Sigh… I would suggest that these friends of yours just aren’t gamers. That’s ok. They just don’t have the exploration desire and the need to problem solve like most of us gamers do.

Poker and Chess seem to be all about outdoing the opponent… One upmanship. Kind of macho. Decent enough games in their own right I suppose, but without theme and boring in my own experience. They are games without imagination as far as I am concerned.
Risk is a dice festival. Build up all you can and roll dice until the game is finally over. The winner feels like they’ve accomplished something, but really just rolled dice for 3 hours and came out on top. Fun? Sure! Challenging? Not at all.
Scrabble is a spelling exercise ... and not quite a game in my opinion. I’ve enjoyed it in the past, but really, as soon as people start breaking out words like xi and qi for big points, I get annoyed. These don’t seem like believable words. And when you finally do get a great word with many letters, it rarely is worth putting on the board since the game doesn’t reward long words.

These guys are clearly missing out. Let them go… no need to convert the unwilling.

my guess - they heard the ‘I can’t believe you are still playing those stupid games now that there are all those better ones available’ pickup line we gamers tend to use not realizing how much bad we are doing ourselves.

imagine telling someone about you beloved Age of Steam or whatever you fancy most and hearing: “WHAT? I played that in 2002, sure, but now we’ve moved on to this thing, you login with others to a server, and all play together in this world, and AoS is ultimately a badly aged pastime for babies in comparison. all those eurogames of your are STUPID, let me show you how smart people spend their time”

are you going to be willing to try their stuff? will you be objective judging it? or will you refuse to have anything to do with someone who treats what you see as fun in such a way? or perhaps try his thing but knowing all along all you are after is proving him his thing isn’t that good after all?

yet time and time again we do ourselves a misservice with our reaction to others enjoying risk or monopoly or chess. just read the comment above, if joe and bob come over here and read it, will it convice them to give euros an objective try? or will they harden in their resolve to avoid those elitist snobs who just can’t accept people are having fun not following their-only-correct-if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-stupid way?

one more thought - have you tried playing poker and scrabble or chess with them? perhaps in place of all the ‘objective’ arguments why your way is better all you need is to invite them over for a poker night, and ask them if next time they’d be willing to humor you and try a settlers of catan night?

perhaps if you show enough respect for what they like to play it with them they won’t be so against getting to know what you do?

It is indeed hard to get new people over that first step of wanting to resort to what they know. Once you get them over that, they’ll soon learn that learning new games is fun and rewarding, and they’ll come back for more.

I don’t, however, have the magic trick to get them beyond that first step.

Perhaps it would be useful to turn the question around. Instead of asking why Joe and Bob refuse to play “your” games, ask yourself why it’s so important that you convince them to do so?

Further to this, consider the situation where someone tries repeatedly to convince you to try a hobby in which you have no interest. (Stamp collecting, model trains, needlepoint, etc...) How would you react to their arguments that you were “wrong” or “missing out”?

I suggest coming in to work wearing the fashion of their time (bell bottoms and big hair wig?) and cranking those golden oldies of their day.... and then tell them that if they want to be stuck in the past at a place called Nostalgiaville, you were certainly game to try that as well!

Or.... hold a wake for them at the lunchroom… “they were unwilling to try anything new, continue to learn.... so, one day, they shriveled up and died”.

Okay.... that’s a bit much. I’d find out what they drive, what their favorite movies are, and what modern music they like… if they are stuck in nostalgia, you won’t convert them.

If it were me, I’d just find out what they’ve moved on from that was sub-optimal and compare it to that… they don’t a 1975 VW bug, do they? Then why waste hours in s luckfest die rolling competition? Get them to play a comparison game that is closer… say Yahtzee vs. To Court the King.... or Poker to Liar’s Dice to To Court The King.

It’s pretty obvious arguing with lawyers will get you nowhere:)

I think, though, that yes, according to #1 above you (and I) are freaks of nature.

As for opponents, I can honestly get more opponents for many modern games than the old classics.  Yes, people know the classics, but that is often why they never want to play them (or any other games) with me!  Mostly because they are too long and just not entertaining enough for the time it takes to play them.

As for their desire to simply win, I’m not sure I would WANT to play games with them all the time, and they do seem like a lost cause for learning to love variety.  Perhaps they would like Settlers, but then they would probably play it every week and go back to never wanting to learn another game.

