Musings On... "Gateway" Games (#19)
Alfred Wallace: The good gateway game. Or, perhaps more accurately, how does one define and find a good gateway game?I've seen a lot of lists of gateway games, and they all seem to home in on simplicity as the major factor. This is fine as far as it goes; I'm not saying the best way to bring new gamers into the fold (or converting the "Cranium and Bunco types" into "gamers like us") is to crack out that copy of Die Macher or Advanced Third Reich. What strikes me as odd, though, is that for a lot of people a "gateway game" tends to be one that the Real Gamer (TM) doesn't particularly think is that amazing, but is "good for newbies." A lot of people aren't thrilled with Carcassonne or Settlers anymore (although I still enjoy them in moderation) but some folks keep them around in case an initiate shows up, so they can be dragged out to provide a low-impact introduction to gaming. Then there's the kind of review you see around, the one that ends (to exaggerate), "This game really isn't that good, but if you're lucky you might get some of the Unwashed to play it with you."
If we're going to make people into gamers, we're not going to do it by playing second-rate games with them. For me, a good gateway game is one that is going to make someone excited about games. Most of us have books or albums that set us on fire, of which we say to people who haven't heard of them, "You have to read this! You have to listen to this! Trust me!" For me, one example is Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" album, the one that made me (and the end of a lot of experimentation) a Jazz/bop fan. I think it's the perfect introduction to Jazz, not because it's "simple," or "made for new Jazz listeners," but because it's excellent, and it has a powerful effect on many people.
If I'm introducing someone to games, I want a game that will have that sort of effect. One that will really open someone's eyes and mind, one that will make them come back for more and appreciate what These Games of Ours have to offer.
Now, just because I'm not going after tapioca doesn't--again--mean I'm looking for something complicated, either. To continue the Jazz metaphor, I wouldn't send a new (I hope) Jazz fan home with one of my Ornette Coleman albums. (If you don't know some of the Jazz names I mention here, go to the library or music store and getcherself an
education.) I want something with depth that gives a good idea that these games are definitely not trivial, but that are also accessible enough to teach to potential new gamers.
For me, those games are Go, Knizia's Samurai, Through the Desert, and Quebec 1759. They're not enormously long (if you use a 9x9 or 13x13 for the former and don't dawdle), the rules are manageable, and they're the kinds of games that make me excited to be a gamer. (Of course, if I sense a lot of creative types in the room, I might go with Once Upon a Time or Barbarossa (the clay version...) instead.)
Basically, my point is that a good "Gateway Game" has to be a really good game first and foremost, rather than just any game with the training wheels still on.
Of course, as "Misadventures in Gaming" (and our own experience) teaches us, it's unlikely that there's one magic-bullet, perfect gateway game.
So:
--Do you have games on your shelf that you'd basically only play with new gamers? (Or experienced gamers *only* if they saved your life when you were ten, held a gun to your head, *and* they were hosting the game night?)
--When there's a new player at the table, how do you go about picking the game to bring down?
--What are your favorite gateway games?
Pierce Ostrander: In my view a good gateway can be easily taught by demonstration.
"I'll take the first turn and show you how it works".
An example would be a game like Pickomino or Circus Flocatti. Set it up, grab the dice (or flip a card) and start playing... explaining the rules as you go. The first few times an "off normal" circumstance comes up (like a special card in Circus Flocatti) you just bury it back into the deck and say: "I'll explain that later". As players take turns, you add rules. By the second or third round, you've explained everything and noone's eyes have glazed over.
Games that make it easy to do this are good gateway games.
As you get better using this method, you can learn to do it with more and more complicated games (even with something like Ticket to Ride or Settlers of Catan). A few points:
1) Set expectations: tell everyone at the outset that this is a "demonstration" and that you will be explaining the rules as you go. Remember, these aren't gamers (yet, anyway), and hopefully they won't be nearly as hung up on playing well and winning.
2) Be flexible: Of course, you've got to read your audience and adjust as they respond. If they seem to be "getting it" quickly, pause play and explain a bit more. If not, just keep chugging and re-iterating the process. Be prepared to leave out rules entirely and
not finish the game. Be an active listener and observer.
3) Quit if you are ahead: If you are winning, say: "I think we've got it now, let's start again". If someone else is ahead and none of the newbies are completely out of the running… keep on playing! There is nothing better than success to keep them engaged
and interested.
I use this method with nearly every game I teach, unless it is an "all gamer" crowd. If you learn to do it well, nearly any game is a gateway game.
