Are There Board Games to Suit All (or Most) Moods and Occasions?

Over the last 25 years, the board game hobby has seen revolutionary change. Before the mid-1990s, board games could have been categorized in two basic groups. On one hand, there were casual-player games like Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Scrabble, and Trouble, which were available in toy stores and big-box stores everywhere; they were ubiquitous and well-known, but not always highly regarded. Conversely, there were decidedly esoteric games that involved complicated rules and many chits. These included railroading games and war simulation games. Rare were the games that straddled both camps; games such as Axis & Allies and Fortress America were two examples of games that involved complex rules, but still somehow inserted themselves into the public consciousness. (Note that I'm not including role-playing games or collectible card games in this discussion.) Then, in 1995, a curious game called Settlers of Catan was published, followed by El Grande (1996), Tikal (1999), Carcassonne (2001), and Ticket to Ride (2004), along with a plethora of intriguing titles. These games ushered in a new era of games that populated a middle ground between casual board games and esoteric board games, combining relative complexity with accessibility and aesthetic craftsmanship. They could be somewhat easy to learn by casual players, intricate enough to engage old-school esoteric gamers, and be downright beautiful on the table. Nowadays, the games on the market exist as a testament and response to the increasingly-demanding standards of consumers that expect artistry, well-written and test rules, and theme.

Despite the revolutionary transformation of the board game hobby, there is one question that is as prevalent as ever: are there board games that are suitable for all people and all occasions? Obviously, the answer is a resounding "No," so the question we should ask is, "Are there any games that come close?" To that query, the answer is a resounding "Maybe." Before you form your own mental list of games to suit most occasions, let me share with you some questions that I ask myself when I prepare to host or attend any gathering, whether it's a board game day, a birthday party, or just an extended family gathering.

Before I continue, one useful metric (or better or worse) to which I refer that is available for each game on boardgamegeek.com is the Weight of the game. Users rate games on a score of 1 (Light) to 5 (Heavy). Though I'm not a fan of quantitative scores for qualitative information, this metric is good enough for you to compare games. It has also been very handy for informing my game-buying decisions when thinking about my family. Note, however, that the ratings were entered by hobby gamers; what they think is "Light" might be a little heavy for the non-gamer. As a rule of thumb, I consider games between 1 and 1.5 as "a little challenging for non-gamers, but not too bad," between 1.5 and 2 as "requiring some hand-holding and more explanation," and between 2 and 2.5 as "requiring the patience and guidance of an expert if this person has any chance of gleaning any fun from the session." Oh, and for games at 3 or higher... well, I'd stay away from those until your would-be gamer has had a few sessions with the "gateway games."

Who is invited to the game session?
The most crucial question you can address is the composition of your invitee list. Do you have board game enthusiasts, non-gamers, or people who fall somewhere in between those two groups? Did you invite people who actually do not like games? Depending on who is attending, you have to assess your game collection and determine which games match your invitees. For casual gamers, skew towards 2 or under. For your enthusiasts, aim for at least a high 2 (2.8, for instance).

What's the occasion?
Barring the possibility that your event is a dedicated board game session, your invitees will not be mentally prepared to break up into separate groups and game tables. I have found that people mostly want the freedom to intermingle and talk to many different people. For the gamer host, this can be frustrating, but you have to think about the people; usually, when people hear "Party," they think of everyone interacting with each other, not tables in different rooms for focused gaming. Thus, games that involve (almost) everyone are more readily accepted.

Beyond that, consider the purpose of the session. Is it a birthday party? Maybe choose party games like Codenames (1.3), Taboo (1.22 -- yes, I said Taboo), or Pictionary (1.24). Is it a family gathering of aunts and uncles? Once again, party games or games that involve more than eight people are effective in engaging the entire group. Are two families with four or fewer members (each) present? Then, consider a game like Seven Wonders (Weight: 2.3) that involves simultaneous play or team games like Secrets (Weight: 1.27).

Do any of your invitees NOT like games?
This is a tough one because one unenthusiastic person can stymy any attempt at a game. At best, that one person will wander in and out of the room as they bounce between the refreshments table and your game table; at worst, he or she will distract the table with side comments and scuttle the session. In either case, the person is neither trying to be awful nor trying to sabotage the game; for whatever reason, he or she just doesn't like games. Maybe it's because of a childhood memory, or maybe it's because they're not competitive. Whatever the case, this person has yet to have a favorable experience with games.

