| obstacles probably covers your first 30 hours playing. With
| everything in the box day 1, The setup and teardown time is
| huge, and I estimate it saves us over 20 minutes just having
| the organizers. But not having a box full of unused stuff also
| would fix that issue.
|
| Loss of momentum will kill your odds of getting a scenario
| running.
|
| Munchkin went too far the other way. Do I need deck 3 or 4
| next? I can't remember. But at least they sell a big empty box
| to organize all your sets into. Much easier to stack with the
| other games.
|
| If you avoid that problem, you then also have to resist
| 'refreshing' your game look and feel. Otherwise I end up with a
| base game and expansions that don't match in style, and I am
| not happy. For instance, I bought a Settlers of Catan addon
| that barely made it out of the box because it didn't match :/
| My friend bought one before the change and we always played
| with his copy instead.
| agentultra wrote:
| Ah but I loooooooooove Vlada games with deep, crunchy mechanics
| and many moving parts.
|
| I also love games that are conceptually simple but require
| mastery like Chess, Go, and their like.
|
| There is a range and the explosion in popularity of boardgaming
| in this last decade has been a boon as we've seen such a wide
| array of games and play styles cater to everyone on the
| spectrum!
| thom wrote:
| Sure, this is entirely personal taste and I will admit
| somewhat driven by limited time now I have kids. If we're
| getting the gang together it's annoying to spend ages setting
| up, whereas sitting down for an MtG draft is so easy and
| feels like it has infinite variety.
| agentultra wrote:
| I actually only play games like Mage Knight solo as I don't
| know anyone else like me who enjoys that sort of game!
| jmilloy wrote:
| Clearly there is market for these kinds of games, but I agree.
| At some point, it just makes sense to make a video game and
| just let a computer handle the display and fiddly bits. Plenty
| of games have crossed way past that that line.
| karatestomp wrote:
| There are tons of simple, compact, good, usually pretty fast-
| playing tabletop games around, mostly card games but with some
| exceptions. Love Letter and Arboretum are rightly famous (in
| board gamer circles). Hive, as a non-card two-player game.
| Sushi Go has quite a few "things" but you only choose some of
| them for a given game.
|
| They do tend not to have a strong melding of theme and
| mechanics, which I think is how/why theme-heavy games can end
| up being so complex--tighter theme integration implies, if not
| requires, more mechanics and bits and bobs.
| brutus1213 wrote:
| I have been trying to get my 4 year old into board games. I grew
| up on snakes and ladder, ludo and later monopoly. That hasn't
| piqued my little ones interest at all.
|
| Here is what worked .. my first castle panic .. this was super
| simple and got her engaged. There was another simple game called
| kraken attack that had cool looking pieces and got her engaged.
| Finally, we play a randomish game with the agricola board and
| kingdomino. Moral of the story is relax, bend the rules, teach
| simple things like turn taking, post-game clean up, and have fun!
| dimitropoulos wrote:
| Thanks for the suggestion on My First Castle Panic! Just
| grabbed it - looks great!
|
| And I couldn't agree more on the "relax, bend the rules" side
| of things. It's all about fun.
| brutus1213 wrote:
| Good luck. Two other suggestions for that age group that we
| found worked: Animal upon Animal (kinda expensive for the
| simple pieces you get but it felt so much fun, the wife
| joined in me and the daughter play!) and S.O.S Dino (gorgeous
| pieces and educational concept; my kid lost interest for some
| reason I could not understand; game was super interesting and
| simple)
| cybwraith wrote:
| Don't forget the classic abstracts, too! Chess, go, etc. You may
| have a prodigy and never know it otherwise!
| jefftk wrote:
| Lily got very into chess when she was ~5y, and kept trying to
| get her 3y sister Anna to play with her. Anna didn't like Chess
| and wrote about it: https://www.annakaufmanwise.com/chess
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Tzaar is a great abstract that my son enjoys!
| CJefferson wrote:
| I really like this, I feel too many games have pieces "for the
| sake of it".