What makes a good "gateway" game?: A good teacher!
Shin Yoo: I think the most important property of a successful gateway game is being intuitive. This has a multiple layer of meaning.
First, literally, it has to be intuitive. Ticket to Ride, for an instance. Your goal is very clear : connecting cities. And the available methods are quite clear too: you have to collect matching track cards to build the tracks. This holds with most of the successful
gateway games. Bohnanza: trading something with something else is a very intuitive process, especially when you can evaluate the values of the cards. Settlers of Catan: again, trading is the main feature. The production dice adds a little bit of abstraction, but this can be managed by most of the people. Carcassonne: the scoring might be difficult, but laying out tiles itself is very intuitive. I believe the popularity of Carcassonne series stems entirely from the action of laying down the tiles.
Even the mass market games, those that are of little interest to the GAMERS(tm), have these qualities. A&A and Risk: build up your army and attack someone - very clear goal. Monopoly: the main feature of the game is rolling dice and move your piece according to the dice. The list goes on and on. Second, this may be somewhat similar to my first point, but I think a good gateway game has to have a short feedback cycle. That is, there have to be some ways to check your progress during the game. The reason Die Macher is such a deep and heavy game is, I believe, because it is based on such a long term strategy. You're dealing with multiple elections at a time, with the same set of resources. This can be quite frustrating, even to the seasoned gamers.
By breaking down the game into several short term, visible, tangible goals, you can tell whether you're doing good or bad. This is especially important to newbies. If they can't tell what's going on on the board, the whole gaming experience will begin to feel meaningless. To provide appropriate motivation to people, a good gateway game must have some visible short term goals to keep the people hooked to the game. Again, TTR (seeing the tracks being laid down), SoC (seeing the resources being collected and houses built), Bonanza (seeing your beans being collected), Carcassonne (scoring after every tile) all have some kind of short feedback cycle.
Mark Jackson: A related element in good gateway games is the opportunity for "small victories" - in other words, plays that don't necessarily win the game but make you feel good about what you've accomplished. At the end of the game, a player (newbie or gamer) can look at the game and say, "Well, I didn't win, but I managed to complete that city (Carcassonne) or cut Larry off from getting to New Orleans (TTR)."
Honestly, that's a component I like in my games in general, not just gateway games.
Shin Yoo: By the way, if the new gamers are willing to dive into the deeper end, I will always introduce a proper game (like Puerto Rico or Princes of Florence). PR was probably the third or fourth game that I introduced to my non-gaming friends, and it was a great success. But then again, we too started from Bohnanza and SoC
Jay Little: A while ago I posted a GeekList on BGG about "What Makes a Light Game Light?" (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listi...) and while I'm certainly not saying that all light games are good gateway games (or vice versa), I think many of the same attributes can be applied to both. The following three attributes from that GeekList seem to be the common thread running through games in my collection which I would consider gateway games.
* Simplicity of Rules: I think many folks would argue that it should be fairly easy (and quick) to explain the rules to a gateway game. It's hard to drum up interest in a game (or the hobby, for that matter) if it takes an especially long time to explain. I think gateway games should strive for simple, clear and accurate rules which can be taught quickly to get new players familiar with the game concepts, or allow experienced players to "brush up" on the game in a matter of moments.
* Limited Short-Term Decision Making: With this attribute, I'm looking at the number of options or decisions a player has to make on any given turn. Limited decision making should *not* be misconstrued as limited strategy -- just a tighter focus on turn options which help shape a player's actions. This may be represented in having only a few action
points to spend on a turn, or only having a handful of turn options available, depending on the type of game.
* Accessibility: I'm not talking about product availability here, but about how accessible the game is to the average player. This is a gestalt of the game's rules, theme, mechanics, complexity and overall appeal to Joe Gamer. As opposed to heavy games, which can get by being very very niche and targeted (such as a wargame about a specific day in a battle with a great deal of minutiae), I think most gateway games tend to be "safer" in terms of theme and focus. Perhaps this means bearing a theme that's easily identifiable (pirates, finance, trains) or a more conventional mechanic that's present in numerous other games (such as bidding or trick-taking).
As for favorite gateway games, they would currently include the following:
1) Condottiere. The wonderful components, straightforward rules and interesting strategies based on card mix make this a great introductory game. I've probably used this as a gateway game to introduce more people to my hobby than any other game in my collection.
