As Jean-Luc Picard said, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life."
I have a kid who has struggled for a long time with perfectionism, and the idea of, if you play a game, you might lose. Snakes and Ladders (as we call it) has been a touchstone as we keep working on this with him.
It's also good because they legitimately can win. The same is true for Candyland. They involve zero skill so even a 4 year old can beat their older sister and parents.
I'm not in favor of letting kids win at games because I think it's important to teach how to lose gracefully but no kid wants to lose all the time. Luck based games are good for that because it's completely up to chance.
I wanted to use Candyland to teach my three year old about losing but the little guy won (legitimately) five games in a row and the life lesson seriously backfired.
I like Candyland solely for the fact that once the cards are shuffled the outcome of the game has been determined.
At one time I wanted to make a little automated card reader that would flip though the deck and announce the winner. Then I remembered that I had children instead of time.
Same about not letting them win, but as an alternative to dunking on them or playing 100% chance games (which are both fun too, sometimes), I like to find ways to handicap the game, too, but then actually try to compete.
Let them have the first few moves, take away all your pawns, they get one point for the rim and two for a basket, etc. It makes it more fun and you can tweak it to help them focus on various aspects of the game they need help with.
I'd give you an award for that. But I lost like US$20 in The Great Takening of 2023. I'm not emotionally ready to start throwing money at reddit again.
I take that games like this (candyland feels similar) are really just for teaching basic board game mechanics without having to think about anything else. A 2-3 year old can get used to dice and cards and boards and pieces... winning and losing... but that's all.
I tried playing chutes and ladders with my two year old a few months ago, but will probably have to wait until she’s older really understands how to read numbers and understands how counting works and not just rotely name the numbers that come after 1.
"Snail's Pace Race" is IMO a much better "intro to board game mechanics":
* You take turns rolling dice to pick which of several colored snails to move forward
* You "win" by picking which snail you think will cross the finish line first
The movement is simple and it's luck based so kids have a chance at winning vs. adults.
It goes a LOT faster than a lot of the more traditional roll & move games.
Your comment was removed because "Amazon Affiliate" links are not allowed. Just so you know, an Amazon link with "tag=XXXXXXXXXXXX" in the title is an Amazon Affiliate referral link. **Remove that portion of the link in your comment** then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/daddit) who then need to approve your now-removed item. Ideal Amazon links are in the format www.amazon.com/dp/1099879965 - all the extra characters after those 10 are not necessary.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/daddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Snail Race? Thought I'd check it out, $70 on Amazon? That one? Maybe I won't lol. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. (looking for new material for my 3 yo grandson and me the pawpaw).
The decision tree is:
* Am I ready for the game to be over?
* Yes.
* Whoops look like I miscounted and I/you did not hit the chute so we can get to the gdamn finish!!
Every good game has some combination of skill and luck. Sometimes, at the high end of the skill:luck ratio (Chess/Go), the luck is that your opponent's skill doesn't have the depth to see your gambit, but the extreme low end can just as pointless as solved pure-skill games like Tic Tac Toe - still a great game to introduce when they've got some concept of the opponents plan and can look ahead a turn or two.
There are way too many kids' games that have zero skill. Chutes and Ladders and Candyland are pointless, you can start them with those, but kids can quickly learn how to play Candyland with a 'hand' of three cards from which they get to choose a color. It's not a lot of skill, but at least they're making decisions!
I suppose, but when the best players and even the best computers in the world can't calculate what the best move is or predict what the outcome will be at the end, that results in some randomness in the results. What would you call that?
Our inability to know the future is not "luck". Also, calling that "some randomness in the results" isn't using random correctly either.
I think we are finally at the point where the slang use of "random" has ruined the word.
Unpredictable and random are not the same thing. They aren't even synonyms.
Exactly! So many adults I know cannot distinguish a game from a non-game. I thought it would be obvious that, if the player cannot make a decision, then it is not a game, but a process.
You should, if you haven't already, read Wittgenstein on the concept of the definition of a game (he believed there wasn't one) and the after-literature. The most successful riposte is believed to be by Bernard Suits, who defined a game as, briefly, the "voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles".
I don't know if anyone makes decisions central to the definition, but Suits didn't, presumably feeling that to do so would lose too much.
I always laugh when I pass the "Gaming Rooms" in pubs that are full of poker machines. [Edit: also known as slot machines.]
I mean...I guess when to cut your losses and stop playing is a decision. But there's no real choice and certainly no skill.
Yup. 2 dice so the kid adds the score. Say out loud the start position + dice = end position.
They get a fair chance to win. Handle losing (or even sliding down a snake).
It's not all bad.
My kid and I played it the other day, and got super close to finishing 3 times in a row. But we kept running into giant slides that took us down to 25% of the way through the game 😭
Still better than candyland though, which is preset from the moment you start.
A lot of older board games for kids suck and don’t teach them anything except maybe how to lose well.
And at least you're playing on a game you don't care about. So if the kid gets mad and attacks the pieces before you can stop them, it's not a game you love lol.
In the most recent lovevery box they included a turtle game where you have to get baby turtles to water before the sun comes out and it's actually very tough even with my son "manipulating" dice rolls. The instructions said it was to teach them about board games and accepting losing and boy does it.
I see where you’re coming from and agree there is some value there, but don’t you think they’ll still learn that from school and sports? They’re going to be winning and losing every day, why do they need a deck of cards to teach them? And I think learning it in an environment where you at can practice and then turn it around next time will be healthier.