With individuals like this, there may be NO game that suits them, but that shouldn't stop you from organizing a game. Give advance notice to your invitees that you will organize a game; then, take the non-gamer aside and ask him or her to participate. If your attendee declines, then offer the freedom of observing. For your reluctant gamer type, skew towards simpler games at a Weight of 2 or less. Among the best at that Weight for large groups include Codenames, Dixit (1.2 -- especially the Odyssey edition), and One Night Ultimate Werewolf (1.4). A lesser-known game with a traitor element is Saboteur (1.33).

How much time do I have?
If your gathering is not a dedicated gaming session, then only a portion of your scheduled time will be committed to board games. With this in mind, aim for shorter games. Another data point that you find on boardgamegeek.com is Playing Time, which assists you in determining a suitable game for your gathering. However, I recommend adding 50% more time to that; for instance, a game with a Playing Time of 30 minutes may actually take 45 minutes because of setup and instruction. Generally, select a game that fits well under your projected play time.

***

Thanks to Board Game Geek's website, you can answer the question of "Are there any games that come close to suiting all occasions?" based on Playing Time and Weight with a fair degree of confidence. In my experience, I have found that a confluence of medium Playing Time length (1-2 hours) and a Weight between 1 and 2.5 often ensures that the games you choose will target most audiences. Simpler gateway games like Codenames and Dixit have been easy to teach and fun for gamers; slightly more complex "Next Step" games like 7 Wonders have required a bit more teaching and guidance, but have won over people and turned casuals into nascent gamers. Will such games enthrall esoteric gamers? Well, games that fall in this confluence of data points should entertain them enough outside of a dedicated board game night, but they may become withdrawn and slightly resistant if your game night consisted of games with a Weight of less than, say, 2.3, though I would concede that this is not a rule.  It is indeed amazing how Board Game Geek data points can help in selecting games...

Yet, if you would prefer to trust your own knowledge and intuition, just imagine the perspective of each of your would-be participants. In the past, I have often relied on hunches in selecting games. I have made mistakes, but those mistakes were borne more out of my inability to understand the other person's perspective than out of a lack of effort or information. In other words, you truly have to put yourself in that person's position. Imagine being a non-gamer and what that feels like. It's easy: simply think about a hobby you don't like and then extrapolate from there. If you succeed, you'll understand how boring, unexciting, or daunting board games can be to such a person. After all, these are feelings and thoughts I have when I think about, say, building sheds or scrapbooking (which are NOT bad hobbies at all; they're just not my hobbies). Once you can conceptualize those feelings, you discover that you can choose games that are not-so-painful for the non-gamer.

Rules Discussion: The Flop

A nice little mechanic in any game is the ability to draw from the discard pile. Gin Rummy is a classic example of using the discard pile as a resource, but there are numerous games that actively draw from the discard pile. A few that come to mind are 7 Wonders (which allows you to pull from the discard pile by activating the ability on certain Wonder boards), Magic (which, like it or not, set a lot of standards for modern gaming), and even Twilight Struggle (which allows it with a couple of key cards).

Now, I should differentiate the discard pile from the "flop" because the flop is there for people to draw face-up cards, but the discard pile is intended to be the landing place for played cards or cards that were discarded because of a game effect. Ticket to Ride, Core Worlds, Star Realms, many of the Cryptozoic deck-builders, and Poker are exemplars of games that employ flops for drawing.

Anyway, do you have a favorite game that involves discard pile drawing?

Reflecting on Board Game Geek's Top 20 Strategy Games List

I want to write briefly about Board Game Geek's Strategy Game rankings, to which I've linked in this post. As far as I understand it, the Strategy Game rankings are based on user ("Geek") ratings, but I think those ratings are sometimes overly influenced by popularity and not influenced by the quality of the game enough. Here are some random thoughts about the top 20 games:

• Twilight Struggle does belong at number 1! That's NOT disappointing; what was disappointing is that, for a while, Caverna was challenging for the top spot.
  
• Caverna is higher than Agricola, which (besides just being the flavor of the month) doesn't make sense because Caverna is much more of a sandbox game. Sandbox games do require strategy as you need a plan to go in a direction towards victory, but Agricola seems to constrain the player more than Caverna. In my opinion, constraints challenge players to be creative and to truly consider possibilities and choose the most efficient, expeditious path. Thus, I would put the non-sandboxy Agricola over the sandbox Caverna, given that both games are otherwise strikingly similar (i.e. worker placement, resource gathering, and resource conversion to items that score victory points).
  