|
| For fun I've been trying to develop AIs which can play games,
| mainly so I can then try finding the "minimal viable rules", the
| simplest version of a game which is still in some sense
| "interesting".
| jefftk wrote:
| I wrote some about trying to find the simplest interesting game
| a few years ago: https://www.jefftk.com/p/simplest-interesting-
| game
| renewiltord wrote:
| There are also games with simple mechanics. I think Century :
| Spice Road and the various Forbidden Island / Desert games are
| good examples.
| chapium wrote:
| I've found that many games translate easily to 5 year olds by
| tweaking the rules. Removing hidden information and playing
| cooperatively works best.
| cptskippy wrote:
| Competition was the I think the biggest barrier for my
| youngest, she hates losing. Old Maid flips the equation a
| little because there's only 1 loser and many winners.
| Carcassonne can be played without keeping track of points, just
| rules for how you lay tiles. We recently got a game called
| Outfoxed! where you collectively hunt down a thief, it's great
| for kids because it exercises memory and deductive reasoning to
| eliminate suspects, and you have to strategize as a team.
| chapium wrote:
| We played pengaloo a lot. Its a matching game. We just work
| together to find the matching eggs. The kids enjoy the thrill
| of checking the eggs as well as the cute characters.
| tmaly wrote:
| I have found a number of age appropriate games at a local toy
| store.
|
| The owner is very good at curating them. Sloth in a Hurry is for
| ages 5+, my daughter loves to play it with us.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I like it, and having played board games with my (now adolescent)
| daughter for years, it all rings true to my experience.
|
| One thing I would like to point out is that a lot of software
| (including applications, languages, frameworks, etc) would
| benefit from a similar approach. When the tutorial starts out
| with "install these five things and then set up this environment
| and take on board these thirty pieces of jargon and now we can do
| something", it is hindering its own growth. Usually, it was
| nothing like that when it started, and just added things to make
| it "easier" (for people who already knew the basics), without
| realizing that they were cutting off their flow of new users.
| wishinghand wrote:
| Not a board game, but Shadowrun definitely has a complexity
| problem. It's set in a cyberpunk future where magic has also
| reawakened, bringing in Tolkien-esque creatures as well. You can
| be a hacker, mage, cyber warrior, or just a smooth talker.
| However, each of those archetypes has different rules, and are
| essentially their own game. And for the GM, you have to know all
| of the rules relevant to not only the people playing with you,
| but any enemies they might run into.
|
| The setting is amazing, but it's dying for a rewrite (and I don't
| mean Shadowrun Anarchy). There's been some attempts to make a
| Powered by the Apocalypse version, but none have gained a large
| amount of traction.
| krm01 wrote:
| Slightly off-topic but Love your blog. The pages for your kids,
| did you build a simple CMS for them to create pages? Or taught
| them to write static HTML pages? I'm thinking of doing the latter
| myself.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| One of the first comments mentioned "super mario brothers
| monopoly" being a well designed game for kids.
|
| I'd like to add that the Star Wars monopoly is also very well
| designed and has a lot of new features that solve the biggest
| problems of the game taking too long, of those ahead almost
| always staying ahead and for the game being boring when itnisnt
| your turn.
|
| Games finish in under an hour. They have cards that opponents can
| play during your turn to block or change your moves. Best of all,
| it's only possibly for you (as a single player) to win if your
| side (datk or light) has the most point, making it an interesting
| semi-team game.
|
| It's a great game and I've played it with many professional game
| designers who also really like it.
| mleonhard wrote:
| Which version are you referring to? I found several versions on
| Amazon which appear to have different gameplay.
| cmos wrote:
| Annoyed by the money and harshness of interactions in a game like
| monopoly with 5-8 year olds we created "Friendopoly". When you
| land on someones property you are invited to camp on their lawn
| or sleep in their house or hotel. The railroads are all
| connected, there are no chance or community chest cards, and it's
| just a fun time going around the board that is more communal.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-06-02 23:00 UTC)