I agree with the other comments, however, that you should try to meet them where they are.  Have a game night and allow them to choose the game--you might even have fun (how many people have written this about a game:  “It’s fun with the right crowd”?) If they decide afterwards that they WOULD like to try one of your games too, great.  If not, who cares?  Oldies aren’t always bad. I still can’t get enough of Van Morrison…

Bring Joe and Bob to the WBC, and I’ll introduce them to the guys who only play the old Avalon Hill wargames like Afrika Korps, refusing to play anything new like GMT or MMP. They should get along great!

It took them time to understand the rules to the games they do know when they were children - they just don’t remember now.

IMO—Play a round of something that they like and ask them to humor you with letting you pull something out.  Settlers wouldn’t be my first choice. They may know how to play monopoly and risk..but do they play that often?  If they do, pick something that holds some commonality to it.  If they have graduated to exclusively playing poker - try a card game that is not to rich on the fantasy theme...but rich on strategy to pull at their strategical minds.

If after your efforts..its not working..its truly not worth your time investment. 

You COULD wait for them to have children and give their child something euro-oriented.  Their kid will want to play it and parents learn anything for their kids...and maybe you will peak their interest there.

My plan worked perfectly.  After getting no comments on my last column, I wanted to write something to would ruffle some feathers and hopefully get people talking a bit more.  I wake up this morning to 9 comments so it looks like I’m on the right track.  I suppose I could have expected my boring ol’ Five and Dime list last week to be of no interest to anyone but me.

Anyway, where to start in responding, let’s see here…

Well, first off, thanks to everyone for the interesting and thoughtful comments.  I definitely appreciate hearing your feedback and insights.

In response to the very good point that Michael, Jeff, and Tom made about playing older games with Joe/Bob that they’re familiar with, I’ve already done that.  I played Chess a number of times with both of them.  I’ve been to a few Poker nights with them as well.  So while I am somewhat guilty of Michael’s example about Age of Steam, in criticizing Joe/Bob’s games, I’ve certainly still been willing to play their games with them.  I just try to explain how I think they might enjoy this other type of game so much more.

And you know what, in their case, I’m positive they’d enjoy some modern games much more than the classics they play.  But I also know that they’ll never come around because at this point they have more fun being obstinate and debating the issue with me.  C’est la vie.  I have others to play with and I think it’s really their loss in the end.

As for the comment about whether Joe and Bob would think this article was elitist if they stumbled across this site and read it, I actually gave the article to both of them to read last week and asked for their permission to publish it.  They seemed amused by the whole thing and even got a couple typos for me.  I tried to write the article with good humor and poking fun at myself a bit and be a little self-deprecating about my love of rules, so I don’t think they found it elitist.  I hope no one here found it so.

I think my real point is not about Joe/Bob, but about the wider world.  About what Joe/Bob mean as a case study for spreading modern board games to the masses.  I used to be confident that someday we could theoretically see games like Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne, and Settlers of Catan in every family’s household.  I honestly think that would be a public good if it occurred.  Families would almost certainly enjoy them, and would spend more time together.  I really believe that.  I’ve never taught those games to someone and not have them almost instantly won over.  They’re such an eye-opening experience that invariably make people exclaim something about how they had no idea board games could be so fun/good/interesting/enjoyable.  But now, even though I think almost every family would enjoy having those games, I have even less hope that it could ever happen.  Because that hurdle of the rules and unfamiliarity may be too great and there may be too many people like Joe/Bob who refuse to invest the small amount of time to reap the large rewards of discovering something great.

I was referring to the comment preceding mine, not your article with the elitist remark. it did basicaly say all the things about older style game you should not say in my opinion to people you are trying to convert

Greg: I think I’ve indirectly answered your question above in a way.  I think it’s important to convince EVERYONE to play modern board games.  I think the world would be a better place if everyone did.  It’s good to question the why as you did and to consider why, but I think I touched on that above as to why I think every family would and should enjoy a handful of modern board games.

As for your question about how I’d react to someone trying to convince me to do their hobby, like stamp collecting, that’s an interesting point you make.  However, I just don’t see the analogy.  It may be my own bias (probably is), but I see those hobbies that you mention as having limited interest to a limited group of people.  Whereas I really think that certain modern board games would be interesting to just about everyone if they tried them.  I don’t think that everyone would like every game.  I think that Splotter games like Antiquity and Roads & Boats are analogous to stamp collecting.  I’d never expect friends and colleagues to sit down to a game of Die Macher and enjoy it.  Longer and more fiddly games makes sense as a niche hobby, but the streamlined “gateway” games do not.  Rather, they should and do in my experience appeal to everyone who plays them.