• Puerto Rico is at number 5, which redeems this list because though the game does have a bit of a linear progression of how roles are played, this game really challenges players to "get on the train" of progression at the right time and to put your opponents into a position of not playing certain roles because they know that those roles would benefit you.
  
• Conversely, I don't believe that Power Grid should be at 11 without having games like Ticket to Ride up there with it. Call it personal opinion, but Power Grid isn't that much more strategic than Ticket to Ride and is actually quite less accessible. Ticket to Ride earns its classic status because it can be played as strategically and cutthroat as you want.
  
• Caylus is still hanging on at 15, but many reviews I've read have rendered that game outmoded by subsequent worker placement games that superseded it. Despite that, this proves that older, "simpler" games can win out over the new kids in town.
  
• I really enjoy 7 Wonders, but does it really belong at number 16 for Strategic Games? I would definitely put it high up there for Family Games...

As you go further down the list, the games listed make less sense. I suppose that my disappointment lies in the fact that the user votes are counted from the beginning and remain, which means that though some games stay on the list based on the strength of past votes, newer games may pass them because people are conscious of the voting system and what it takes to vote one game over another. I don't know how to rectify this, but many older games should remain at the top; those games didn't become less strategic over time. I would argue that though one may argue that older games were "simpler," they were also eminently strategic and tactical. Look at chess, which should really be near the top of this list (though it's considered an "abstract" game on BGG).

Board Game Cleanup 2: 7 Wonders

Two years ago, my oldest son asked for a certain game for Christmas that he had seen on sale at Target. At the time, he and his brother were learning about the seven wonders of the ancient world, such as the Colossus of Rhodes, the Library at Alexandria, and the Pyramids of Giza. Initially, I knew little of the game, but I started reading reviews about it and was somewhat intrigued, but not entirely enthusiastic. Anyway, I proceeded to watch a playthrough done by Rodney Smith at Watch It Played and found the game to be acceptable from a gameplay and content standpoint, so my wife and I purchased it. Needless to say, my son was happy to receive it.

As some of you gamers out there may have guessed even before seeing the images I inserted in this entry, the game was 7 Wonders. Like many board games and card games out there, 7 Wonders is a turn-based card game, but it is divided into three distinct periods of technological development called "ages." During each age, players can deploy resource-generating cards and (with the correct resources) build structures through a kind of drafting component: each turn, you choose a card from a hand and then pass the hand to the person on your left (during Ages 1 and 3) or your right (during Age 2). As you establish your resource base and build structures and technologies, you can also choose to develop your Wonder, which is one of the seven wonders (or others, if you purchase the expansions). Without going too much into the rules, the object of the game is to score the most points (no surprise), but each turn is fast-paced because there is no down time waiting for someone to decide what to build; everyone decides at the same time.

In any case, there are numerous reviews and playthroughs out there. Needless to say, 7 Wonders is exceptionally fun and a favorite game of my family, but (as with Eminent Domain) I discovered two cards that were somewhat questionable with their art: Baths and Altar. In the Baths card, we see a depiction of the backs of two nude women preparing to bathe; in Roman times (or probably in Japanese onsens), I'm sure that it was commonplace for only women to bathe without clothing in the women's bath. In the Altar card, there is a priestess in a gossamer-thin frock sacrificing something to a deity; the garment suggests that there is nothing else under that garment.

Baths: an Age I card

Both cards depicts situations that may have happened in certain historical periods, but, as a father in an oversexed world, I don't understand why such art would be necessary to convey the concepts of baths or altars. In my opinion, even relatively sterile images of a bath or an altar in isolation would be suitable. Instead, the game producers saw fit to feature scantily-clad women (if clad at all). If anything, such images could send a young boy's imagination racing, and these games are played by boys and men (as well as some girls and women). What were the game illustrators thinking? What were they really trying to convey? Honestly, I'm not sure and it really doesn't matter what was intended; I just know that I'm not comfortable with those images in a family game.

With that in mind, I did what I've done with my other games: I found replacement art that I cropped in Photoshop and pasted over the original art. I don't have the image files of my replacement art, but I can say that the image I used for the Baths was a modern-day photograph of a Roman bath with a grainy filter to give it a textured look. For the Altar cards, I chose the image of an Israelite high priest with an ephod standing before an altar. Taking some care to crop the images to fit, I pasted the images to the cards and placed the cards into sleeves. With decks of sleeved cards, any modified card blends into the other cards. However, I did make the mistake of not adding indicative numbers to the pasted images, which show for what numbers of players cards should be used (for example, cards marked "6+" are to be included in six-player games, as well as all cards marked with lesser numbers).

