It's always fun to get a game, if you're a gamer. In fact, in this column we'll give you a free "Apples to Apples"[tm] variant and a discount on an RPG book. But first, let us think of others.

There are some people (friends, relatives, co-workers) who really deserve a good game. Equally, there are some you should simply skip. Sadly, some bad apples just don't deserve a good game. They waste it, let it languish unplayed-- then malign you for your bad taste in 'unplayable' items.

Bad Apples

It's a crime to give, say, "Settles of Catan"[tm] to a relative and find it unopened years later. Or give "Dino Hunt"[tm] only to find the kid never played the game, just stared at the cards then gave up. All this is because many bad apples don't get that "game" does not equal "passive media". Games require a kick-start to get them rolling.

When I've given a good game, often I am told months later that the kids "didn't like the game". Translated, this means "since games are kid stuff, I just tossed the box at the kids and they never got into it."

Well, duh. Toss a chess set at a bunch of 9 year olds and very, very few will pick it up, figure out the rules, play, and think "wow, deep!" But play a child once or twice and they'll be hooked.

Games are not television. You can't just hand the game to a kid to get them out of your hair. Arguably, you shouldn't just hand a TV to a kid either, but that's a separate parenting essay.

The dangerous part of the 'games are for kids' mentality is it leads to bad parenting. The 'bad apple' parent scenario goes like this:

1. Games are for kids
2. We got a game for Christmas
3. So I (the parent) give the game to the kids to play by themselves

This loses out on so many levels. First, gaming between parents and children is fun, and also leads to communication and greater family peace.

Second, there are a lot of great games that are slightly beyond a typical child's ability-- when starting out. A nine year old learning Monopoly[tm] by opening the box is not a good scenario, yet everyone raves about Monopoly as a family game. Sometimes, though, you have to jolt parents into playing new games, not just what they know.

Learning about Apples

The best way to learn a game is either playing with someone who knows it, or playing with someone who is motivated to learn it. That's all you need, but that is beyond far too many bad apples.

Learning a game has three steps. The first is fun-- opening the box! Pulling out the board and pieces! Oohing and aahing about it!

Next comes the rules. This one step is where it is so very handy to have a clueful person around. And if not clueful, just confident. When my daughter opened up 'Cadoo'[tm], the group stared at the pieces... until one girl said "I know how to play this!" It turns out she didn't-- but that didn't matter, because her stepping forward was the ice-breaker that unlocked the group's frozen inertia and got them warmed up about playing (hey, I'm allowed one extended metaphor a year).

Games are a social activity. While not every game is "Monopoly" (thank goodness), every new game really does need a 'Banker' sort, someone willing to get things set up and sort out the rules during playing. A leader, in short.

For RPGs such as D&D, that person is the GM. They not only moderate the game session, but really they're the cheerleader that gets the group going in the first place. I think even boardgames need a 'GM', at least to get them going.

Roleplaying an apple

Most of the bad apple cases seem to be with board games, and this may be for two reasons. First, that very few people buy an RPG 'cold' for a person-- if they buy it, they already play it.

And second, alas, fewer people buy RPGs than buy board games. But RPGnet is for RPGers, so it's safe to say at least some folks here might be interested in RPGs as gifts, particularly for children.

For RPGs and tabletop, National Games Week is trying to push the family-social aspect of games. Some publishers are aiming to support the kid market-- Faery's Tale (from Firefly Games, co-authored by me) fits this bill.

But these all state 'family games', not 'games to toss to kids to keep them quiet'. The quiet stage comes later, after they've learned the game. This requires either a kid who has already played, or *gasp* an adult.

Later this month, we're printing Roleplaying with Kids (by myself, Mike Holmes and Sam Chupp, and including 'Shadows' by Zak Arntson, special pre-order discount price of $9.99 until Dec 15). This tackles a lot of the issue, heck, the fears adults and parents have about playing RPGs with both young kids and teens. But note the title-- "with Kids", not 'for Kids' or 'to keep Kids out of your Hair'.

So games aren't just for kids, but kids do need a push start to get going with any decent game. Since games are social, though, once started they provide a way to interact with others in a fun way. There's even a term for this, it's called 'gaming'. Clever, eh?

House Apples

A prime example of the social aspect of games is house rules and house variants. The little quirks groups add to a game, from 'put taxes on Free Parking in Monopoly[tm]' up to 'let the wookie win'. House rules establish a group identify in the sense that this is how we play.

You can even make up totally new ways to play a game. Here's a variant of "Apples to Apples"[tm] from Out of the Box games. If you haven't played AtA, first, go buy it. It's great.

Bear in mind, the first time I saw it I nearly passed it by, until a staffer at the booth convinced me to sit in on a play session. I bought 2. The copy I gave my sister has (in her estimate) lead to 5 sales alone, from friends who tried it at her house then bought it. It's a great example of Young's Law, often paraphrased as 'games are sold by word of mouth'.

The core game mechanic of A2A is: one player is judge and tosses out an adjective card (say, 'Noisy') and each other player tosses out whichever noun card they have they hope best fits (e.g. 'Elephants', or 'Balloons', or whatever they can muster). The judge shuffles the choices, picks one, and that player gets the point. The role of 'judge' moves over 1 player and you repeat. It's great.

The variant we made is "Apples to Apples Gin Rummy", variant by myself and Kim D.

1. Deal out a hand of 7 to each player.
2. The rest of the deck is face-down to draw from, with 1 card turned up to start the 'discard' pile.
3. Play is as per gin rummy-- on your turn, you can pick up from the discard pile or a new card. You can pick up as far deep into the discard pile as you want, but you have to take all the cards above the card you pick as well. You also must play the chosen card (unlike when you draw blind off the deck).
4. You play out cards in groups of 3. If 3 or more cards are a match, you can play them. Matches are placed in front of you, face up. You can also lay down cards to add to other people's visible matches.
5. Play ends when someone gets rid of all cards in their hand. You get 1 point for each card you've played, minus one for each left in your hand.

The trick with A2AGR is what a 'match' is. For a regular deck of 52 cards, matches are either same number or a straight. For A2AGR, a match is... whatever you can convince the others is valid.

So you can lay down, say, 'Birds', 'Kittens' and 'Dogs', and declare the category "Pets". Assuming the group lets it pass (worst case, do a vote), now anyone can add a pet-like card to it.

The above examples are with the A2A Jr cards. Since A2A cards are more detailed, the groups can get very clever. Dead Presidents, Thug Life, Gothic, anything you think is valid is worth trying.

Like any good game, this one is as much fun to play as to win.

And like any social activity, be careful who you play it with. My variant co-author tried a game with her friends, and it was the first time they nearly came to blows in an argument.

Good games, serious stuff-- and perfect for kids!

Until next year,
Sandy Antunes
sandy@rpg.net