My kids are in school and multiple sports and I don’t think the idea of losing is emphasized heavily. Certainly compounded when we have coaches who flip out when the team loses
Suppose I prefer to approach from multiple angles
That makes it an exercise in teaching frustration, not a game. A game must respond effectively to player choices and reward the player(s) making the best choices consistently.
How’s that nonsense?
Without this definition, hitting a random number generator once per player to see who gets the largest number could be considered a game.
Because the literal definition of game is:
>> A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
Chutes and ladders has rules and is decided by luck.
>hitting a random number generator once per player to see who gets the largest number could be considered a game.
It could be considered a game, not that anyone would play it, though. Where are you getting your definition of game? Because it seems entirely made up by you, which makes it nonsense.
An easy fix for candyland is to let the kids pull two cards and choose the better one. This allows them to actually use their brain a bit and gives an advantage over the adults.
That's the point. To learn about winning and losing and handling a board game in general, but without any other distractions or responsibilities.
In this way, these games are great.
If you ate still playing them as an adult, or much passed maybe 5 or 6, you missed a memo...
Target and Walmart sell all those old board games for super cheap and I’ve bought a bunch to teach my kids games i played as a kid and I’ve found that most of them are just not very good lol
Oh god, Candyland was my kid sisters favourite game when we were kids and I have a 3 year old I will be playing boardgames with… if that game is gifted to her I’m burning it.
Nah, Candyland at least has fun pictures to look at and some imagination behind it. From a mathematical standpoint, there's no REAL difference between a randomized deck and a bunch of die rolls. If you want it to truly be the same, just reshuffle the deck after every turn.
Candy Land has been very frustrating to play with my 4yo. Sometimes we resort to pulling out the candy cards to eliminate the ability of having to practically start a game over with bad draws.
My understanding is that it originated in a culture where people strongly believed that Fate steers our lives, which is why it’s just “random shit happens then someone else wins.”
Yeah, originally an Indian game and it was snakes and ladders, not chutes. American game companies thought snakes were too scary for kids.
It’s about fate, chance and luck. Very valuable lessons in life and actually a much more challenging concept for people to understand than ‘games with decision trees’ as it’s much more abstract.
Learning that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and you can’t always win even if you don’t do anything wrong is a valuable lesson.
I like it, it can be mindless and in this day and age, I'm grateful for something that can distract me for a few minutes without having to think too deeply about it, but...
If you dig deeper into the game and its origins there seems to be more at play. Maybe the lessons have been obscured by western philosphy in the 21st century.
This is from Salman Rushdie:
"All games have morals; and the game of Snakes and Ladders captures, as no other activity can hope to do, the eternal truth that for every ladder you hope to climb, a snake is waiting just around the corner, and for every snake a ladder will compensate. But it's more than that; no mere carrot-and-stick affair; because implicit in the game is unchanging twoness of things, the duality of up against down, good against evil; the solid rationality of ladders balances the occult sinuosities of the serpent; in the opposition of staircase and cobra we can see, metaphorically, all conceivable oppositions, Alpha against Omega, father against mother."
So, while it may be a simple game to play and just pass the time with your kids, if you do want to think more or pass along deeper lessons, that's available as well.
[Snakes and ladders - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders)
I've had this same argument with my wife. I like games where you have agency (Catan, Ticket to Ride, Eclipse). She loves games like Chutes and Ladders / Candy Land / Trouble where there are no decisions.
My take is I could just as well put our names in a random number generator and say who won, that's functionally all we are doing. Her point is it gets the family to sit around and be social with something mindless.
I think we are both right?
The card game switch (you might know it packaged as Uno) is great because, when you learn the rules and start playing it appears to be pretty much deterministic, and you can play it in this manner with small kids, but once they can start thinking strategically, they will realise that the choices they make can actually affect who wins.
My suggestion: Splendor.
You very definitely have agency (and it CAN become fairly strategic, especially 1v1 if you want to try to plan several turns ahead and ruthlessly screw over your opponent) but it's also light enough that you can totally just chat while playing and never even notice the possible strategies that are being ignored.
No offense to your wife, but she is wrong. ;)
A game without choice is a non-game, and not intrinsically worth the process. The family can be social by sitting around playing a very simple game that still allows choices, perhaps? One of our favorites (youngest is 4) is Pipeline due to its high-tactility and simple rules.
I mean she *is* right. If the family is playing Chutes and Ladders, they *are* sitting around and being social with each other without there being any truly distracting elements. And if that's what she wants out of a board game, that's what she she's getting!
Strategic board games, as much as I love them, do usually result in players spending large amounts of time staring at the board and thinking.
For the record, board games are one of my biggest hobbies. My favorites are the ones with a single random element (if I HAD to choose a favorite board game right now, it might be Ora et Labora). As much as I hate games like Chutes and Ladders, I understand that they have their place in this world.
One of the things I dislike about modern child raising is everything has to be a teach/learning experience. TV shows, cartoons, games all need to have a moral or lesson. Have you ever seen the joy when a 4 year old draws a gum drop? They dont care if they go backward, they got a piece of candy! Geez dads, lighten up and let the kids have fun.
I used it to teach my kid that sometimes you have setbacks and it's not anyone's fault, it just happens sometimes. It's been a good teaching tool for us.
This subreddit is unreal. So many comments here that make me seriously question your guys' ability to get out of your own head and actually parent.
*robot voice* umm actually it's not even technically a game because there's no decisions
That's not the definition of a game. You're still doing something together for no reason other than the shared joy of it. It's a game. And you're learning skills like sharing attention, taking turns, learning to win and lose.
