Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Family Games and Take-That rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

Do you normally associate the word "family" in "family game" as a game for younger kids?

If so, would you look for take-that elements in a family game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
veector wrote:
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

Do you normally associate the word "family" in "family game" as a game for younger kids?

If so, would you look for take-that elements in a family game?


For me family games means a game that can be played with the lower spectrum of the suggested age group printed on the box.

As for the "take-that" mechanic, I stay away from those when we play with my wife's family. We play lots of co-op games instead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Look on my works ye mighty and despair
United Kingdom
Huddersfield
West Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
veector wrote:
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

Do you normally associate the word "family" in "family game" as a game for younger kids?

If so, would you look for take-that elements in a family game?


Absolutely. My nine year old nephew and his mates loves take that elements in games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Austin Andersen
United States
Berrien Springs
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think if you are going to have a take that mechanic in a game, it is best suited for games where you play with people you are close to, good friends or family. Having said that, I don't think take that is necessary for a good family game. For me when someone says a game is a family game, it makes me think the subject matter is generally non-violent and has artwork with sexual imagery.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
American in Chile
Chile
Temuco
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I consider a family game to be one that children and adults can play together. This would not include children's games, which adults might play with their children, but would not play without them. And, yes, some family games can have take-that elements. How much an adult should do to a child is an individual matter, based on the emotional maturity of each child. But, in my experience, children love doing it to each other and to adults. Some just have a little more difficulty learning to take it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan
United States
Hellertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Hello there
badge
Hello there
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What fun is it playing with family if you can't make them pay and laugh at their expense? This is essential to gaming with my family. My wife and daughter play exclusively to gang up on me. Even my daughter (who is 7 and has been gaming for years) has a good laugh when I totally mess up her entire game plan. I'd be more unsure of playing a take that game with people I'm less close to.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K S
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand a "family game" to be an innocuously themed (or themeless) multiplayer (3+) game with relatively lightweight rules, a playtime of 90 minutes or lass, and gameplay that children and adults can both enjoy separately (i.e. all-children or all-adults) as well as together. I would not make any assumptions about what particular mechanics are involved, and I wouldn't be surprised by the presence of take-that elements.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C M
msg tools
mbmb
When I was a kid we played games where players smacked each other around all the time and the adults playing would quite happily destroy the younger players. Back then it was called character building.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carthoris Pyramidos
United States
Centennial
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Games with take-that elements are preferable if the goal is to inculcate a sporting attitude, winning and losing with equal grace. You can't build your strength by lifting a feather.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samo Oleami
Slovenia
Ljubljana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
veector wrote:
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

For me "take that" has a very specific meaning. Namely - card game with rules/effects written on cards, most of which go in effect when played and some of these effects hurt other players.
(Munchkin, Gloom, Monopoly deal card game).

Or do you mean just games where it's possible to attack other players or hurt/destroy their positions?

Quote:
Do you normally associate the word "family" in "family game" as a game for younger kids?

No.

I play games with kids on gaming workshops - from 6 to 18 y.o. in municipal centres (kids from poor families, bad grades, often both, sometimes just friends of those kids). Games BGG thinks are "family games" are WAAAY too complex for us. Our ceiling (most complicated games that get steady rotation) are - TTR (original), Survive, Forbidden Island and King of Tokyo (this one interests kids enough they were able to learn some of them rules).
Turns out - there are games which are playable with 6 y.o. kids and our average 16 y.o. is only willing to play those same games.

Quote:
If so, would you look for take-that elements in a family game?

Absolutely!

Our workshops are framed as "learning of social skills" and being able to handle losing (and winning), being able to stand being attacked, it's all part of our curriculum.

For take that game in the narrow sense we have Monopoly Deal (only one translated in Slovene).

Otherwise games with attacking we have are actually pretty popular. More with boys, but some have universal appeal.
- Bang the Dice game - big hit. It's team based, so it's nice as kids have to accept different co-players to favour, not just their usual circle of friends.
- Rumble in the House. This is just player elimination. Of sorts. But with hidden ownership of figures. Bigger hit than I expected.
- Cash and Guns - just in the well behaved groups or with older kids. Personal vendettas can get in the game which isn't nice. With a proper atmosphere worked fine actually (and adults being the first ones to get eliminated, how quaint. Props to boys - they will not shot girls. So one girl at the table has a chance of winning. Two girls and it's a massacre... )
- King of Tokyo - big hit, even if a bit rules heavy (for us)
- Survive! - rarely played as it's complicated, but works fine.

Occasional games with such elements: Walk the plank (can be complicated), Get Bit! (psychology is hard)

veector wrote:
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

Which ones?! I have to find some new games for next year's workshop. laugh
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgosaric wrote:
veector wrote:
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

For me "take that" has a very specific meaning. Namely - card game with rules/effects written on cards, most of which go in effect when played and some of these effects hurt other players.
(Munchkin, Gloom, Monopoly deal card game).

Or do you mean just games where it's possible to attack other players or hurt/destroy their positions?

Quote:
Do you normally associate the word "family" in "family game" as a game for younger kids?

No.

I play games with kids on gaming workshops - from 6 to 18 y.o. in municipal centres (kids from poor families, bad grades, often both, sometimes just friends of those kids). Games BGG thinks are "family games" are WAAAY too complex for us. Our ceiling (most complicated games that get steady rotation) are - TTR (original), Survive, Forbidden Island and King of Tokyo (this one interests kids enough they were able to learn some of them rules).
Turns out - there are games which are playable with 6 y.o. kids and our average 16 y.o. is only willing to play those same games.

