I’d really love to see studies on why people game and why others don’t… I definitely think there is more social reasons and less genetic ones. I’m sure you weren’t arguing that genetics had anything to do with the reason, I was just making a point.

I do think there are gateway games and that they do serve a purpose… but I do think the best gateway is knowing who is coming through the gate. Unless a person is extremely patient and willing to spend a great deal of time learning, I do not see the big box titles with the big rulebooks as being ideal.

Increasing, we are dealing with shorter attention spans in the U.S. and compete with video games that can construct movie-like tutorials that make rules reading a boring proposition. In wouldn’t hurt to bring players to games with videos and web-based tutorials (like Teuber’s site).

When you think about getting the “normal folks” to the table, I think it wouldn’t hurt people to think like salesmen. To rehearse. To give visual examples. To get to the point quickly. To find the perfect fit for the “customer”. 

My girlfriend would rather play party games mostly. However, her father started playing games with us because of Carcassonne… he loved jigsaw puzzles and actually made a few wooden puzzles. He now plays Euros quite often with us, but he still prefers Carcassonne to any game because the tile-laying element appeals to the jigsaw lover in him. It feels good to know that he enjoys playing the game and that he probably wouldn’t have played any of the games we know if it weren’t for me. He probably had that “gene”, but it took a salesman to get him to recognize it.

Like a salesman, you won’t make every sale… the important thing to know is if you did the best “pitch” you could have.

The point where Matt nails this issue is that an individual needs an inclination toward a pass time before actually taking the first step toward participation.

And here is where so many enthusiasts go wrong. Most of us will have been bored rigid at a party by a hobby zealot. Take your pick, golf, parachuting, SCUBA, stamp collecting. The conversation is fine for 2 minutes and then the zealot realises that you can’t escape and launches into their sermon. 20 minutes later they are in full flow and you have said very little, ‘really?’, ‘right’, and ‘I must just go and say hello to ANYONE ELSE’.

Of course a board gamer would never dream about doing such a thing, would we? In my experience our ranks are amongst the worst offenders. What most zealots don’t realise is that as much as they love their hobby, many people are either ambivalent or find your passion facile. To engage on a constant crusade to convert the masses to your cause will invariably leave you sipping drinks alone in a corner of an otherwise crowded party.

The reality is (in the UK especially), the masses view board games as a childs activity, occassionally to be extended to the family. No amount of salesmanship and offers of gateway gameage will convince them otherwise. Tread carefully in such company. Adopt Matt’s approach to the Whiskey, and accept that not everyone you meet will want to play games, probably any sort of game. Some of those people might be your best friends.

"But that’s exactly gateway’s misconception, and the reason that The Queen’s Necklace makes every bit as good a gateway game as the usual suspects do. On those rare occasions where the introduction of a more modern, complex game actually sticks, it’s likely that the choice of game is of little consequence or none at all—you’ve converted someone that was already standing in the doorway of the church, and your choice of hymn didn’t really make a lot of difference either way. In fact selecting a softball may have actually been counterproductive.”

The lady in question is just as much a gamer as the guy you mention.  She’s just not a eurogamer or a “hobby” game gamer.  She’s a mass-market gamer.  She plays games, yes mass market games, but she definitely does play games.  It’s snobbery to restrict the title of “gamer” to those who play niche games or just games you approve of.  She’s most likely as irritated by your refusal to play her idea of a good game as you are by her refusal to play your idea of a good game.  Let me point out that you are both playing games, just not the same games.  What you are trying to do is convert her to a niche gamer, be it a eurgamer or a wargamer or a gateway/family gamer, you’re ignoring the fact that she’s already a mass-market/party gamer.  Be thankful she’s not pressuring you to become her type of gamer with the same zeal!  Yes, she is a gamer.  Period.

It’s worth me pointing out that I’m committing no kind of “zeal” in getting the lady to “become” my type of gamer. Given the content of my piece it’s be rather hypocritical if that were true! The reason she’s ended up playing so many of my Euros is simply that she visits me more often than I visit her, and she tends not to bring games. So if we want to play a game together, it’s more often than not one from my collection. Last time I did visit her we played nothing but SCRABBLE, her choice.