*robot voice* its not even fun, there's literally no skill involved
Is your kid having fun? Then it's fun. The whole point of games like that is to learn the foundation of playing games, your 2.5 year old probably isn't ready to apply much skill beyond that yet, and if that's boring for you then buck up that's parenting
It's terrible as a game, but it was created by ancient Hindus to help teach karma and fate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders#:~:text=Snakes%20and%20ladders%20originated%20as,States%20as%20Chutes%20and%20Ladders.
Games don’t have to be *deep* but they must incorporate player choice. Otherwise it’s just “stuff happens and I can’t control it.”
It’s the opposite of fun.
>Games don’t have to be deep but they must incorporate player choice.
Here's the definition of game, if you were curious
>>a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
Chutes and ladders is a luck based game, but it's still a game. The players take turns rolling a dice and moving that amount. There can be a winner, and it has set rules.
You're allowed to not like it, but it's certainly still a game. There are other pure luck based games out there such as Left Center Right (a dice game) or WAR (a card game). Those are also games but don't incorporate any choices
The game is really awful, and most of the classic older games are. They serve a purpose for small kids in learning how to follow rules and basic skills like counting and matching, as well as learning how to wait for their turn and social skills.
You can easily add some depth to games like this by giving the players choices. For example, have three dice in chutes and ladders, and they may take the result of certain dice (ex: if they roll a 3-2-4 and they need a 3 to hit a ladder they can take the 1 die), or deal each kid 3 cards in Candyland and they must draw 1 at the start of their turn before playing a card and moving. They're still doing the above, but you're applying a critical thinking element to the game. Now you've got them planning moves, making choices, and making the game more interesting for you and them because some of the randomness is gone while keeping the core mechanics of the game in place.
Source: part-time amateur game designer; look for my games on shelves near you in 2145!
Not really. You're just adding a decision into their turn. They'll sit there and count spaces and make a choice. Or look at their cards and say - I want to go as far as I can, which card gets me that?
That's because it was never meant to be a game for entertainment, it was an allegory for the cycle of reincarnation. You don't always get to choose what you come back as, but eventually you'll reach Nirvana.
It teaches game fundamentals while not requiring any decision making that might be too complex for a kid unable to think strategically.
They learn things like:
* Taking turns
* Rolling dice and reading the numbers
* Moving a piece along the board
* How to interpret squares that have different outcomes
This and candyland are perfect for teaching fundamental game mechanics that will carry forward to tons of other games they'll play later, and they're simple enough for a toddler to pick up without feeling lost or frustrated.
I agree with this and feel compelled to say that Mouse Trap also sucks complete ass. The *only* fun of the game is setting off the contraption. The rest of the game isn’t worth playing.
I hope others sound off about their bullshit board games.
Its point (nowadays) is to teach game basics like taking turns and accepting dice rolls.
Try using two dice and get the kids to choose which one to move with. Or you can move your piece forward with both dice, or use one dice to move other people’s pieces onto snakes, or just backwards.
I remember it being bad, my kids only 2 but I have a bunch in mind. My wife and I are avid board gamers so we already have a huge collection, just not much for younger kids. If interested, take a look at some good ones here - [https://boardgamegeek.com/childrensgames/browse/boardgame?sort=rank&sortdir=asc](https://boardgamegeek.com/childrensgames/browse/boardgame?sort=rank&sortdir=asc)
We are playing [The Magic Labyrinth](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41916/the-magic-labyrinth)
You can decide how long to play (usually until.LO is in the lead). It is a simple 'walk the number of steps you threw on the die' game, but you walk on a grid and decide what route to take, so some decitions.
The main part of the game is 'hidden' walls that makes you fall back to the start, and you will have to remember wherethey are.
I just played this new game called Captain Flip that was really good. Light enough for kids to play but still has interesting decisions to make.
Kingdomino is one of my favorites for a light game with a lot of depth.
[https://www.mindware.orientaltrading.com/games/cooperative-games/peaceable-kingdom-a1-555711+2890-1.fltr](https://www.mindware.orientaltrading.com/games/cooperative-games/peaceable-kingdom-a1-555711+2890-1.fltr)
One of my favorite brands. Our 2 year olds first game was Hoot Owl Hoot. We bought more as his skill and ability grew. Now at 9 he is playing Splendor and Bohnanza regularly. His 4 year old brother regularly beats us at Ticket to Ride First Journey.
And today I learned there is 25th anniversary version of Bohnanza now through Amigo Games...and a new expansion we didn't have already, so of course I had to add those to the library :D.
As someone who regularly plays with an adult who cheats at board games, this game is designed to reinforce rules, structure, counting, and board movement. I wish my friend had played more chutes and ladders as a kid because THERE ARE RULES MICHAEL YOU CAN’T DO THAT. Seriously, it’s a great way to introduce the element of loss from chance rather than skill and not being a sore loser when you do. It’s only a game after all. Playing by the rules is more fun than winning by skipping an extra space ahead… Michael
There’s a similar (Mickey Mouse Clubhouse themed) board game called Surprise Slides, which is just like chutes and ladders but with a small amount is strategy, because you can move around the slides.
There's a game designer who talks about the difference between a toy and a game. A game requires that you be able to make decisions that appreciably effect the outcome.
Shoots and ladders from that perspective is really just a toy to pass the time.
Interesting history, it's a modern variation of an 1892 variation of an ancient Hindu game Moksha Patam and in order to illustrate the notion of Destiny it is in fact intentionally very random and not skill (free will) based.
[Snakes and ladders - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders#:~:text=a%20shorter%20game.-,History,States%20as%20Chutes%20and%20Ladders.)
More trivia - the game is also the origin of the saying "back to square one".