2) Carcassonne Hunters & Gatherers. Again, nice production quality, fairly clear rules and goals. More balanced than the original Carc, and not overly long. Also a nice introduction to the tile placement mechanic found in many other games.
3) Cartagena. Colorful components, simple rules and a few interesting strategy decisions (when to give ground to gain cards or break paths for your opponents). Turns are quick, so players always feel involved. Introduces elements of hand management.
4) Through the Desert. A balanced, mathematical game with simple rules, clear goals and a variety of decisions each turn. Plays quickly, high level of involvement, and its easy to learn from mistakes while you play.
Ian Mackey: Here are my dimensions for an ideal gateway game, for which I agree no one game can be the game for every gateway opportunity:
Beauty - the physical components need to be compelling. The best game in prototype format is going to be a tough sell.
Interaction - gateway games should be highly social games with lots of opportunity for player interaction. I have seen new gamers enthralled by the trading aspect of Catan and fighting for scarce resources for a trade on the blocks. It is interesting to see how previous trades influence future trades with new players.
Easy of explanation - I will modify Shins statement of intuitiveness to be one how easy the rules are to 'digest'. You need to be able to get the players in the game quickly. You can use a more meaty game for gateway purposes, if the rules can be introduced in a modular fashion without severely hampering initial decisions the player needs to make.
Balance between need for focus and lack of focus in the game. You need to be able to match the gateway game to the attention span of the audience. New players need to be on equal ground and be able to absorb what is happening in the game that impacts their decision making on equal footing with other players
Making the first game a close race - The experienced players should now have a blowout over the new players, nor be seen as throwing the game. Games that arguably have dominant strategies, whether it be Puerto Rico, Powergrid or St. Petersburg make poor gateway choices. Along this dimension, choosing a game where it is easy to teach or help out (like Carcassonne) makes it easy for a player to ease into the game.
Duration - Ideally less than 75 mins. When at a family gathering, this is my perceived limit for getting someone to sit down while there are other options available (Could be the football game in the den).
Mechanics - Certain mechanics are less than ideal for gateway game. Backstabbing, confrontational, 'take that' can lead to bad first experiences.
Enthusiasm - I want to extend Alfred's point in that games need to be good games. I want to stress that your ideal gateway game is one that you can leak enthusiasm over. You need to be having a good time as well.
Nick Danger: My list of characteristics for a good gateway game:
Short rules -
I find nothing loses a non-gamer faster than a long rules explanation. By long I mean 5 minutes at an absolute maximum, and if you can get them under three minutes all the better.
Player interaction -
The more people are messing with other people the more "fun" they seem to have. To a neophyte gaming is all about fun, winning is not yet really in the equation. If they're sitting around not doing much or hardly involved in the game, you're losing them.
Tactics over strategy -
There's little chance a non-gamer is going to hop into a game and see the big picture and be able to formulate any kind of plan during a first play. The game needs to be tactics rich so they can get a few turns into it, have the light bulb go off, and then use that
information to be able to improve their position.
Hand candy -
They need to have something in front of them to touch. Whether it's a card in their hands, blocks in fronts of them, money, etc. Something to touch and feel and get a physical connection with the game.
Short length -
Anything longer than 45 minutes for a first time player and you risk losing them. Something around 30 minutes is perfect. Better to leave them wanting more than feeling like they lost some time off their life.
Hidden scoring -
A game where the status of all players is unknown, or at least "foggy" is nice. That way they can always feel they are still in the game.
Theme -
If you can get a game with a theme they are interested in that's always a plus, no matter how pasted on it is.
Nice components -
Breaking out a Cheapass game and picking up cookies crumbs from the floor to use as counters and asking for spare change to keep score is not a good way to make a favorable impression on a non-gamer.
I'm not saying all the above are crucial elements, but I think the more of them you can work into the scenario the better your chances of a successful gaming experience are.
Larry Levy: Well, it's nice to know that Mark Jackson prefers games where he can cut me off from getting to New Orleans. A small set of games, to be sure, but very select.
As far as gateway games are concerned, my first question is, "Gateway to whom?" What type of newbie are we talking about? There are many different types: wives/girlfriends, kids, poker buddies, etc. But the distinction that has proven the most important to me is gaming experience.
I have had a lot more success introducing designer games to people who play other types of games with some regularity. This includes traditional card game players, role players, Magic fanatics, and word game freaks. None of these games have much in common except that they are GAMES. They have rules, they have structure, there is competition. It doesn't sound like much, but it seems to represent a huge step that most of us experienced gamers easily take for granted.
