Board Games

[Gengulphus]

I actually don't think I've ever bought one before but I'm after a board game, I barely know where to start, I have it on good authority that Carcassonne is good, anyone? I was thinking more Back Gammon. I'm after something that would keep 2 people happily occupied for an hour or two at a time. Must not cause too many arguments. I will consider any and all suggestions.

What are the relative skill levels of the 2 people? If they are likely to be different then I think you are going to struggle to keep both "happily occupied" for long with something other than an game with a high luck/skill ratio.

Keeping two people with very different skill levels both "happily occupied" isn't necessarily as simple as choosing a game with a high luck/skill ratio! Some people quite simply dislike such games, some people are perfectly happy playing against a more-skilled player because it gives them a chance to improve their skill, etc.

If Fluke can say anything about what games each of the two players already knows and likes (or dislikes), that might help people with recommending games (or games to avoid). For example, I generally like "competitive puzzle solving" games like Take It Easy!, but their lack of player interaction will be offputing to some. If one likes a lot of player interaction, there are a number of different types, e.g. games that basically involve attacks on other players and them defending themselves, or games that mainly involve forming alliances with other players and knowing when to break them, or purely co-operative games (Pandemic is one that springs to mind, though this might not be the right year to suggest it!), or games designed to get players to know their fellow players better (a particular dislike of mine - I play games to have fun, not to be psycho-analysed), or various other possibilities. If there's little or no player interaction, how long you typically have to wait for it to be your turn again can matter. As you indicate, the luck/skill ratio can be important - and it's not always obvious, e.g. backgammon involves a lot of die-rolling, making it appear pretty much purely a matter of luck at first sight, but there's actually a great deal of skill involved. Etc, etc, etc.

Gengulphus

[cinelli]

Draughts (US checkers) is a better game than you might think. It is easy to learn and games don’t take too long. Checkercycle has a YouTube channel with many videos on how to improve your game. He keeps his identity secret but is clearly an elderly gentleman with enormous experience of the game.

Cinelli

[UncleEbenezer]

Keeping two people with very different skill levels both "happily occupied" isn't necessarily as simple as choosing a game with a high luck/skill ratio! Some people quite simply dislike such games, some people are perfectly happy playing against a more-skilled player because it gives them a chance to improve their skill, etc.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, Go is brilliant for that. With the ability to give a start of up to nine stones as standard without making a nonsense of it (as happens if, for example, you give a piece handicap in chess), you can level quite a wide difference.

Indeed, Go has a system of levels akin to golf handicaps[1], whereby if for example two players are ranked four levels apart, the weaker player will automatically take a four-stone start to level it.

[1] As I understand them, not being a golfer!

[Fluke]

If Fluke can say anything about what games each of the two players already knows and likes (or dislikes), that might help people with recommending games (or games to avoid). For example, I generally like "competitive puzzle solving" games like Take It Easy!, but their lack of player interaction will be offputing to some. If one likes a lot of player interaction, there are a number of different types, e.g. games that basically involve attacks on other players and them defending themselves, or games that mainly involve forming alliances with other players and knowing when to break them, or purely co-operative games (Pandemic is one that springs to mind, though this might not be the right year to suggest it!), or games designed to get players to know their fellow players better (a particular dislike of mine - I play games to have fun, not to be psycho-analysed), or various other possibilities. If there's little or no player interaction, how long you typically have to wait for it to be your turn again can matter. As you indicate, the luck/skill ratio can be important - and it's not always obvious, e.g. backgammon involves a lot of die-rolling, making it appear pretty much purely a matter of luck at first sight, but there's actually a great deal of skill involved. Etc, etc, etc.

Gengulphus

Hmm good question. I know they're not big players of games but will probably have played the odd game of drafts, scrabble, card games etc. Now that I'm thinking about it I want them to enjoy the game and each other's company and to take their mind of 'things' for a while. Games can dent the ego and/or bring out long suppressed insecurities re mental agility, general knowledge etc. That said they're both pretty competitive I would say and up for a bit of a challenge but it's the 'whiling away a couple of hours happily' that is the main goal. Put it this way if it brought out the inner psychopath of either player it would have rather defeated the object.

I've got a shortlist which is quite long, might even go for a couple, say Mars and Go, but some brilliant suggestions, thanks.

[BobbyD]

I know they're not big players of games but will probably have played the odd game of drafts, scrabble, card games etc. Now that I'm thinking about it I want them to enjoy the game and each other's company and to take their mind of 'things' for a while

To that end a game that isn't 'learnt in a minute and enjoyed for a lifetime' might be a winner. The most distracting thing is probably going to be the learning phase, although in terms of accessibility a game which is easy to pick up but isn't the same every time might be best.

Dominion is an obvious example as each game is played with 10 different types of 'card' picked at random from the 26 (I think) which come in the box so the second game is likely to be very different from the first whilst having an element of familiarity. New cards will continue to appear for some time, but the way in which the cards interact can dramatically change the desirability and usability of a card so there's a pleasant gap between 'knowing' the card and 'understanding' the card.

[marronier]

Has anyone tried " Halma" for 2 ,3 or 4 players?

[UncleEbenezer]

Has anyone tried " Halma" for 2 ,3 or 4 players?

Rings a faint bell. Think we toyed with it, but never really took to it for long.

For two players it's Just Another Checkers game. Four players, if you can find them, makes for something more distinctive. But then there's also potential for conflict amongst competitive kids, when A's move hands B the advantage over C. And we never had four willing players!