Quote:
If so, would you look for take-that elements in a family game?

Absolutely!

Our workshops are framed as "learning of social skills" and being able to handle losing (and winning), being able to stand being attacked, it's all part of our curriculum.

For take that game in the narrow sense we have Monopoly Deal (only one translated in Slovene).

Otherwise games with attacking we have are actually pretty popular. More with boys, but some have universal appeal.
- Bang the Dice game - big hit. It's team based, so it's nice as kids have to accept different co-players to favour, not just their usual circle of friends.
- Rumble in the House. This is just player elimination. Of sorts. But with hidden ownership of figures. Bigger hit than I expected.
- Cash and Guns - just in the well behaved groups or with older kids. Personal vendettas can get in the game which isn't nice. With a proper atmosphere worked fine actually (and adults being the first ones to get eliminated, how quaint. Props to boys - they will not shot girls. So one girl at the table has a chance of winning. Two girls and it's a massacre... )
- King of Tokyo - big hit, even if a bit rules heavy (for us)
- Survive! - rarely played as it's complicated, but works fine.

Occasional games with such elements: Walk the plank (can be complicated), Get Bit! (psychology is hard)

veector wrote:
I've recently seen reviews for a couple of games described as "family" style games that have lots of take-that elements.

Which ones?! I have to find some new games for next year's workshop. laugh


1 - Take that in the sense of any attack that can be directed at multiple opponents.

2 - Black Fleet, Jamaica, Get Bit, Survive

The main area of concern for my question is given the concern that many parents have over the sometimes arbitrary nature of attacks and punishment in some games, I'm always surprised that take-that comes up as a desirable mechanism in family games. Indirect conflict is usually something I prize in games for younger gamers until they're of an age to understand how to deal with losing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Carthoris wrote:
Games with take-that elements are preferable if the goal is to inculcate a sporting attitude, winning and losing with equal grace. You can't build your strength by lifting a feather.


I agree, but kids games usually go with a more egalitarian spirit and I'm surprised that these "family" games go straight to direct conflict.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samo Oleami
Slovenia
Ljubljana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
veector wrote:
The main area of concern for my question is given the concern that many parents have over the sometimes arbitrary nature of attacks and punishment in some games, I'm always surprised that take-that comes up as a desirable mechanism in family games. Indirect conflict is usually something I prize in games for younger gamers until they're of an age to understand how to deal with losing.

Just give kids tools to attack adults and eliminate them and everything should be ok.

Kids (we have) need to feel that the adults aren't in advantage, that they can beat them and they'll regulary gang up on us if that's possible.
(Probably mom would win more such games than dad... )

We play a lot of speed games and while there's no attacking it's quite competitive.
(I ruled Jamaica out of our roster as we found it too rules heavy and strategic (long term planning)
Quote:
Indirect conflict is usually something I prize in games for younger gamers until they're of an age to understand how to deal with losing.

When a game is all about collecting or building something I find potential disruption much more difficult to stomach then in all out direct competition games. ("it's mine and now other people destroy it").

King of Tokyo and Bang Dice Game work well as the attacking is controlled. In KoT it's restricted to attacking into or out of Tokyo, so kids didn't take it personally. Bang the Dice game is team based (and if you're eliminated you can still win). Rumble in the House has secret ownership of figures.

Survive does allow for (temporary?) alliances/partnerships.
Get bit is for me tricky as it demands a bit more abstract thought of predicting other players.

In conflict oriented games of this type I would:
a) create a light hearted atmosphere
b) whenever a problematic situation would emerge or bad feelings would happen I would stop the game and talked about it.
In particular I'd like to have an atmosphere where everybody gets jurt occasionally so kids can notice it's not targeted or personal, but it's how this game works.
Quote:
Indirect conflict is usually something I prize in games for younger gamers until they're of an age to understand how to deal with losing.

I had 6 y.o. throwing temper tantrums and threats(!) over a game of Spot it! And it was the most nicely dressed and seemingly polite kid.

It's all part of upbringing I'm afraid.
Stressful situations happen and adults are supposed to offer a sort of compass through them. If they can't handle this at the age of 8, how are they supposed to handle it at the age of 15? Suppressed anxiety? The fictional situation of gaming is exactly so we don't take it too seriously. But maybe sometimes is better for kids to play these games amongst themselves? (if they don't overreact. then adult is next to the game, not to play, but to moderate).
veector wrote:
I agree, but kids games usually go with a more egalitarian spirit and I'm surprised that these "family" games go straight to direct conflict.



My childhood had a lot of free play, outside of many kinds.
And ... we hated each other's guts.
Occasionally.
We played along with one another occasionally as well.

It's all part of growing up.
Elimination of stress just means lack of proper reaction when stress will eventually come, but it's nice to guide through stressful situations.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I like things arnmod
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My favorite family games when a kid were Sorry and Uno. They don't have take that, exactly, but we used to relish causing harm to our siblings (Draw Four Wild! anyone?)

On the other hand I know a family whose Settlers of Catan game ended in tears, and they will never play again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I like things arnmod
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgosaric wrote:

My childhood had a lot of free play, outside of many kinds.
And ... we hated each other's guts.
Occasionally.
We played along with one another occasionally as well.


Free play: The original negotiation/social deduction/take that/bluffing/hidden role game.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.