True non-gamers (i.e., those whose game playing is limited to the occasional Monopoly session with the inlaws, Hi Ho Cherry-O with the kids, and Trivial Pursuit with the neighbors) can be very resistant to games of any complexity at all. Among the reactions I've received are violent opposition ("why would an ADULT waste their time on something like that?"), "deer in the headlights" fear, and the type who'll gladly play as long as you skip most of the rules and don't keep score. Many of these people are like my wife when we were first married; her idea of a good game was one where you roll the dice, move your piece, and then talk to the player next to you until it's your turn again. Rules hurt, thinking hurts, and it's all too boring to deal with.
There are probably some good games to introduce to folks like this, but for the most part, I just don't try. I'm not so starved for gaming that I'm anxious to play games of the necessary simplicity, nor am I enough of a games evangelist to put up with the incessant resistance I receive. Obviously, if some one asks me, I'll be happy to show them something I think they might like, but I no longer try to convert the truly unconverted.
Things go much easier with people who've been exposed to games. There are two exceptions I've encountered: people who exclusively play chess or exclusively play bridge. These players are notoriously close-minded to other games and probably won't even listen to you unless it's a game they've known since childhood. Your best chance here might be with a game far removed from their favorite. Bridge players usually view other card games as "kids stuff" compared to the one they've devoted years of study to, so I'd stay away from Tichu or Mystery Rummy with them, at least at first. Similarly, a chess player might find some of the more abstract German games interesting, but their most likely reaction will be, "It's not as good as chess."
So what do I try with people with some gaming experience? The usual stuff. Games of an hour or less. Games with high interaction. Rules that can be explained relatively quickly. A good theme helps. So do nice components. Games I've recently had success with include TtR, Oasis, I'm the Boss, Boomtown, and Geschenkt. Even though Tikal
is clearly a gamer's game, I've had good luck using it as a gateway game because it has a great theme, looks gorgeous, and is actually very easy to explain.
As far as screwage goes, it depends on the gamer. Some newbies love games where you can pile on your opponent; others are totally turned off by it. You need to know the psyche of your prospective victims. The other big rule, which has no doubt been mentioned, is to curb your enthusiasm and not go too fast. Try not to have too many new
games each week; one or two is fine. If you are trying to step up in complexity, do it slowly. If a game isn't working, don't be afraid to stop it prior to completion.
Ted Cheatham: One of the best signs to me of a gateway game is when you are finished, the newbie says, “Wow, let’s play that again!” That means you have hit the audience correctly. It does depend on the people, and their interests.
Chris Brooks: Here are my criteria:
* playable in less than an hour, preferably 30-45 minutes
* very little direct conflict between players.
* thought provoking enough where players can see deeper strategies, but can have fun playing simple lines without too much thought.
* nice bits
* be teachable in 5 min or less, or even better while you play the first turn
My current favorites that meet these criteria are For Sale, Ticket to Ride, and Carcassonne.
Ryan Bretsch: Wow. I think I am going to have to get passionate on this. So here goes... The determination of what makes a good "gateway" game is not rooted in the game itself. It is rooted in people. In other words, a good "gateway" boardgame for the general populace is "people-centric" not "game-centric". In fact, the more I read and listen to stuff about this topic, the less I see myself as a "gamer"... more so than just a guy who happens to like fun boardgames.
It is amazing to me how some gamers discount the "Hasbro effect." It is usually predicated with a hypothesis similar to this... "If you liked Scattegories, then you like games. So if you could only just try Puerto Rico/Settlers of Catan... just once... you will see the light and will really learn to love games!"
So time and again, I see party games getting the shaft among gamers. In the meantime, party games are ringing up all of the sales. So why is that? I can tell you this...it is generally seen in this community as "if you only knew what you were missing..." Which is a shame because that creates a disconnect. But there is a very valid reason why the mass of people gravitate to party games...because they focus on people.
Whenever we (as a community) talk about boardgames, we talk about how the game has to be a really good game first, then the rest will follow. The focus is always on the game itself and very little on the "target audience". My point is that people need to gravitate to the game...not the other way around.
Frank Branham: The trick with party games is that the market is over saturated with really awful party games. For every Times Up, there are hundreds of themed trivia games with badly written questions or some truly awful aspect that pretty much destroys the fun.
The other problem is skills. There is a prejudice among this crowd towards games that support "shoving bits around on the board skill". The sort of strategic and tactical planning skills that most of the gamery games require to play well. And most of us have developed those skills far better than average people. Games that require other skills like dexterity, memory, negotiation, communication, are dismissed out of hand. But those skills have to be developed just like the shoving things around on the board skill.
