4 ms·

When I have opened up this debate among friends, your counter point is the one brought up the most. I think they can learn taking turns and accepting outcomes

When I have opened up this debate among friends, your counter point is the one brought up the most. I think they can learn taking turns and accepting outcomes while making decisions, even if at the start those decisions are random. Even if I concede that Candyland has a place in the progression, kids jump past it so fast I wonder if it is even worth including. Thanks for reading and responding, though.

jerf 16y ago
How do you plan on addressing the problem of the result of the game being a forgone conclusion if you include meaningful choices, pretty much by definition of "meaningful"? That's the core of my point, not really the learning or discipline bits, and there's a certain mathematical inevitability about it; choices -> adults winning against young children. Or having to throw the game, and kids aren't dumb, they notice that.
- kragen 16y ago
  What if the game incorporates so much randomness that the best possible decisions still only win two games of every three against the worst possible decisions?
- JoshTriplett 16y ago
  Don't play as adversaries, then. The original article suggests a simplified role-playing game, where the adult effectively just implements the game mechanics and acts as a GM. You don't have to structure it like an RPG, but any game with meaningful choices that remains balanced will have a similar structure: the adult implementing a game for the kid. That's not "throwing the game", that's redefining the idea of the game. Consider that the job of a GM isn't to beat the players by any means possible, but to make a fun game with the right level of challenge. In an adversarial situation you'd call that "throwing the game". But in a game where the GM simply implements the game mechanics, they just act as an infinitely flexible interpreter of desired actions and generator of sensible results. In other words, you've implemented a single-player game for the kid(s). That said, I do think "games" like Candyland have a place; they're just really uninteresting as games. They do something interesting and allow interaction. So do toys that light up or make noise when you interact with them. Candyland demonstrates a structured form of interaction, and a concept of game rules (moving your token according to defined rules rather than just marching it across the board as you please). Calling it a "game" is a stretch, but that doesn't make it worthless.
  - jerf 16y ago
    Actually, I'd pretty much agree with you wholesale. The only thing I'd further add is that there should be both adversarial and non-adversarial gaming in the mix. There is a certain element of maturity building you get out of adversarial "gaming" with Candyland that non-adversarial gaming either can't introduce, or will have a much harder time introducing, and vice versa.
  - bengarvey 16y ago
    Josh nails it here. The whole reason I created Dungeon Adventure was because I didn't like the "no choice" games and the adversarial choice games couldn't engage both of us. Connect4 against a 4 year old is fun a few times, but then gets old. My simple RPG allowed me to have fun building the dungeon and setting up the scenario and my daughter has a blast smashing the monsters, collecting the treasures and saving the day. Kids that age really respond to following a story, which isn't available in any board game I've come across. As far as decisions, there are tons even without introducing extra things. You have to: 1. Decide which hero attacks which monster (gang up vs spread attacks out strategies) 2. Decide which paths to take through the dungeon 3. Decide which heroes get which items you find. 4. Decide when to buy and use food Could we fix Candyland? I would give the kid 4 cards to hold in their deck and let them choose a card to play each turn. At the end of each turn you draw another from the top so you always have 4. You'll learn all about taking turns and following directions while seeing how your choices affect the game. I just fixed Candyland. You're welcome, Hasbro.
    - JoshTriplett 16y ago
      The game "Sorry" has a similar variant in the manual, listed as "for adults": instead of drawing a card and immediately using it, you keep a hand of cards and draw one and play one each turn. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorry!_%28game%29#Variations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorry!_%28game%29#Variations . Doing the same with Candyland would make sense once the players know how to play the basic game.
Vivtek 16y ago
Well, obviously you have a good relationship with your 3yo if she enjoys playing an adversarial game with you, but not all kids are the same. My son is 12 and still enjoyed Candyland and Chutes and Ladders as late as last year (while also starting to like Clue and Monopoly). The risk-free social aspect of a non-game game like Candyland is really important for some kids; it's really more of a role-playing situation for the whole social dynamic of playing a game in a small group than anything else. My daughter, now, with her you're right - she tired of Candyland pretty quick. As everything with kids: it depends on the kid.