Asking why the mission to spread interest in modern board games is a good question though, and one that anyone seeking to spread such interest should probably ask themselves from time to time.

Jeff: I’m glad I have company in the freak of nature department.

And yes, oldies when it comes to music are generally the best :)

Michael: Sorry I misunderstood your comment.  I see now what you’re saying.  I got distracted by the criticism of my beloved Age of Steam!

Is this the part where I mention that I built a fairly consistent gaming group between my friends and family that have turned into full fledged gamers based on a run in with Carcassonne or another euro on a whim at my house. Some of these people now play multiple times a week..and have started to build their own libraries.

I agree with the idea that exposure is EVERYTHING.

I had a friend of mine who had never played a single classic game other than in his early childhood playing Hive last year - and once I explained it to him he was like “this is awesome! we need to play games again!” Same thing with Power grid with another friend… “call me next time you play something!”

I fear you may have certainly created obstinate folks with your persistence with Joe and Bob - if nothing else but to spite you as you suspect.

I respect and admire your desire to try to convert your friends/co-workers to this hobby. They seem likely to come over, since they already play other games, and even take the time to defend those games (or defend why they don’t want to play more games).

It is possible that Joe and Bob have found the “Last Games They Ever Need To Play”. If that’s the case, and you want to play with them, I’d suggest just playing their games, and explore what they like about them.

If your goal is go convert them to trying new stuff, that might not be possible. As with the WBC comment above, some people just aren’t going to cross the line. CCG players aren’t any more likely to sit down with the board gamers than the board gamers are likely to sit down with the CCG folk. We’re all playing games, but for now, many gamers are happy where they are.

Can you imagine the CCG guys talking about this same topic? “I love my CCG, and I see those BGers playing games every week, and I just can’t understand why they won’t play my game with me. I ask them to try it out, and they have a list of reasons why they won’t play with me. I just don’t get it. Everybody I’ve showed my CCG to has loved it!”

I, too, think the world will be a better place as we get more people to play. Play anything, really. I think we don’t play enough, and the play we already do is too much like work.

Joe and Bob are saying “Why learn something new?”. That’s work. They are also saying “We care a lot about winning, and it might take time to win these games while we’re learning them.” That’s also work to some extent, and takes them both out of their competence comfort zones. They might feel stupid if they don’t get it right away, or couldn’t win often enough to satisfy their sense of self worth.

To some extent, I think we’d have better luck with the CCG guys. They are already demonstrating that they’ll try something new, and they are already playing games all of the time. But my experience is those guys rarely cross the line, at least not until they get far enough into a burn out cycle.

Joe and Bob aren’t burned out yet on their games, and they are still playing. Yay! Someday they might decide to try playing something new, but as someone already said, since they are already resisting *you*, if they do try something new it probably won’t be because you got them to do it.

The stamp collecting comparison isn’t really fair. Trying to get someone involved in stamp collecting is asking them to try something completely new. Trying to get people who already play games to try new games is a bit different than trying to get people who aren’t into games to try it out. We’re more closely aligned with those people already playing, and the leap isn’t quite as broad. Imagine trying to convince the stamp collector to cross the line into gaming. You could make the argument that we’re collecting games, I suppose.

Tom, Joe and Bob are correct in every point they make.  They are also correct when they say there are more people like them than there are like us.  There’s a reason why gaming is a fringe hobby.  Part of it is historical, at least in the US, but a good part of it is the nature of the games themselves.

And yes, I am sorry to say that you’re a freak.  I am too.  This urge to learn more and more new games, even at the risk of not mastering any, can’t be typical.  They say the first step to recovery is acceptance.  Well, we don’t WANT to recover, but it’s still important to understand that what we enjoy doing is far from the norm.

People don’t like learning rules.  Many people HATE learning rules.  Even a lot of gamers barely tolerate the process.  It’s something that has to be taken into account when trying to attract newbies to the hobby, but for some, it’s a dealbreaker.  That’s just the way it is.

I wouldn’t call Joe and Bob gamers.  They’re just a couple of competitive guys who have found a set of convenient arenas to compete in.  They don’t love games and have no desire to expand on the ones they know.  That makes them very different from you and I and makes conversion a near impossibility.

Finally, I’m afraid I question your assertion that everyone should play boardgames.  I can see many benefits of it as well, but it’s still just a hobby.  I’m sure fans of NASCAR and needlepoint have strong arguments of why all the world should emulate their love of these hobbies, but I will be the first to tell them that they aren’t speaking for me.  Similarly, some people don’t like play, some don’t like thinking, some don’t care for personal interaction, and a LOT don’t like having to learn rules.  Gaming is not for everyone.  You need to let the dream go, Tom.  And thank Joe and Bob for providing the insight.