However the point you make about restricting the use of the word “gamer” to those who don’t play mass market games is very worthwhile. I intended no snobbery when I used it - it’s simply that I’ve always assumed the term “gamer” to describe those who enjoy hobby games. Which is, in itself, snobbery of course. So I offer it not as an excuse but merely to point out that we might all be better off revising our internal definitions of what it means.

I think Nick nailed it with the example of the Golf enthusiast.

Don’t be that guy, leave Ticket To Ride at home and bring an extra six pack of beer to that party, the other guests will thank you. While you are there maybe mention your game night to someone you think will be interested, otherwise just enjoy the party, make friends and have a good time.

I for one do not bother with gateway games, in fact I am much to much of a snob to bother playing games, especially crappy games like most gateway games, with non-gamers. I would rather save my gaming time for people I know would enjoy it, and for games I enjoy the most.

I was not always this way, I used to pack bunched of games to play on vacation with the in laws… they rarely got played, and when they did it was out of sympathy and the game play was such that I would have been better served reading a book.

Sometimes what we all need is a dose of realism. Most people do not do what we do, and I think we are better off that way. 

Now where is that bottle of Whiskey.

-M

P.S. the above does not apply to Children, (anyone under 20 really) I still play whatever I can with them in hopes of triggering the development of the “Gene”

"My name is Nick and I AM a gaming snob.”

In any sport or pass time if someone is announced as a (*+insert the activity)-er, it implies a degree of specialism or skill. Otherwise people will qualify their involvement;

‘I am a bad golfer’
‘I am a fair-weather cyclist’

If someone proclaimed themself to be a SCUBA diver but had never ventured out of the deep end of a swimming pool, whilst they might ‘technically’ be considered a diver, they would be laughed out of the boat if they made such claims with people who mixed it with the fish at depth in sites around the world.

So whilst someone who enjoys Scrabble and Monopoly is a player of games and therefore a ‘gamer’, I think such a classification is misleading and inappropriate in a forum such as this, no matter how good they might be with triple word scores and building hotels.

Matt, I completely agree with your assertion that gamers tend to be born, not made.  The easiest way to find the former is to deal with folks who already game.  I have had much more success introducing Euros to people who are already card players, roleplayers, and so on than with folks who don’t play any games.  People who play some games accept reading rules (at least as a necessary evil), usually enjoy thinking through game problems, recognize structured gameplay, and, most importantly, accept that gaming is a legitimate activity for someone over the age of 12.  I have found the gulf between those who do some gaming and those who do none to be immense.

That said, I don’t agree that Die Macher is typically as good a lure as Ticket to Ride.  What I do accept is that it’s important to know your customer.  There are “gateway” games, but they can differ for each prospective gamer.  Turning a casual card player into a dedicated fan of Euros can be dependent on finding that proper game that will attract them and serve as the opiate that brings them into the fold.

I have two themes reading here:

1st: I think there is use/utility out of some sort of “gateway” games when first exposing them to someone who, in all probability, will become a full-fledged Euro-gamer fan.  Before leaping into Agricola or Caylus, it is often helpful to have people play a slightly less involved game to give them familiarity with role selection, resource generation, etc… This might not always be the case, I could see a rare gaming neophyte turned off by too simple a game, but I think even a short game learning curve can be helpful.

2nd: I don’t often think of labeling people “gamers” or not (although I would clearly fall into that category).  Instead, I’m always questing for the game that a particular someone would enjoy.  They like Monopoly?  Perhaps I could convince them to try Boomtown (just for variety) or even Sword and Skull (although this wouldn’t be my first choice).  If they like Scrabble, I’d lean towards BuyWord (my preferred word game), etc… I don’t expect everyone to have my same tastes in games, but I do enjoy playing nearly any game and so will drag along party games to a party - in case a chance to play them comes up (it doesn’t too often, but its there just in case...)

The difference to me is a serious amount of “stigma” that gamers have that golfers and SCUBA divers will never have. In America (and by the accounts here England as well) there is the child perspective.