Altar: an Age I card

As you may have gathered, my immediate reaction to finding those cards wasn't to throw away or sell the entire game. Instead, I thought about how significant the cards were. Because the images were on four cards that were only small parts of the gameplay, I felt that image alteration would be sufficient. I try to be judicious in purchasing games for myself and my family; if a game has strategic or tactical elements that are personally off-putting or morally offensive, I don't buy the game. Likewise, if I know that the game has some visual elements that are somewhat racy or inappropriate, I won't buy the game. Would I have purchased 7 Wonders, though, if I had known those images were in the game? Perhaps, especially if I had a plan for cleaning the game of those images.

Let me conclude with my opinion of sexuality in games: I don't see the need for it, whether it's suggestive imagery or some tactic that involves sexual attraction or seduction. I also don't see the need for scantily-clad women (or men, to some extent); having such images in games trains boys to look at women as objects. What I'm saying seems like a blanket statement (I have spent much time pondering this issue and could write at length about it, but I won't write on end for brevity's sake), but I think that our world has a major issue with objectifying women and yet holding women to impossible physical standards. Why have images of near-naked women in a board game? My advice: be wary and be prepared to reduce or eliminate anything untoward lest our children be shaped by the influences of the world at-large.

Why Families Need Board Games, Part II: Reinforcing Personal Contact

My wife told me an intriguing story. During her visit to the dentist, she overheard a young girl asking her father if she could play a game on his cellular phone. My wife described the girl as being "whiny," which seems to be the chosen tone of many children. At the same time, my youngest son devoured 11 chapters of a book. Upon first hearing this story, one may not find anything that intriguing, but to me this story reinforces the importance of disconnecting from the digital and connecting to others and with concrete objects in the "real." Indeed, personal contact is one way in which board games will save the world, but the strongest impediment might be games of another kind...

The most salient trend in gaming is how games become more and more intricate and engrossing for the player: games are now more complex, more visually appealing, and more portable than ever. Games look sharper and crisper, and set the challenge bar high enough with less cheese than in the past; with games like Plague or Bad Piggies, players benefit from engaging graphics, top-notch sound effects, and enough detail and complication to occupy even the most jaded gamer. Also, gone are the days of needing a Game Gear or Game Boy or even having to pay money for cartridges; just get a smartphone or a tablet, download a free game app, and one can play most games anywhere and only have to tolerate the periodic advertisement. People can play everything from first-person shooters to virtual board games; one of my gaming buddies even played Ticket to Ride for the first time... on an iPad! No longer do you need game realia (such as game pieces or dice), console, cartridges, or even opponents; the computer can provide an opponent or opponents anytime, anywhere.

Considering the convenience of computer games now, plugging into the digital world is somewhat more appealing than whipping out a game board or game books, and finding "experienced" players is easier now that computer intelligence and game programming can frustrate veteran players without the skulduggery inherent to old video games, such as spotty hit detection. However, people are now, more than ever, tempted to disconnect from others. Many video game and computer game players may now be less apt to challenge live opponents, let alone engage a human being in conversation. Sure, people that play online RPGs can connect with players through a chat window or by audiovisual communication, but it all happens in a world disjointed from reality. 

We are becoming more isolated and separated, but this is one trend that board games can restrict. By taking out a board, some pieces, and some cards, one is required to find human opponents. Once one finds human opponents, one has to communicate with these opponents, whether it be friendly conversation or playful, competitive banter. One has to move pieces, read rules, and manipulate realia to make the game happen. People's brains take back the role computers have stolen from our unsuspecting grasps; their brains make the "graphics" move, our eyes ingest and admire the game pieces, and our hands carry these items from game table to game table. Board games anchor people in reality, while stimulating conversations, compelling players to match wits with organic foes, and even driving us to go out and find those foes.

As the "world" pulls us farther and further apart, seducing us with a hyper-reality of bright colors and endless opponents whom we would never have to befriend, it creates the illusion of interconnection with social media sites like Facebook and Twitter and deceives us into believing in our self-reliance. We buy into the idea that we don't need other people; we just need a computer. Yet, people are alone in their offices, chatting with each other through screens. It all seems so (William) Gibsonesque a la Neuromancer, but we need to touch each other; we need to touch this world. So, next time, instead of playing Ticket to Ride on a tablet, or asking Daddy for his smartphone, take the board game with you. Play Yahtzee in the doctor's office or Fluxx on the train. Invite your friends or even ask friendly passengers around you to play. We need personal contact; the "world" cannot overwhelm us if we (dare I say) stick together.