Marginal returns and (d)evolutionary sequences.

Back when I knew few games I focused on learning new games to the exclusion of almost all other gaming.  If it was new I learned it.  When I knew only 4 games, learning that 5th game was a 25% increase in my gaming horizons.  When I new 20 games, the 21st was only a 5% increase.  It is an asymptotic curve and pretty soon the percentage gain for each new game is proximal to zero.  After a while I pulled back on playing new games, on playing a wide variety of games and instead focussed on repeat plays of games I’d learned and liked.  The CultOfTheNew’s marginal return was too small to continue with. 

Unsurprisingly the RepeatPlaySchool is going through the same progression.  The more I focus on repeat plays, the more the core value generation of those repeat plays distils to an ever-decreasing set of games.  Again, the ever decreasing marginal returns are generating an asymptotic series.  There’s an increasing litany of great games, games I really like, but also games that somehow offer just that little bit less than some other great familiar game and thus don’t get played.  The circle narrows progressively and focus is visibly tightening; it is (d)evolution in practice.

Some months back I realised with some surprise that the 18xx are comfort games for me.  They are the gaming equivalent of creamed hamburger and mashed potatoes, of Sloppy Joes, of Kielbasa and spiced red cabbage, of salty Dutch licorice: the games that feel like coming home.  Increasingly the other game types are falling out.  Oh, they’re clever and neat and...just not very interesting.  They certainly don’t afford the opportunity for the sort of deliberative brutality and graceful social atmosphere that collects around a good 18xx game and that’s what I’m increasingly looking for.  While I’m not there yet, I can see where the road is heading, where the other non-18xx gaming increasingly becomes a sort of canned set of ExcuseGaming when I can’t get an 18xx on the table.

What’s the next evolution after this?  I don’t know.  I suspect that it will be a move to combinatoric games, in particular Go & Shogi.  I could well be wrong though as there’s quite a long road to travel before I get there.

Great article.  I sympathize with your frustrations and applaud your efforts.  Adults are creatures of habit.  I have a high schoolm board game club, younger minds are much more open to learning and experiencing new things.  Perhaps your goal will just take time for the newer generation to grow up and become gamers.

Re: some folks don’t like to learn new rules --> shoot, I have some good GAMER friends who don’t like learning new rules.  I don’t live near them anymore, but I was always the rules explainer for the group.  Now that I’ve moved away, they often buy a game and it sits on the shelf for months or years without getting played as they don’t like the effort of trying to learn a new game from the rulebook.

As for introducing new gamers into the fold, my best advice is try to find a weakness in the other games that one of ours could fill.  In the lists you give, one weakness might be time.  There are a lot of little, but still interesting, “filler” games that I might try on them if there is ever a timeframe where you could play a game, but not a game of chess (only 2 players) or Scrabble or Risk (too long...)

Great article and comments folks, very interesting stuff!  My only ‘luck’ with converting the masses has been my lunch time card playing group.  Since these non-gamers knew ‘normal’ games like Poker (and we couldn’t actually gamble at work) it was fairly easy to start off playing a game like “Oh Hell” with regular cards.  From there I would occassionally introduce something new. First it was something simple: Guillotine I believe it was. 

Since then we’ve evolved and play things like Coloretto, No thanks!, BANG!, Gang of Four, Pepper, and Galloping Pigs.  Even quicker & smallish non-card games like Royal Turf and Cartegena have gone over well.  I can now get 1 or 2 of the semi-converted to make it over for Game Nights with my regular players.

And I may be late to the party, but I just recently saw a ‘mainstreamed’ version of Catan in my local ToysRUs. The board is non-modular, being pre-printed with the hexes and water already in place (I’m guessing to cater to the smaller attention spans of mainstream Americans?).  Has anyone heard about this, or know how well its selling?  I could see that version making a run at becoming a ‘household’ staple.

"But I can’t help but wonder if it’s all in vain.”

It probably isn’t, but I am not sure the effort it involves is worth the candle.

As long as you feel positive about trying to spread the word, go for it, but there does seem to be a ‘wall’ or trench which these people won’t or can’t cross.

Nice article. It rang a lot of bells.

Dude, Joe and Bob ARE playing a new game with you.  The minute they sit down to Settlers with you, they lose.

Sag.