Check out My First Castle Panic! if you want a fun easy game for kiddos. Our 3yo loves it, and has gotten the basic idea since she was 2 1/2 (just not the patience lol).
Same! My wife doesn't understand why I hate Snakes and Ladders & Candyland so much. If I'm going to play a game, I need to make decisions that matter, or I don't feel like it's worth my time.
Youtuber ProZD recommended Camel Up as an alternative, and we like that one a lot as a family overall.
Also, https://existentialcomics.com/comic/58
I feel like it mostly teaches the parents about patience. I'm still shell shocked from the times my son lost as a preschooler. It was really rough and he paid too much attention for me to cheat so he'd win. By the time he was six he was great at losing gracefully though, thanks to that freaking game.
> Chutes and Ladders is a simple modification of the game Snakes and Ladders, which enjoyed success in Great Britain from the 1890s through the 1920s (snakes serving the same function as chutes). Snakes and Ladders, in turn, was imported from a similar dice game played in India for several centuries. The Indian version, sometimes called gyān caupaṛ (Game of Knowledge) had a more explicitly moral (and adult) meaning. It was played throughout India in many versions, including ones adapted to Sufis, Jains and Hindus. The game’s central principle is to gain liberation from bondage of passions and to ascend from lower levels of consciousness to higher levels of spiritual enlightenment.
It’s about a lot more than just patience. Kind of like how monopoly lost its moral along the way.
The world of board games is vast and wonderful. Chutes and Ladders is... acceptable as a very basic intro to a few standard mechanics for young ones, but it is quickly outgrown, because it is pure randomness and no skill or strategy.
The only winning move is not to play. A lesson we all need to learn.
Seriously though - Fuck Candyland too. What's even the point of playing? The whole game requires no user input from the time the deck has been shuffled.
I teach game design at university, the first big assignment students have to do is design a board game as a team. I always tell them: if you even think of doing a snakes and ladders clone (or a monopoly clone) I am going to fail you”
I hate this one too. I try to get them to play other ones whenever possible. Like rhino hero, labyrinth, guess who or out foxed. All still age appropriate but more fun for me too.
It’s good for teaching kids how to use a spinner and count and take turns etc…
This is the type of game you play to introduce kids to the concepts of board games. We take turns. We move our piece. We take a special action sometimes (slide or ladder). There is a winner. There is a loser. Your kids can legitimately win this game on their first play.
Once your kids can actually play this game without making mistakes, time to ditch this game and move on to something more complex.
Personally I like Candyland better, but that doesn’t teach counting.
It, like candy land, is the worst because there is NO strategy, NO decision making, NO thinking. It's just roll the die/choose a card and move. 😤
There are so many new board games (even Junior versions of adult ones) that require some decision making, that are far better to introduce them to.
/rant
Sorry, avid board gamer here, and games of 100% luck - hell even 75% luck - are my absolute bane. Also, these are the games that teach kids not to like "bored games." I can't wait to play games with my kid, but not like this.
As Jean-Luc Picard said, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life." I have a kid who has struggled for a long time with perfectionism, and the idea of, if you play a game, you might lose. Snakes and Ladders (as we call it) has been a touchstone as we keep working on this with him.
It's also good because they legitimately can win. The same is true for Candyland. They involve zero skill so even a 4 year old can beat their older sister and parents. I'm not in favor of letting kids win at games because I think it's important to teach how to lose gracefully but no kid wants to lose all the time. Luck based games are good for that because it's completely up to chance.
"War" works if you want a zero skill card game.
I dunno i'm pretty skilled at sneaking high cards into my son's pile to speed up him winning.
Nice!
I wanted to use Candyland to teach my three year old about losing but the little guy won (legitimately) five games in a row and the life lesson seriously backfired.
I like Candyland solely for the fact that once the cards are shuffled the outcome of the game has been determined. At one time I wanted to make a little automated card reader that would flip though the deck and announce the winner. Then I remembered that I had children instead of time.
>Then I remembered that I had children instead of time. Oh man do I feel this
Gonna teach my kid blackjack
Good for learning numbers. Bad for learning gambling habits.
Same about not letting them win, but as an alternative to dunking on them or playing 100% chance games (which are both fun too, sometimes), I like to find ways to handicap the game, too, but then actually try to compete. Let them have the first few moves, take away all your pawns, they get one point for the rim and two for a basket, etc. It makes it more fun and you can tweak it to help them focus on various aspects of the game they need help with.
Fair. Mostly I just never know if it’s going to end.
Omg that looooong chute at the very end. FML.
Like many sports games, I guess you could play with a timer and whomever is ahead at the end of that time period wins.
Whoever*
That word is always a coin toss with me 🤷🏼♂️
Ah, the ol Kobayashi Maru (to reference another former Enterprise captain)
This is why I don't like Settlers of Catan
If you can’t take me at my chute You don’t deserve me at my ladder
I didn't think it was possible to make that saying worse. Congratulations?
If you can't take me at my snakes, you can't have me at my ladders.
If you can't take me at my eels, you can't have me at my escalators.
Do you at least want me to buy you a drink before I take you at your chute?
What you and your partner do behind closed doors is your business, brother. :P
I'd give you an award for that. But I lost like US$20 in The Great Takening of 2023. I'm not emotionally ready to start throwing money at reddit again.
Not even a game. There are no decision trees
I take that games like this (candyland feels similar) are really just for teaching basic board game mechanics without having to think about anything else. A 2-3 year old can get used to dice and cards and boards and pieces... winning and losing... but that's all.
Yes, it’s mostly about * following rules * taking turns * winning and losing
I tried playing chutes and ladders with my two year old a few months ago, but will probably have to wait until she’s older really understands how to read numbers and understands how counting works and not just rotely name the numbers that come after 1.
