Steve Bennett: Party Time Game Review: Things…

By Steve Bennett
May 25, 2007

Publisher: Quinn & Sherry, Inc.
Designer: Tom Quinn, Ted Quinn, and Mark Sherry
Players: 4+
Ages: 8+
Playing Time: 45 minutes, but longer with large groups

The Short Review
Things…, which is subtitled “Humour in a Box,” is my favorite party game. Period. Every time we play this Canadian gem, it spawns uncontrollable laughter.

The Contents
Before you even open the wooden box that Things… comes in, you’ll notice the dovetail joint construction of the box. Stop reading right now and go check the construction of the drawers in your kitchen. If they’re not dovetailed, you need to ask yourself why a party game box is made with more care than your kitchen drawers.

When you slide the lid off the wooden box, the first thing you’ll see is a double-sided 5-1/2” x 7-1/2” sheet of instructions. As with any good social game, the rules are few and easy to comprehend. You can be playing Things… within 90 seconds of opening the box for the first time.

The bulk of what you’re paying for are the 300 topic cards. Topic cards all begin with “Things…” and then conclude the sentence with a single interesting scenario such as “that confirm you are screwed.” Other examples are

“Things…you wouldn’t want to be allergic to.”
“Things…you shouldn’t say to your husband.”
“Things…that make you uncomfortable.”

The box also contains 10 short pencils, the kind you’d find at a miniature golf cours—perhaps you’d find them at a real golf course, too; I don’t play—a response pad of paper, and a scoring pad. The response pad has four perforations so you can tear off your short answer without wasting much paper. The publishers could have saved money by eliminating the paper and pencils, but those items add value. Everything I need is stored in the box. I don’t have to go rummaging through drawers to find working pens and enough paper. I really like the perforated paper because it dictates the length of my responses, and it’s environmentally friendlier than full-paper options.

Game Play
So what do you do with all these things? Start by handing out pencils and response pads to everyone. All the players tear off a strip of paper at the perforation. One player is given the score pad and the task of recording scores throughout the game. A reader is chosen. The reader reads (That’s what readers do!) one Topic card. All the players, including the reader, write a response on their long, narrow strip of paper. When the players finish writing, they fold their paper twice and drop it in the game box.

The reader reads out the responses once, then does it a second time. The first time is to acquaint everyone with the responses. The second time allows players to commit key words to memory.

The player to the left of the reader names one of the responses, then tries to guess who wrote it. If the guess is correct, the player who wrote the response is eliminated and the guesser continues trying to recall responses and match them to their authors. When the guesser is wrong, the role of guesser moves left to the first available player who has not yet been eliminated. This continues around the table until every player but one has been eliminated.

One point is awarded for every correct guess. Six points are awarded to the winner of the round. The role of reader passes to the left, and another round is played. When everyone has been reader once, the game is over. The high score wins.

The Dynamics of the Game
Every game of Things… I’ve played has taken on a life of its own. It’s one part memory game, one part deception game, and one big part creative game. You’re playing to an audience of your peers. Because the topic cards will be different every time you play, and the cast of players will probably shift a little, each game takes on a different feel.

I’ve read criticisms of Things… that center around the memory component. I don’t think it’s important for two reasons. First, you don’t have to remember a response verbatim. You just need a key word or phrase. If you say, “the bagel answer,” everyone at the table will know what you’re referring to. You don’t need to say, “My Uncle Ralph’s bagel and schmear.” Second, the memory element is a means to an end. The game isn’t about remembering who wrote what. It’s about writing funny answers and escalating the humor quotient which each new answer. The designers needed some mechanic to hang it on, and they hung it on memory.

One aspect of Things… that I particularly like is the deception. To minimize the chances that my response will be identified as mine, I must try to write as if I were one of the other players. Of course, all of the other players are doing the same thing. The results can be hilariously inept.

Responses often get repeated in subsequent rounds. Something that was funny in the first round is often resurrected and ratcheted up in later rounds. But unlike Hollywood producers who don’t know when to let sleeping Jasons or Freddies lie, the group is usually aware enough to drop the response when the humor returns begin to diminish.

A Word of Caution
Things… can take a bawdy turn. The topic cards themselves are innocuously neutral. The box contains nothing remotely questionable, and if your group objects to bawdy or naughty, the game can easily be played in a G-rated way. It will still be fun. That said, the cards pretty clearly make it easy for you to give in to your baser, raunchier side. If you don’t even want to be tempted to move in that direction, pick another game. I don’t mind feeding my naughty side now and then. Neither, apparently, do the many people to whom I’ve introduced this great game. It’s been a hit every time I’ve brought it out.

Final Thoughts
At its heart Things… is simply a good excuse to direct your thoughts in some odd way as you let the creative juices flow. It really is Humour in a Box.

I give it a 10 out of 10.