I, of course, hold that Loopin' Louie is one of the most skillful games around. Seriously.
Thomas Eager: Nick and others have already defined elements that constitute good gateway games, so I'll refrain from re-hashing a discussion of mechanics. Short, simple games with a high "fun-factor" are usually ideal.
But the importance of knowing something about the person you're attempting to transition into "gamer-dom" cannot be underestimated. A good chess player, for example, might respond well to the gipf games or an "abstract-feeling" game like Through the Desert. The average non-gamer, however, may find these games too "dry" or "cerebral". For those people raised on the fodder of MB and the Brothers Parker, the quest for a good gateway game becomes far more difficult. Many will respond best to games that are "fun", some to themes they like, and a few will welcome the greater "depth" of the Euros. The making of a good gateway game must be tailored to the individual. When I recently introduced two very different individuals to "my games", I approached them from very different directions. The first is a woman college-buddy of mine who has a regular game night with her girlfriends. "What do you play?" asked I. "Oh, you know, Monopoly, Clue, Risk..." I tried not to wince. For her "transition", I would need to choose games that were fun, not too long, and interactive enough to serve her purposes, socializing with her friends. In addition, they had to have simple elements that were at least somewhat familiar to the "Parker Bros." folks. Unfortunately, my tastes generally run to the heavier side of the spectrum...most of these would clearly not be appropriate. I finally chose Guillotine and Dos Rios. Both are light, fun games with only a modicum of "screwage".
Despite its somewhat morbid theme, Guillotine is always wacky fun, and I knew this won her over. Admittedly, my "sales-pitch" left a lotto be desired--"Umm...we're kind of like competing headsmen, and whoever chops off the most valuable heads wins...really, it's funny, you'll like it..." Dos Rios has simple mechanics and objectives, and the Monopoly crowd can easily relate to collecting money and building houses (haciendas).
These days, she's asking where to find the best price for War of the Ring. The other individual was a co-worker/info tech guy. He already had some gaming experience with chess, RPGs and the like, so I was much freer with my choices; in essence I was "preaching to the converted". Citadels, Through the Desert and Ace of Aces were all big hits with him. Shortly after, he told me he and his game-buddies had purchased Puerto Rico, and he's anxious for me to bring San Juan to work for him to try. My point is simply this; while the guidelines regarding simplicity and ease of play are undeniably valuable, there is no sure method of telling which games will best appeal to "non-gamers", because each person wants different things from a game. The best choices will be ones based upon your knowledge of that particular person.
Rick Young: At the risk of seeming to be facetious, I am tempted to say: whatever works! As we've seen, there are differing ideas on what is meant by "gateway" and some discussion on where the gateway is supposed to lead.
In my own case, I believe I've always been a gamer. From the earliest memories of playing Snap! with my grandfather to the usual childhood line-up of games, I was always ready to play. Not all my childhood friends were as keen as I was to get out the Monopoly game, and when I discovered Chess in Grade 6, I thought I had discovered the Grail itself. But my true Aha! moment was in College as I stumbled into a late night session of D-Day being played by a couple of dorm-mates. Fascinated, I watched them and read through the rules folder while they played. It changed my life. However, I would not describe AH's D-Day as a gateway game, or even as a particularly good game period, but for me boardgaming immediately took on new meaning after seeing it.
While my early experiences were with war games, I've been all over the map since then and I'd have to say that very few of my initial exposures to the various genres within our hobby would be considered good gateway games as we've been describing them. That fact may have biased my view of some of the nooks and crannies of our hobby but my interest in games has never been diminished. So, my conclusion is that a person needs to have the "pre-existing condition" of gamerhood before a more focused pursuit is likely to occur, regardless of the particular game one introduces to that person.
Naturally, the better the game, the more likely the hidden gamer is to be revealed, but I would rather look to the game-like activities a person has as a clue to what "might" work and go from there. It would be safe to say nowadays that few kids escape one or another of the many CCGs for example. So, for that person, I would try Rune Bound, Settlers of Catan, Candamir or even one of the simpler card driven games. My reasoning is that a person used to playing CCGs will more easily transition to a boardgame that uses plenty of cards.
A Monopoly player might move up to Aquire or some of the intermediate level Railroading games (any of the crayon rails or Santa Fe type stuff) or any other of the games that have more of an economic theme. Risk players could go on to try Axis or Allies (I personally would offer Attack! before A&A) on their way to other area influence/control type games.