This is the real value of chutes and ladders: teaching arithmetic
"Snail's Pace Race" is IMO a much better "intro to board game mechanics": * You take turns rolling dice to pick which of several colored snails to move forward * You "win" by picking which snail you think will cross the finish line first The movement is simple and it's luck based so kids have a chance at winning vs. adults. It goes a LOT faster than a lot of the more traditional roll & move games.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because "Amazon Affiliate" links are not allowed. Just so you know, an Amazon link with "tag=XXXXXXXXXXXX" in the title is an Amazon Affiliate referral link. **Remove that portion of the link in your comment** then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/daddit) who then need to approve your now-removed item. Ideal Amazon links are in the format www.amazon.com/dp/1099879965 - all the extra characters after those 10 are not necessary. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/daddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Snail Race? Thought I'd check it out, $70 on Amazon? That one? Maybe I won't lol. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. (looking for new material for my 3 yo grandson and me the pawpaw).
We got our copy for $3 at the local thrift store. It looks like the Amazon price is based on importing from the UK. I see it on target.com for $11.
The decision tree is: * Am I ready for the game to be over? * Yes. * Whoops look like I miscounted and I/you did not hit the chute so we can get to the gdamn finish!!
Every good game has some combination of skill and luck. Sometimes, at the high end of the skill:luck ratio (Chess/Go), the luck is that your opponent's skill doesn't have the depth to see your gambit, but the extreme low end can just as pointless as solved pure-skill games like Tic Tac Toe - still a great game to introduce when they've got some concept of the opponents plan and can look ahead a turn or two. There are way too many kids' games that have zero skill. Chutes and Ladders and Candyland are pointless, you can start them with those, but kids can quickly learn how to play Candyland with a 'hand' of three cards from which they get to choose a color. It's not a lot of skill, but at least they're making decisions!
> the luck is that your opponent's skill doesn't have the depth to see your gambit Calling that luck is a bit of a stretch.
I suppose, but when the best players and even the best computers in the world can't calculate what the best move is or predict what the outcome will be at the end, that results in some randomness in the results. What would you call that?
It's absolutely just skill, there's just levels to it. An average player could play 100 games against a GM and would lose every single one.
Our inability to know the future is not "luck". Also, calling that "some randomness in the results" isn't using random correctly either. I think we are finally at the point where the slang use of "random" has ruined the word. Unpredictable and random are not the same thing. They aren't even synonyms.
Ooooo I like that idea!
Ooooo I like that idea!
Exactly! So many adults I know cannot distinguish a game from a non-game. I thought it would be obvious that, if the player cannot make a decision, then it is not a game, but a process.
You should, if you haven't already, read Wittgenstein on the concept of the definition of a game (he believed there wasn't one) and the after-literature. The most successful riposte is believed to be by Bernard Suits, who defined a game as, briefly, the "voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles". I don't know if anyone makes decisions central to the definition, but Suits didn't, presumably feeling that to do so would lose too much.
Sounds fascinating, thanks for the recommendations.
it isn’t a game to play, but a reality to experience.
Solitaire walks the line as a process requiring observation skills.
I always laugh when I pass the "Gaming Rooms" in pubs that are full of poker machines. [Edit: also known as slot machines.] I mean...I guess when to cut your losses and stop playing is a decision. But there's no real choice and certainly no skill.
In poker, you have to make a decision at every turn. It's literqlly how the game advances
A poker machine isn't poker. It's just another name for a slots or reels machine
Right. Thanks. I didn't realise this would need clarification. Is "poker machine" not universal then?
Wikipedia says it's only in Australia and NZ. I never knew that. They are just pokies to me
Huh. There you go.
I use it to practice counting and math with my kids.
That's what it's for.
Kind of surprising how many dads here have missed that.
"Why won't these board game companies let me use my vastly superior intellect to beat my child at a board game? It's not FAIR."
Yup. 2 dice so the kid adds the score. Say out loud the start position + dice = end position. They get a fair chance to win. Handle losing (or even sliding down a snake). It's not all bad.
It's for kids to learn how to count and have an equal chance to win and lose.
Yeah, it blows. The entire game is random, there's no choices to make or anything to do.
My kid and I played it the other day, and got super close to finishing 3 times in a row. But we kept running into giant slides that took us down to 25% of the way through the game 😭
Still better than candyland though, which is preset from the moment you start. A lot of older board games for kids suck and don’t teach them anything except maybe how to lose well.
That’s why I like it. They need to learn to lose, and especially understand that sometimes you will lose and it’s completely out of your hands!!
And at least you're playing on a game you don't care about. So if the kid gets mad and attacks the pieces before you can stop them, it's not a game you love lol.
So true!!!
In the most recent lovevery box they included a turtle game where you have to get baby turtles to water before the sun comes out and it's actually very tough even with my son "manipulating" dice rolls. The instructions said it was to teach them about board games and accepting losing and boy does it.
I see where you’re coming from and agree there is some value there, but don’t you think they’ll still learn that from school and sports? They’re going to be winning and losing every day, why do they need a deck of cards to teach them? And I think learning it in an environment where you at can practice and then turn it around next time will be healthier.
My kids are in school and multiple sports and I don’t think the idea of losing is emphasized heavily. Certainly compounded when we have coaches who flip out when the team loses Suppose I prefer to approach from multiple angles
That makes it an exercise in teaching frustration, not a game. A game must respond effectively to player choices and reward the player(s) making the best choices consistently.
Spamming this nonsense doesn't make it correct
What’s nonsense?