jerf 16y ago

How do you plan on addressing the problem of the result of the game being a forgone conclusion if you include meaningful choices, pretty much by definition of "meaningful"? That's the core of my point, not really the learning or discipline bits, and there's a certain mathematical inevitability about it; choices -> adults winning against young children. Or having to throw the game, and kids aren't dumb, they notice that.

kragen 16y ago
What if the game incorporates so much randomness that the best possible decisions still only win two games of every three against the worst possible decisions?
JoshTriplett 16y ago
Don't play as adversaries, then. The original article suggests a simplified role-playing game, where the adult effectively just implements the game mechanics and acts as a GM. You don't have to structure it like an RPG, but any game with meaningful choices that remains balanced will have a similar structure: the adult implementing a game for the kid. That's not "throwing the game", that's redefining the idea of the game. Consider that the job of a GM isn't to beat the players by any means possible, but to make a fun game with the right level of challenge. In an adversarial situation you'd call that "throwing the game". But in a game where the GM simply implements the game mechanics, they just act as an infinitely flexible interpreter of desired actions and generator of sensible results. In other words, you've implemented a single-player game for the kid(s). That said, I do think "games" like Candyland have a place; they're just really uninteresting as games. They do something interesting and allow interaction. So do toys that light up or make noise when you interact with them. Candyland demonstrates a structured form of interaction, and a concept of game rules (moving your token according to defined rules rather than just marching it across the board as you please). Calling it a "game" is a stretch, but that doesn't make it worthless.
- jerf 16y ago
  Actually, I'd pretty much agree with you wholesale. The only thing I'd further add is that there should be both adversarial and non-adversarial gaming in the mix. There is a certain element of maturity building you get out of adversarial "gaming" with Candyland that non-adversarial gaming either can't introduce, or will have a much harder time introducing, and vice versa.
- bengarvey 16y ago
  Josh nails it here. The whole reason I created Dungeon Adventure was because I didn't like the "no choice" games and the adversarial choice games couldn't engage both of us. Connect4 against a 4 year old is fun a few times, but then gets old. My simple RPG allowed me to have fun building the dungeon and setting up the scenario and my daughter has a blast smashing the monsters, collecting the treasures and saving the day. Kids that age really respond to following a story, which isn't available in any board game I've come across. As far as decisions, there are tons even without introducing extra things. You have to: 1. Decide which hero attacks which monster (gang up vs spread attacks out strategies) 2. Decide which paths to take through the dungeon 3. Decide which heroes get which items you find. 4. Decide when to buy and use food Could we fix Candyland? I would give the kid 4 cards to hold in their deck and let them choose a card to play each turn. At the end of each turn you draw another from the top so you always have 4. You'll learn all about taking turns and following directions while seeing how your choices affect the game. I just fixed Candyland. You're welcome, Hasbro.
  - JoshTriplett 16y ago
    The game "Sorry" has a similar variant in the manual, listed as "for adults": instead of drawing a card and immediately using it, you keep a hand of cards and draw one and play one each turn. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorry!_%28game%29#Variations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorry!_%28game%29#Variations . Doing the same with Candyland would make sense once the players know how to play the basic game.

Vivtek 16y ago

Well, obviously you have a good relationship with your 3yo if she enjoys playing an adversarial game with you, but not all kids are the same. My son is 12 and still enjoyed Candyland and Chutes and Ladders as late as last year (while also starting to like Clue and Monopoly). The risk-free social aspect of a non-game game like Candyland is really important for some kids; it's really more of a role-playing situation for the whole social dynamic of playing a game in a small group than anything else. My daughter, now, with her you're right - she tired of Candyland pretty quick. As everything with kids: it depends on the kid.