So my view of a gateway game is one which takes a generic gamer and peels back a few extra layers of content in a boardgame to show them the possibilities. A deliberate effort (rather than a chance encounter as it was in my case) would involve building upon the budding gamer's existing interests. I also believe that gamers tend to be sociable gregarious types that enjoy personal interaction as well as competition, so the social setting for "first contact" is also worth paying some attention to as well.
Morgan Dontanville: Richard, how would you approach someone that doesn't have even a mild background in gaming.?
The Tabula Rosa gamer is one of the greatest puzzles to unlock for me. It is strange to think about, because taste plays such a heavy part in Euros.
I fear that if someone were to have introduced me to games through intro games I would never have followed through into the hobby.
I would have spent a lot more money on music and movies if someone had introduced me to modern gaming with titles like Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne or Bohnanza.
Taste is such a funny thing. If someone came to you and said I've never heard modern music play me some great songs. How can you know what they'd like? Yet, the onus is yours.
For me the most important thing is to say, "Hey, it is alright to not like this game. I have many other games that aren't anything like this."
Chris Brooks: One more reason *not* to give it too much thought, other than observing some basic criteria like how long it takes to teach it and length of the game. And have several backup options.
Ryan Bretsch: Richard serves up a small but excellent point when he brings up the point of "whatever works!" But it is, of course, the determination of "whatever works!" which has us wrapped in debate. One last point I will raise which I was reluctant to discuss before because I didn't want to blithely charge back into a previous discussion...especially one so fresh. But earlier, when I mentioned why I like "luck" in games is particularly important to "gateway games". Great games must offer strategic and tactical choices, like Frank had earlier alluded to. Even "gateway" games must offer this. But when a certain degree of luck is properly woven in, it allows everyone in the game to have a chance at winning...while still offering the general control to influence your game fate through your choices in the game.
Morgan Dontanville: Ryan, while I understand your desire to want a nice weave of luck to choice, there is nothing worse than watching a newbie get screwed out of playing
because of crap luck. At least if you played something like Clippers with them, they can blame you and not the gaming experience itself for getting worked.
Ryan Bretsch: Morgan, if a game is tooooooo lucky, then I agree it is certainly out of whack. But we played tonight with a couple who actually just left our house. They don't play much in the way of board games, but she (especially) is a vibrant "type-A" personality. She won tonight with a bit of skill...and a little, teensy bit of luck...and she was thrilled! They both thought the evening was a blast.
And she played very well. But if she did lose tonight, I would prefer her to blame it on that teensy change of luck in this game...rather than someone else's thorough command of tactics in another, more purely strategy game. Because she would find it much easier to change the former as opposed to the latter. Let's face it...winning is fun! And it's great to let as many people as possible share in the experience...even just to see how excitable and funny they can get...like tonight. Priceless. (But just let me win more than the others!)
In the end, it's just a matter of perspective I guess...there is no right way or wrong way? I suppose I could make a decent case for the opposing point of view as well.
Morgan Dontanville: I sort of agree. But, I played Fiese Freunde Fette Feten tonight with a non-gamer and an occasional gamer (there has to be a proper name for the gamer of acquaintance).
It cannot be denied that there is a luck factor in this game. If you need to get fat, and there are no cards that allow you to get fat, you are just S.O.L. (for the time being). I was thankful that the experienced players were the ones that were put out, rather than the newbies. Those of us that have played games before were capable of rolling with the luck.
I feel that if they had played it and felt they could do nothing, then their experience would have been severely lessened. That said, the theme made up for whatever minor shortcomings of luck, and there were laughs abound.
Erik Arneson: I'm not sure if anyone has raised this point yet, but one of the keys to a game being a great gateway game, I think, is that it plays quickly. Introducing people to a 30-minute game that leaves them wanting more -- or even to play the same game again immediately -- is much more effective than a 90-minute game that they were mostly unimpressed by the whole time. When playing with designer game newbies, I generally try something like For Sale (both in terms of "weight" and game length).
Ryan Bretsch: What is our main argument as to why boardgames offer so much more than videogames? We say that boardgames offer an interactive "people-based" experience compared to the typically solitary offering of videogames. But then we recommend as "gateway games", those boardgames that support and are prejudicial to strategic and tactical planning skills? You know, I never hear anyone talk about what a great gateway game "Scotland Yard" is and yet that embodies what I think is the perfect boardgame...that the "average joe or average jane" will go for.
