What the Heck is a "Gateway Game" Anyway???
I've been thinking recently about what we tend to call "gateway games". I actually started writing a blog post about it on two different occasions, but abandoned it because I couldn't figure out exactly what to say. Well, I read a recent article on Hiew Chok Sien's awesome boardgame blog a little while ago, and his thoughts added some fuel to my own, so let's explore this topic a little further.Let's start wth the term "gateway game", which itself comes from a reference to illicit drugs. Gateway drugs are substances, such as marijuana, which are just a little outside of mainstream acceptance. So the barrier for people to interact and try them is relatively small. "Pushers" may even offer them for free to give people the opportunity to try them out and see their "benefits", hoping to get them hooked and coming back for more later on. And then, once they're more accustomed to the drug scene, to guide them towards harder and more addictive drugs.
Re-read that last paragraph again, replacing the word "drug" with "game", and you'll see how closely our thinking about gateway games matches the pattern used by these leeches to our society. "Gateway" is, therefore, not exactly a flattering term, both because of its tie to illegal activity and because of how manipulatively it approaches the non-gamers that we are trying to convert. It implies that the goal is not only for us to help them have fun playing a game (which would be about them), but also that we have some hidden agenda to hook them on our gamer culture (which is, more than anything, about us having more people to play and identify with).
And when we're not using drug references, we're using ones from faith and religion, with words like "converting" them, or "showing them the light" about games. Like we gamers know the one, true way to fun and fulfillment in recreation. It's like those who don't play or enjoy games are blind or stupid or something.
Okay, okay. I know that's not what you mean when you use those terms. And I am completely guilty of using and pushing them as well. We just love what we do so much, and we have this urge to share it with others whenever we can, so that they can have as much fun with it as we do! We don't mean any harm; we just want to show them how cool games can be! We are their only hope for emerging from the darkness of the TV and videogame abyss, and we must show them the one, true path to happiness... Oh, wait... I think I got off target there a little. But can you see how our excitement can get the best of us?
Is it wrong to want to share our hobby? Absolutely not. But both for our sanity and for the well-being of our "targets", I think that we need to be clear about who the sharing is for. Do you really think that they will enjoy the game or gaming in general, but that they just haven't been exposed to it before? Then make it all about them and trying to figure out the best game and situation for them to have fun. But if you're trying to make a gaming convert mainly so that you'll have someone else to play with, then you've got to be careful. If you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, then you will come out of it frustrated, and they may be left with an even worse impression of what boardgames are about.
The issue here is that "gateway" implies an agenda to "move them along" down the path towards "our kind of games". But let me share something important with you here: some people just don't like games. And maybe I'm being just a little pessimistic here, but I'd venture to say that most people don't like games that make them think. But, contrary to the way we believe sometimes, there's nothing wrong with them.
And finally, the thing that sort of actually prompted this post, are the "gateway games" themselves. We throw around this term a lot and assign it to games that still feel or play like the games we love, but are simple enough that they might just appeal to non-gamers. Again, the point is that if we show them the light, they will want more. They'll get hooked, and we can then induct them into the higher levels of our secret society and get them playing Die Macher and Twilight Imperium 3 in no time.
But thinking that we have to "dumb down" our games so that they can be understood by the unwashed masses is sort of derogatory and patronizing in and of itself. Not that there's anything wrong with Settlers or Ticket to Ride or any of the other stereotypical gateways, but what makes a non-gamer any less able to understand games any less than the rest of us?
I mean, when I think about all the new people who have attended our game night over the years, we didn't sequester them over to a little corner of the room and limit their exposure to only approved "gateway" games. We (hopefully) just invited them in to whatever we were playing and tried to explain it as best we could. Of course there is some learning curve of terminology and common mechanics in these games, but they usually do fine and keep coming back for more. Particularly when people are already involved in other aspects of Geek Culture, the best "gateway game" for them may something that interests them thematically, rather than something that we think is "easy enough" for them to pick up.
So, as you think about introducing games to the people around you, I think there's a number of points to consider:
- Figure out whether your intentions are pure. Is it about them, or you? While there's not necessarily anything wrong with wanting to find or cultivate partners for gaming, make sure that it's actually something that they want, too. And if it's not, just stop.