While no one is ridiculed for Golf, there is a great chance that when a reporter on in the media talks about games it will be with a silliness and lack of any credulity. Golf has Tiger Woods. We have.... no one.

So I don’t mind trying to convert the masses. If they aren’t into games or willing to try games, it usually is a hang up of theirs, not mine. Now, I don’t bring games to other people’s parties… that wouldn’t happen unless I was asked to do so. If I have people over, though, it will probably have games unless there is some other reason for the gathering.

Again, I cannot stress how much that it isn’t something from birth; a gene. It is social - the way in which you are brought up, teased, embarrassed, etc., that make you less likely or more likely to try or continuous play games. In America, there is competition in almost everything. People are put down or praised for their intellect, athleticism, or business savvy. So, through that childhood, people will tend to avoid embarrassment - if they aren’t good at something, they don’t want to dwell on it and re-encounter it. If they stink at basketball in someone’s opinion, they don’t play it. If they get called stupid one time playing a game, maybe they are turned off to playing games.

It’s all about weakening the herd, just in modern terms. We are all still in the cave, just in a different way. Just as I feel that your environment has more to do with the success you have in life by a large percentage, so also I think it applies in the rule for gamer or not.

It would be a much different story in America if there were cooperative games outnumbering winner-take-all games like Monopoly when people were growing up. It’s an old argument as to what exactly does make people the way they are (and if you have a dollar, you can bet with the old geezers in Trading Places), but I happen to think that environment plays a larger role than genetics when it comes to being the person you are… for the majority of people.

"trying to introduce people to gaming through what we usually call gateway games is a waste of time”

I think you’ve taken evidence that there are some people for whom “gateway games” don’t work, and some people for whom “gateway games” are unnecessary, and extrapolated to that this is true of everyone.

Since I have come across people, plural, for whom “gateway games” have been just right - they really would have drowned if thrown straight in the Agricola deep end, and don’t even think about more complicated games - the “waste of time” comment is definitely off the mark.

And one other detail. I can enjoy Settlers, Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride, as well as Power Grid and Through the Ages. But the former set of games may allow all of us to have a good time (while Monopoly won’t, I’ll be unhappy). Wouldn’t want to play them all the time, but sometimes even a bunch of hardened gamers just want to relax and play lighter fare (though mostly right now we fill in with Race for the Galaxy - which is very difficult to class as to its weight).

Nice article, Matt.  One correction, though:  Scrabble was actually invented by American architect Alfred Mosher Butts (who studied the New York Times for letter frequencies) and the game was first made popular in the U.S.  Perhaps the Yanks have more of a cultural connection to the language than Brits will give credit? :-)

1.  I would never show up to a party with a game unless I was specifically asked to.

2.  Every time I have introduced Ticket to Ride as a *gateway* game, it has been received VERY well.  Why?  Because it is easily relatable to the mass market fare out there… but is obviously a much smarter game in terms of its strategic options and more fun as a result.  People love it.  But TTR is a game people have to be exposed to and have to know how to play before most would buy.

3.  It seems I always have to teach the game...so people get the “connection”.  Once they do, I have been asked where these *gateway* games can be purchased.  But people have to know how to play first, usually.

4. MOST Important:  I think the reason I have success on the gateway front is because I am not trying to convert anyone into playing anything deeper.  My whole collection is gateway games. 

For a reason.

5.  FYI disclaimer:  Settlers and Carc are NOT gateway games in my opinion.  : ) I always have to make that point.

Ryan B.

"Scrabble was actually invented by American architect Alfred Mosher Butts (who studied the New York Times for letter frequencies) and the game was first made popular in the U.S.”

Good call! You know, I checked who invented the game before I wrote the article - but I obviously went to sleep for the exact thirty seconds it took me to scan that piece of information!

“Settlers and Carc are NOT gateway games in my opinion”

Interesting. Settlers I can see - it is after all on the more complex side of Euros. But why not Carcassonne?

Yeah, I think Carc is a terrific gateway games, much more so than Settlers.  Ticket probably grabs people a little more readily, but Carc is almost as good an introduction to Euros.