Let's break it down:
1. It must have an easily identifiable theme...and title...that people will gravitate to. So often overlooked is the title...if a person can't figure out what the game is about by title, they are not going to be drawn to it. They now are in a position of being "shown"
the game.
2. Going back to the theme... people need to instantly understand the theme and relate to it. Scotland Yard: Find the bad guy. We all love that, right? Otherwise CSI and Law and Order would be out of business. Carcassonne: ? Settlers of Catan: ? Puerto Rico: ?
3. The focus of the game (Scotland Yard) is how you interact to find the bad guy. Talk. Argue. Talk some more. Laugh. Muse and debate. The key ingredient here? In Scotland Yard, the focus is not on the game... it is on the people playing the game.
4. Art: Games are essentially interactive stories. But they are graphic first impressions as well. Much like a poorly tailored, out of date suit...poor art in a game simply makes the game unappealing for the average person and raises their initial disinterest. And then once again, they are now are in a position of having to be "shown" the game to see if they will like it. Scotland Yard has great art and a contemporary feel about it. People can instantly look at it and say, "I want to play THAT."
So nowhere here did I just talk about the mechanics of the game...which IS important. But no matter how elegant the game mechanics are, if the game doesn't appeal to the average person, off the street, right from the "get go"... it becomes a much tougher sell.
Maybe it is a matter of perspective on this question: I look at the question and see..."What is a good "gateway game" to get people to play boardgames." But perhaps what this discussion truly is...hmmm, maybe more along the lines of, "What is a good "gateway game" to get a person who plays boardgames...to take the next step up and become a true "gamer?"
Larry Levy: I think this is precisely the issue, Ryan. It isn't that hard to get people to play games; lots of people play games. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that the games they play bore many of us (and I emphasize that I'm saying "many", not all). I'm not sure if the object of a gateway game is to make other folks into "true gamers", but I think it usually is to expose them to some designer games and let them see there really is life after Monopoly and Trivial Pursuit.
When looked at like this, you can see why so little mention has been made of party games. For the most part, party games are *terrible* gateway games, because they don't really lead to any other kind of games. I just don't see exposing a group of friends to Taboo, having a rollicking good time, and then saying, "Now you guys are ready for
Ticket to Ride!" Because they're no more ready than when you originally sat down.
Party games are probably best when dealing with the type of individual I was talking about in an earlier post--the true non-gamer, who very rarely plays games at all. Party games will at least let him realize that some games actually are fun ways to spend some
time. Maybe this will make him more receptive to learning other kinds of games. But more likely, it will just mean he wants to play more party games.
By the way, I think Scotland Yard is a fine gateway game, as long as you're dealing with a crowd that doesn't mind thinking a bit (a pretty big if). But if that isn't a problem, it should work very well in that role. Of course, Scotland Yard is a German game (1983
SdJ winner).
Ted Cheatham: This may be a little off the topic but, reading Ryan’s note made me think about us transitioning people into gamers. I am not sure that a gateway game necessarily does this at all. How many times have people that are in the gaming community talk about Settlers being the gateway game that got them to German games? This was simply an introduction of a new genre to other gamers. I actually introduced Euro games to a Magic player. He loved them. Later, I introduced him to miniature war gaming and now, that is his true love although he will still gladly play Euro games. But, at the heart of it, he was still a gamer. So, yes, I am sure there are many converts out there who have seen the light and become true gamers with the use of gateway games. But, I really want to add another definition to the concept. And, that is the “my spouse will play it” game. A great gateway game meets the definition that I can get my wife to sit down and at least try it because it is fun, fairly quick, to the point, and not a lot of “take that”. So, to the reverse, what is not a gateway game? More than 90 minutes, German text on anything, easy to explain and get into, and fun.
Ian Mackey: Between Ryan's post and Ted's response got me to contemplating my own transition into gamerdom. For me, it was about three years ago, and yes, it was Settlers. Some close friends of ours had recently been introduced to Settlers and asked me whether I had heard of the game or not. When I replied I had not, they were surprised seeing as to how well they knew me and 'knew' it was something I would be interested in. Well of course I was, I had grown up as many of have playing lots of cards games with my family and typical Parker Brothers fare, graduating to Axis and Allies in high school which was all 20 years ago. So I conclude in personal introspection that my inner gamer was freed by exposure to an interesting game that rekindled a long lost childhood love of games. Soooo are gamers ever converted, or are they just awakened?
