4 ms·

I'm not sure if there's a name for this type of game, but it's purely luck based (pick a card, move to that spot), and.. I kind of hate it. Unfortunately my 5 y

I'm not sure if there's a name for this type of game, but it's purely luck based (pick a card, move to that spot), and.. I kind of hate it. Unfortunately my 5 year old doesn't. I found a variation that makes it tolerable though: pick two cards each turn, then choose one. Adds the tiniest about of strategy, and makes it not 100% luck. Hopefully useful to anyone else whose kid was gifted this game.

joe-collins 6y ago
Mark Rosewater, head designer for Magic: The Gathering, argues that specifically because of that total lack of agency, Candy Land doesn't even meet the definition of a game. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/what-game-2018-06-04 https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/w...
- schoen 6y ago
  It's interesting to me that this piece doesn't explicitly mention Wittgenstein's discussion of the difficulty in defining a game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance since there might be no particular thing that all things that we call games have in common with each other. It's also interesting that in Rosewater's sense, many casino games and other gambling games aren't games because you also can't meaningfully affect their outcome. (I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that these aren't fun in the same way or for the same reason as games that give you agency...)
  - gregmac 6y ago
    > many casino games and other gambling games aren't games because you also can't meaningfully affect their outcome I've never really thought about it, but it is definitely why I hate slot machines, in particular. The only exception to that is the first time I was in Vegas with my wife, when I was there for a conference and she tagged along to gamble. On our last (5th?) day there, she was incredulous that I hadn't gambled at all and finally I jokingly said "ok fine, here, I'll throw away a quarter if it'll make you happy!" and put it in the nearest slot machine. I won $50.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
panzagl 6y ago
At least with Candyland you can stack the deck to not drag out too long. Cootie had me looking at youtube videos on how to set dice to end the agony quicker...
wcarey 6y ago
I think the term is a zero player game, where the initial configuration of the game determines the outcome. The card game War is another one. They’re good for teaching the mechanics of game playing without requiring the cognitive burden of strategic choice.
airstrike 6y ago
I was having a similar argument with some relatives about the game Sorry! the other night. Yes, you get to pick which piece you want to move after drawing a card, but 90% of the game's outcome is determined entirely by chance
- clwk 6y ago
  Sorry has enough decisions for children to discover that it’s not just luck, though. You certainly can play to lose if you want to, for example. Discovering that there is strategy within what seems mostly luck is actually useful for learners.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Sure, but when 5/6 people around the table are over the age of 30, it seems like a silly game to play...
- calebkaiser 6y ago
  You should try playing Joker: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31770/joker-marbles https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31770/joker-marbles I played it growing up with a friend's family. It's awesome. It's a race game similar to Sorry!, but with some key differences: - You play in teams, which adds a whole new dynamic. - You maintain a hand of cards (people play differently, usually 5-7). - You cannot jump your own piece (and you must fit your pieces into your "base" perfectly). As a result, there are multiple layers of strategy, and the team dynamic makes the entire game more social and fun.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Thanks! That definitely sounds like an improvement so I might grab it soon
Someone 6y ago
The name is “lottery”. It isn’t a fair lottery, though. The player moving first should have an advantage (probably quite small, I guess).

joe-collins 6y ago

Mark Rosewater, head designer for Magic: The Gathering, argues that specifically because of that total lack of agency, Candy Land doesn't even meet the definition of a game. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/what-game-2018-06-04 https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/w...

schoen 6y ago
It's interesting to me that this piece doesn't explicitly mention Wittgenstein's discussion of the difficulty in defining a game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance since there might be no particular thing that all things that we call games have in common with each other. It's also interesting that in Rosewater's sense, many casino games and other gambling games aren't games because you also can't meaningfully affect their outcome. (I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that these aren't fun in the same way or for the same reason as games that give you agency...)
- gregmac 6y ago
  > many casino games and other gambling games aren't games because you also can't meaningfully affect their outcome I've never really thought about it, but it is definitely why I hate slot machines, in particular. The only exception to that is the first time I was in Vegas with my wife, when I was there for a conference and she tagged along to gamble. On our last (5th?) day there, she was incredulous that I hadn't gambled at all and finally I jokingly said "ok fine, here, I'll throw away a quarter if it'll make you happy!" and put it in the nearest slot machine. I won $50.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

panzagl 6y ago

At least with Candyland you can stack the deck to not drag out too long. Cootie had me looking at youtube videos on how to set dice to end the agony quicker...

wcarey 6y ago

I think the term is a zero player game, where the initial configuration of the game determines the outcome. The card game War is another one. They’re good for teaching the mechanics of game playing without requiring the cognitive burden of strategic choice.

airstrike 6y ago

I was having a similar argument with some relatives about the game Sorry! the other night. Yes, you get to pick which piece you want to move after drawing a card, but 90% of the game's outcome is determined entirely by chance

clwk 6y ago
Sorry has enough decisions for children to discover that it’s not just luck, though. You certainly can play to lose if you want to, for example. Discovering that there is strategy within what seems mostly luck is actually useful for learners.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Sure, but when 5/6 people around the table are over the age of 30, it seems like a silly game to play...
calebkaiser 6y ago
You should try playing Joker: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31770/joker-marbles https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31770/joker-marbles I played it growing up with a friend's family. It's awesome. It's a race game similar to Sorry!, but with some key differences: - You play in teams, which adds a whole new dynamic. - You maintain a hand of cards (people play differently, usually 5-7). - You cannot jump your own piece (and you must fit your pieces into your "base" perfectly). As a result, there are multiple layers of strategy, and the team dynamic makes the entire game more social and fun.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Thanks! That definitely sounds like an improvement so I might grab it soon

Someone 6y ago

The name is “lottery”. It isn’t a fair lottery, though. The player moving first should have an advantage (probably quite small, I guess).