© 2007 Steve Bennett

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

Is this widely available? Posted by Lee Fisher on May 25, 2007 at 01:36 AM | #

Larry, I have seen it the past 2 Christmas seasons at the temporary Mall-type stores (Go). I concur with Steve.  This is a terrific party game - tons of laughs. Posted by John Barnes on May 25, 2007 at 05:09 AM | #

That sounds like a great game and one that I need to get.  Does it play well with a group of ten to 15? Posted by Doug Click on May 25, 2007 at 07:13 AM | #

I found Things… a long time ago, and it got much play among my group of friends who really enjoys party games.  It actually spawned some… ahem… baudy phrases that still pop up two years later. I think Things… tends to be better with a group of people who know each other.  It makes it all the more fun when players submit answers that you would never think they would come up with. Because of the memory element, the game starts to drag the more players you have.  It’s been a while since I’ve played, but I think our group decided not to play with more than 10. Posted by Scott Tepper on May 25, 2007 at 08:17 AM | #

I bought my copy of Things… at Games by James, a Midwestern chain. Apparently the publishers are revamping their distribution, though. According to the web site, in the US it will only be available from Barnes & Noble, starting August 1. Until then you can get it directly from the publisher. Numerous Canadian retailers are listed on the site. http://www.thingsthegame.com/wheretobuy.html I’ve played the game with eight or nine. The rules say don’t be afraid to try it with 15 or more. Also, when there are eight or more players, the reader rereads the remaining responses when half of the players have been eliminated. Posted by Steve Bennett on May 25, 2007 at 08:29 AM | #

Scott, I haven’t tried it with more than 10. Did you employ the rule about rereading the responses when half the players have been eliminated? Clearly that rule is intended to keep it from dragging. Whether or not it actually achieves its goal with 12 or 14 players could be another matter. Posted by Steve Bennett on May 25, 2007 at 09:05 AM | #

So you’re saying this is a party game made out of Seinfeld comedy routines! Posted by Larry Levy on May 25, 2007 at 09:18 AM | #

Steve, we did play with the re-read at halfpoint rule.  It’s actually pretty necessary to do so, because inevitably, the players will always forget at lease one of the responses. We found that the game dragged on with more players for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, the more players you have, the lower probability you will have that your guess of author is incorrect.  For example, if you’re playing with 4 players, you have a 1 in 3(since you already know your answer) chance that you’re going to be right.  If you’re wrong, then the other players have a good chunk of info now to base their guess on.  And so the remaining answers will be quickly guessed. If you’re playing with 10 players, then you only have a 1 in 9 chance that your guess is correct.  So if you’re wrong, that only provides a small bit of info about only one of the responses.  So the round will take a longer amount of time. In addition, because there are more players, there will also be more rounds.  So more players adds almost an exponential amount of time to the gameplay. Usually, party games have a general window of welcome.  We would find that after an hour and a half, the amusement of Things… would diminish.  This isn’t to say that Things… isn’t a fun game.  I actually put it at the top of my Funniest Game Momemts Geeklist: http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/3701 Posted by Scott Tepper on May 25, 2007 at 09:40 AM | #

Valid points all, Scott. As I said, I haven’t tried it with more than nine, and it worked great. I’ve tried it with as few as four, and it worked great. The added number of rounds with more players can easily be modified to a set number, say 6, to keep the time frame within a reasonable range. You’re right. The rounds themselves will take longer with more people for the reason you give. Posted by Steve Bennett on May 25, 2007 at 10:01 AM | #

I agree that the game is a lot of fun.  I recently spoke with the former distributor of Things… and was told that it is going mainstream and for that reason they dropped distribution.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in Toys-Are-Us this Christmas. Posted by Greg Jones on May 25, 2007 at 10:07 PM | #

Steve Thanks for the great review of “THINGS...”.  I couldn’t have written it better myself and I’m one of the designers.  I just thought I should address the memory aspect when you play with many players.  I think that you may have one of the original copies of “THINGS...”.  We did an initial test run of 2000 games 4 years ago.  Since then we’ve added an “Easy Play” version to the rules that removes the memory aspect of the game entirely.  We allow players to take notes when the responses are being read out so that they don’t have to remember anything and can concentrate on guessing who said what.  This helps when playing with very large groups. (we have played with 20 players).  You could also have one person write the responses on a black/white board or large piece of paper.  Most people I know play the regular rules and enjoy the memory aspect but because from the very beginning each game would take on the personality of the group that’s playing we wanted each group to be able to adapt the game to their own situation. It doesn’t really matter which way you play it it is always funny. Posted by Tom Quinn on May 31, 2007 at 04:00 PM | #

Can’t say enough about this game. I’ve been playing it since 2003. The best part are the running jokes. They live beyond the game. Hilarious. We have given Things to our nephews (college age) and they all agree, it’s their fav game, with their own running jokes. Posted by Bruce Robb on Jun 1, 2007 at 09:04 AM | #

It’s always nice to have the designers of games posting here. It adds a lot to the conversation. Thank you, Tom, for chiming in. I like the idea of the easy play variant, but my preference would be to play it as originally written. I have no complaints about the game as is, so I’d be hesitant to tinker with it. Still, the new version overcomes an objection that some people might have, and if it makes Things… yet more accessible to the masses, I’m all for it. Posted by Steve Bennett on Jun 1, 2007 at 10:03 AM | #

< Back Home