Larry Levy: Neither, in my case. It was just a matter of waiting for the games I had been looking for all my life to be designed!
Tom Vasel: For me, the catalyst for my transitioning into games was the internet. With the advent of great informational sites like www.boardgamegeek.com, I was able to find out information about games that I hitherto had known nothing about. GAMES magazine and the occasional glimpse of a board game in a specialty store in the mall intrigued me a bit, but the internet stirred up my love for these games more than anything else.
That's why I think the internet should have plenty of sites that are user friendly. With more and more people who are getting web savvy each day, sites that slowly draw them into gaming should be prevalent and friendly. I have my list of top games to present to people, led by the great Ticket to Ride; and since I meet so many people online, it's critical that the web be a place where they can learn about the wonder that is our world of board games.
Larry Levy: Well, as I said, I was already a gamer at heart. But my first real exposure to German games also came from the Internet. In 1998, Games Magazine was talking about these strange new designs and listed a few web sites to check out. The first chance I got, I navigated over to The Game Cabinet and was completely and blissfully overwhelmed. I spent the next six months absorbing just about every piece of information listed there. The rest, as they say, is history.
Mike Siggins: Tom, are you saying you weren't a gamer till you found the Geek? Why were you looking for it?
Tom Vasel: Okay, that's perhaps incorrect wording on my part. I've always been a gamer. But I've never had the passionate fire about games until I discovered just how many of them there were! Before BGG, I thought that perhaps there were 1000 board games in the world, tops. Now I know differently.
As to why I was looking for the Geek, it's because I saw Axis and Allies: Europe in a store and was wondering what it was like. A search on the internet found a review at BGG.
Morgan Dontantville: I've really spent some time trying to figure this one out. I'm going to say that I'm going to camp somewhere between Ryan and Ted.
My feeling is that the title of gateway game is used far too broadly. I feel that there are a number of factors to consider when introducing people to our hobby.
1. Have people really played games?
Some people haven't, and you are in a sense introducing these people to a whole new concept. Sometimes you have to remind people that this is done for fun. There are people that try something out for the first time and think that they have to win. If they don't, they think that the results are that they are being judged as being intellectually deficient.
People feel exposed and put out. They feel that the results of their actions become a direct reflection of their inabilities.
There are elements that they never conceived of like taking back a turn if they don't like what they did, asking for help, table talk & rules questions. People don't like looking or feeling stupid; and if they feel that they are doing well, they don't want other people
to be given an unfair advantage over them by using any of the mentioned aids.
These people sometimes feel that the game is unfair to them and take things very personally, whether there is a take that element of any sort, or if the game is
unforgiving toward poor decisions.
2. Do people want to play games?
Some people don't. Some people don't like movies. Some people don't like reading. Some people don't like sex.
You just have to accept that some people just don't like games.
3. What are people's experience?
What games have people played before? Hearts, Trivial Pursuit, Axis and Allies, Scrabble. What did they like? Find out. What didn't they like? This is even
more important to find out.
4. Are people curious?
This, to me, is the most important thing in introducing games to people. I know this seems obvious, but people overlook this. If people want to play games they will let you know. If they express this desire then it will be much easier to introduce real gaming to them.
If your husband or wife doesn't like games, never liked games, isn't interested in playing with you, and when s/he sees them could care less about them and feels that they are just clutter, I suspect that it is going to be a heartbreaking journey if you want to try
and "convert" him/her. More than likely, it will only create friction and waste time and energy.
That said, I feel that when the stars are aligned (as stars often do) you can then move on. Here are the two most important things to introducing games:
1. Get people excited about playing. Find themes that they are interested in and talk about playing before actually attempting to play. Discuss elements of the games - components, length, viciousness, downtime, interactivity and complexity. Find out what they might like, what they might not, this saves a lot of time and disappointment. Forewarned is forearmed. More importantly this is to get people hyped up and willing to learn and play the games. Also, it gives people the ability to make educated choices in a field that they know nothing about. This gives people the illusion of control (which, as we all know, is what most of us need when we play games). Foreplay is essential.
2. Explain to people that learning the rules is part of the process. Many people are lost at the rules, not just because the rules take a while, but because they didn't know that they would have to invest time and energy into understanding systems.
Once those grounds are covered you can often play most anything.
~FIN
And that's it for this time, folks! Hope you enjoyed it!
Musings On...
Edited by Tom and Laura Vasel
October 30, 2005
www.thedicetower.com
| Back to the
main page! |