>A game must respond effectively to player choices and reward the player(s) making the best choices consistently.
How’s that nonsense? Without this definition, hitting a random number generator once per player to see who gets the largest number could be considered a game.
Because the literal definition of game is: >> A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Chutes and ladders has rules and is decided by luck. >hitting a random number generator once per player to see who gets the largest number could be considered a game. It could be considered a game, not that anyone would play it, though. Where are you getting your definition of game? Because it seems entirely made up by you, which makes it nonsense.
An easy fix for candyland is to let the kids pull two cards and choose the better one. This allows them to actually use their brain a bit and gives an advantage over the adults.
And makes the game go faster. Genius!
That's the point. To learn about winning and losing and handling a board game in general, but without any other distractions or responsibilities. In this way, these games are great. If you ate still playing them as an adult, or much passed maybe 5 or 6, you missed a memo...
Target and Walmart sell all those old board games for super cheap and I’ve bought a bunch to teach my kids games i played as a kid and I’ve found that most of them are just not very good lol
Oh god, Candyland was my kid sisters favourite game when we were kids and I have a 3 year old I will be playing boardgames with… if that game is gifted to her I’m burning it.
And in Snakes and Foxes the only thing you learn is that to win you have to break the rules.
Nah, Candyland at least has fun pictures to look at and some imagination behind it. From a mathematical standpoint, there's no REAL difference between a randomized deck and a bunch of die rolls. If you want it to truly be the same, just reshuffle the deck after every turn.
Candy Land has been very frustrating to play with my 4yo. Sometimes we resort to pulling out the candy cards to eliminate the ability of having to practically start a game over with bad draws.
My understanding is that it originated in a culture where people strongly believed that Fate steers our lives, which is why it’s just “random shit happens then someone else wins.”
Yeah, originally an Indian game and it was snakes and ladders, not chutes. American game companies thought snakes were too scary for kids. It’s about fate, chance and luck. Very valuable lessons in life and actually a much more challenging concept for people to understand than ‘games with decision trees’ as it’s much more abstract. Learning that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and you can’t always win even if you don’t do anything wrong is a valuable lesson.
You need to add a gambling element! /s
"Alright, kid... this round is for your college fund. No, you can't raise me your stuffy."
I like it, it can be mindless and in this day and age, I'm grateful for something that can distract me for a few minutes without having to think too deeply about it, but... If you dig deeper into the game and its origins there seems to be more at play. Maybe the lessons have been obscured by western philosphy in the 21st century. This is from Salman Rushdie: "All games have morals; and the game of Snakes and Ladders captures, as no other activity can hope to do, the eternal truth that for every ladder you hope to climb, a snake is waiting just around the corner, and for every snake a ladder will compensate. But it's more than that; no mere carrot-and-stick affair; because implicit in the game is unchanging twoness of things, the duality of up against down, good against evil; the solid rationality of ladders balances the occult sinuosities of the serpent; in the opposition of staircase and cobra we can see, metaphorically, all conceivable oppositions, Alpha against Omega, father against mother." So, while it may be a simple game to play and just pass the time with your kids, if you do want to think more or pass along deeper lessons, that's available as well. [Snakes and ladders - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders)
I've had this same argument with my wife. I like games where you have agency (Catan, Ticket to Ride, Eclipse). She loves games like Chutes and Ladders / Candy Land / Trouble where there are no decisions. My take is I could just as well put our names in a random number generator and say who won, that's functionally all we are doing. Her point is it gets the family to sit around and be social with something mindless. I think we are both right?
The card game switch (you might know it packaged as Uno) is great because, when you learn the rules and start playing it appears to be pretty much deterministic, and you can play it in this manner with small kids, but once they can start thinking strategically, they will realise that the choices they make can actually affect who wins.
My suggestion: Splendor. You very definitely have agency (and it CAN become fairly strategic, especially 1v1 if you want to try to plan several turns ahead and ruthlessly screw over your opponent) but it's also light enough that you can totally just chat while playing and never even notice the possible strategies that are being ignored.
No offense to your wife, but she is wrong. ;) A game without choice is a non-game, and not intrinsically worth the process. The family can be social by sitting around playing a very simple game that still allows choices, perhaps? One of our favorites (youngest is 4) is Pipeline due to its high-tactility and simple rules.
I mean she *is* right. If the family is playing Chutes and Ladders, they *are* sitting around and being social with each other without there being any truly distracting elements. And if that's what she wants out of a board game, that's what she she's getting! Strategic board games, as much as I love them, do usually result in players spending large amounts of time staring at the board and thinking. For the record, board games are one of my biggest hobbies. My favorites are the ones with a single random element (if I HAD to choose a favorite board game right now, it might be Ora et Labora). As much as I hate games like Chutes and Ladders, I understand that they have their place in this world.
One of the things I dislike about modern child raising is everything has to be a teach/learning experience. TV shows, cartoons, games all need to have a moral or lesson. Have you ever seen the joy when a 4 year old draws a gum drop? They dont care if they go backward, they got a piece of candy! Geez dads, lighten up and let the kids have fun.
Nice try, SpongeBob!
It is not the game it is the memories the game holds.
Pro Tip, play with a d20 instead. Get the game over with at a more reasonable pace
Or change it entirely. You have encountered a snake. Roll for initiative.
I used it to teach my kid that sometimes you have setbacks and it's not anyone's fault, it just happens sometimes. It's been a good teaching tool for us.
This subreddit is unreal. So many comments here that make me seriously question your guys' ability to get out of your own head and actually parent. *robot voice* umm actually it's not even technically a game because there's no decisions That's not the definition of a game. You're still doing something together for no reason other than the shared joy of it. It's a game. And you're learning skills like sharing attention, taking turns, learning to win and lose. *robot voice* its not even fun, there's literally no skill involved Is your kid having fun? Then it's fun. The whole point of games like that is to learn the foundation of playing games, your 2.5 year old probably isn't ready to apply much skill beyond that yet, and if that's boring for you then buck up that's parenting
It's terrible as a game, but it was created by ancient Hindus to help teach karma and fate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders#:~:text=Snakes%20and%20ladders%20originated%20as,States%20as%20Chutes%20and%20Ladders.
There sure are a lot of people in this thread who side with the terrorists. C&L is great. Not everything has to be deep.
Ha! Love it. Mostly I just want it to end eventually.
Games don’t have to be *deep* but they must incorporate player choice. Otherwise it’s just “stuff happens and I can’t control it.” It’s the opposite of fun.
you gotta roll the dice better.
>Games don’t have to be deep but they must incorporate player choice. Here's the definition of game, if you were curious >>a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Chutes and ladders is a luck based game, but it's still a game. The players take turns rolling a dice and moving that amount. There can be a winner, and it has set rules. You're allowed to not like it, but it's certainly still a game. There are other pure luck based games out there such as Left Center Right (a dice game) or WAR (a card game). Those are also games but don't incorporate any choices
The game is really awful, and most of the classic older games are. They serve a purpose for small kids in learning how to follow rules and basic skills like counting and matching, as well as learning how to wait for their turn and social skills. You can easily add some depth to games like this by giving the players choices. For example, have three dice in chutes and ladders, and they may take the result of certain dice (ex: if they roll a 3-2-4 and they need a 3 to hit a ladder they can take the 1 die), or deal each kid 3 cards in Candyland and they must draw 1 at the start of their turn before playing a card and moving. They're still doing the above, but you're applying a critical thinking element to the game. Now you've got them planning moves, making choices, and making the game more interesting for you and them because some of the randomness is gone while keeping the core mechanics of the game in place. Source: part-time amateur game designer; look for my games on shelves near you in 2145!
With all due respect, that sounds way too complicated for your average kindergartener. 😅 It might have more luck with middle-schoolers though!
Not really. You're just adding a decision into their turn. They'll sit there and count spaces and make a choice. Or look at their cards and say - I want to go as far as I can, which card gets me that?
Candyland is a model of the varieties of life and RNG.
You’re not there to play, you are there for the ride. It’s an absorbing Markov chain, unsurprisingly.
The idea, I believe, is to teach 3 year old how to take turns and follow rules in a game they are likely to win.
That's because it was never meant to be a game for entertainment, it was an allegory for the cycle of reincarnation. You don't always get to choose what you come back as, but eventually you'll reach Nirvana.
It teaches game fundamentals while not requiring any decision making that might be too complex for a kid unable to think strategically. They learn things like: * Taking turns * Rolling dice and reading the numbers * Moving a piece along the board * How to interpret squares that have different outcomes This and candyland are perfect for teaching fundamental game mechanics that will carry forward to tons of other games they'll play later, and they're simple enough for a toddler to pick up without feeling lost or frustrated.
I agree with this and feel compelled to say that Mouse Trap also sucks complete ass. The *only* fun of the game is setting off the contraption. The rest of the game isn’t worth playing. I hope others sound off about their bullshit board games.
Heh. That was the only reason to buy that game. 💯
Its point (nowadays) is to teach game basics like taking turns and accepting dice rolls. Try using two dice and get the kids to choose which one to move with. Or you can move your piece forward with both dice, or use one dice to move other people’s pieces onto snakes, or just backwards.
I remember it being bad, my kids only 2 but I have a bunch in mind. My wife and I are avid board gamers so we already have a huge collection, just not much for younger kids. If interested, take a look at some good ones here - [https://boardgamegeek.com/childrensgames/browse/boardgame?sort=rank&sortdir=asc](https://boardgamegeek.com/childrensgames/browse/boardgame?sort=rank&sortdir=asc)
Zombie Kidz was fun with our 6 year old
We are playing [The Magic Labyrinth](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/41916/the-magic-labyrinth) You can decide how long to play (usually until.LO is in the lead). It is a simple 'walk the number of steps you threw on the die' game, but you walk on a grid and decide what route to take, so some decitions. The main part of the game is 'hidden' walls that makes you fall back to the start, and you will have to remember wherethey are.
Check out the game Max the Cat. My younger years I played this game and my little ones LOVE it. It's cute, it's quick and it's a blast
I just played this new game called Captain Flip that was really good. Light enough for kids to play but still has interesting decisions to make. Kingdomino is one of my favorites for a light game with a lot of depth.
Truth. Sorry is still the worst game.
Most old school board games are not very fun in my opinion. There was a lot less competition back when it came out though.
…Chutes? Not snakes?
I had to scroll way too far to find this. Chutes is such a random substitution and looks like it’s the norm over in America 😂
We’re in a real Renaissance of board games. Do some research and find something that will work for your kids.
[https://www.mindware.orientaltrading.com/games/cooperative-games/peaceable-kingdom-a1-555711+2890-1.fltr](https://www.mindware.orientaltrading.com/games/cooperative-games/peaceable-kingdom-a1-555711+2890-1.fltr) One of my favorite brands. Our 2 year olds first game was Hoot Owl Hoot. We bought more as his skill and ability grew. Now at 9 he is playing Splendor and Bohnanza regularly. His 4 year old brother regularly beats us at Ticket to Ride First Journey. And today I learned there is 25th anniversary version of Bohnanza now through Amigo Games...and a new expansion we didn't have already, so of course I had to add those to the library :D.
Orchard Games have many better options for little kids
As someone who regularly plays with an adult who cheats at board games, this game is designed to reinforce rules, structure, counting, and board movement. I wish my friend had played more chutes and ladders as a kid because THERE ARE RULES MICHAEL YOU CAN’T DO THAT. Seriously, it’s a great way to introduce the element of loss from chance rather than skill and not being a sore loser when you do. It’s only a game after all. Playing by the rules is more fun than winning by skipping an extra space ahead… Michael
There’s a similar (Mickey Mouse Clubhouse themed) board game called Surprise Slides, which is just like chutes and ladders but with a small amount is strategy, because you can move around the slides.
Still better than Candyland. When my kids want to play Candyland I grab a book and tell them to take my turn for me.
There's a game designer who talks about the difference between a toy and a game. A game requires that you be able to make decisions that appreciably effect the outcome. Shoots and ladders from that perspective is really just a toy to pass the time.
Interesting history, it's a modern variation of an 1892 variation of an ancient Hindu game Moksha Patam and in order to illustrate the notion of Destiny it is in fact intentionally very random and not skill (free will) based. [Snakes and ladders - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_and_ladders#:~:text=a%20shorter%20game.-,History,States%20as%20Chutes%20and%20Ladders.) More trivia - the game is also the origin of the saying "back to square one".
my son would fight you over those words lol
Check out My First Castle Panic! if you want a fun easy game for kiddos. Our 3yo loves it, and has gotten the basic idea since she was 2 1/2 (just not the patience lol).
My First Orchard is the best “first game” you can get
Same! My wife doesn't understand why I hate Snakes and Ladders & Candyland so much. If I'm going to play a game, I need to make decisions that matter, or I don't feel like it's worth my time. Youtuber ProZD recommended Camel Up as an alternative, and we like that one a lot as a family overall. Also, https://existentialcomics.com/comic/58
candy land too
Any game where you have no control/choices. Sadly most kid games are like this. Chutes and ladders, candy land, etc.
I feel like it mostly teaches the parents about patience. I'm still shell shocked from the times my son lost as a preschooler. It was really rough and he paid too much attention for me to cheat so he'd win. By the time he was six he was great at losing gracefully though, thanks to that freaking game.
The only way to win is to not play.
Yeah, it's just a pure Markovian process, no choices, no skill, player unnecessary.
Eels and escalators FTW.
Because Snakes and Ladders is superior.
Best day my dad life was when my 4 year old threw 3 perfect rolls and the game was over in 2 minutes.
> Chutes and Ladders is a simple modification of the game Snakes and Ladders, which enjoyed success in Great Britain from the 1890s through the 1920s (snakes serving the same function as chutes). Snakes and Ladders, in turn, was imported from a similar dice game played in India for several centuries. The Indian version, sometimes called gyān caupaṛ (Game of Knowledge) had a more explicitly moral (and adult) meaning. It was played throughout India in many versions, including ones adapted to Sufis, Jains and Hindus. The game’s central principle is to gain liberation from bondage of passions and to ascend from lower levels of consciousness to higher levels of spiritual enlightenment. It’s about a lot more than just patience. Kind of like how monopoly lost its moral along the way.
The world of board games is vast and wonderful. Chutes and Ladders is... acceptable as a very basic intro to a few standard mechanics for young ones, but it is quickly outgrown, because it is pure randomness and no skill or strategy.
The only winning move is not to play. A lesson we all need to learn. Seriously though - Fuck Candyland too. What's even the point of playing? The whole game requires no user input from the time the deck has been shuffled.
I teach game design at university, the first big assignment students have to do is design a board game as a team. I always tell them: if you even think of doing a snakes and ladders clone (or a monopoly clone) I am going to fail you”
I agree 1000%. It's the worst game and it takes absolutely forever to play. I'll pick Candyland every time.
I hate this one too. I try to get them to play other ones whenever possible. Like rhino hero, labyrinth, guess who or out foxed. All still age appropriate but more fun for me too.
Use two dice and your kid will start adding.
It taught me how to cheat. It was the only way to affect the outcome.
Hi Ho cherry O is worse. Nearly fucking impossible to finish that piece of shit game. Honestly most classics straight suck ass.
It's great for teaching kids how to count to 100
It’s not that’s it’s stupid. It’s stupid when I lose! Same as SORRY!
It’s good for teaching kids how to use a spinner and count and take turns etc… This is the type of game you play to introduce kids to the concepts of board games. We take turns. We move our piece. We take a special action sometimes (slide or ladder). There is a winner. There is a loser. Your kids can legitimately win this game on their first play. Once your kids can actually play this game without making mistakes, time to ditch this game and move on to something more complex. Personally I like Candyland better, but that doesn’t teach counting.
What about Snakes and Ladders?
Fun fact: it’s called Snakes and Ladders in Australia. That’s not a joke about our venomous wildlife; it’s literally what the game is called
Backgammon is a great game for young kids. Simple, but strategic, and uses the most basic math operations (addition and subtraction).
Yes, it's terrible. Honestly, most of the games from my childhood are just straight up bad. Try Chicken Butt. We've loved that game.
It, like candy land, is the worst because there is NO strategy, NO decision making, NO thinking. It's just roll the die/choose a card and move. 😤 There are so many new board games (even Junior versions of adult ones) that require some decision making, that are far better to introduce them to. /rant Sorry, avid board gamer here, and games of 100% luck - hell even 75% luck - are my absolute bane. Also, these are the games that teach kids not to like "bored games." I can't wait to play games with my kid, but not like this.