- Have an agenda, but make it be that you want to discover which kinds of games they like, rather than getting them into the games that you like.
- Accept that some people just don't care for games, or that light party-style games may be all that they want.
- Realize that complexity is not the only thing that might make a game perfect to introduce someone to modern boardgames.
- Drop some of the assumptions and standard definitions that you may hold about gateway games and non-gamers. Look at people as individuals and figure out first if they are interested in games at all, and second, which games they may want to try.
What was your "gateway" game, and does it conform to the traditional "gateway" games?
This is a good topic for discussion and I think you handled it well. I agree that 'gateway' has certain connotations in the gamer culture. It is often used to the degradation of the game. "oh, that's just a gateway game.' I like your point that non-gamers aren't any dumber than gamers. They just haven't been exposed to hobby games.
To your discussion of recruiting new gamers into the hobby, you are right. Some people just don't like games. My wife is one unfortunately for me. I would like her to be a gamer but she's not at all interested. Last, your 5 points are spot on.
Reply to this
Good post, Chris! This is near and dear to my heart, both as a gamer and now as a store owner.
I'll never forget my cold shock when I brought out Apples to Apples at the beach for us to play. My sister-in-law announced "I don't like games." I pressed her further: Monopoly? Hearts? Solitaire? nothing. I could not believe it. Honestly, for the entire week at the beach all we did was watch tv at night. This was such a shock since she's into geek culture like the rest of my family. I had NO idea there were people out there who hated games so much!
Another time, Clint and I were going through a dry spell of gaming, and I convinced a Buffy-fan friend of mine to try Savage Worlds. She was in her 50s and admitted ADD. She enjoyed it a little, but not enough to stick with it. She even came to MACE for a day. Oh well, at least I got to game during that dry spell.
For my kids, gaming came naturally. But we did find a "gateway game" in Faery's Tale for my eldest to try running as a GM. Now they play Savage Worlds and Dragon Age RPG. We love board games too, with my eldest daughter's favorite Settlers of Catan, but we can't find the time or money for the board games as often.
Thanks for getting me started on this line of thought, Chris!
Reply to this
Added to aggregator
Reply to this
I am surprised that this subject has produced so few comments.
About Your Post
The scope of the discussion, your reasoning, how the post is structured, and how it leads to your five points makes it an excellent post. Very persuasive. I really liked the structure. As I was reading the post I was writing down notes like "drug is the negative term not gateway," "semantic transference," and "enabling gamers not making them." Then I read further and realized you were just pushing a view to make your points.
About Gateway Games in General
It makes sense that gateway games are generally less complex. It is easier for somebody to grasp two new concepts than four or five. That said a good teacher makes it easier to grasp more concepts. A good teacher substantially broadens what games work as introductory games. You are a good teacher Chris.
About My Interest in a Gateway Game and My Gateway Game
I grew up with a family that played games most Sunday afternoons. Mostly card games but also a bit of board games (Nile, Acquire, Risk). A lot of good socializing and common experience flowed across that table. I would like to find a board game or a card game that acted as a gateway or catalyst for the same thing with my family. I don't think I am going to find it. I have not given up on it but they just do not have much appetite for games. They will play a game of Forbidden Island and talk excitedly about what happened in the game... and then go for three or four weeks without any urge to play again. I am still holding out some hope that it is a matter of finding the right game for them.
I don't think I had a gateway game. I have been a gamer as long as I can remember. My mother says I played simple card games at age two and at age three or four I invented my first game by gluing colored paper onto a 6-sided die and drawing a colored track to travel thus pretty much reinventing Candyland. Uhg. I did make a conscious decision in 1982 to go hard core. On a take home pay of $110 a week I upped my purchase budget to $40 a month and started to attend every game convention I could find within 8 hours drive of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. No particular game triggered that decision.
Reply to this
Thanks for the compliments, Keith (both about the post and my teaching ability)!
And, of course, the reason that stereotypical "gateway games" exist is because they are probably a really good introduction for a lot of people. But I (like many others) have also gotten those blank stares and "I'm so confused" comments while trying to explain something like Ticket to Ride with non-gamers. But on the other hand, I've used The Princes of Florence as a "gateway" for more than one person, because while it's significantly deeper than TtR or Carcassonne, it also has an obvious way to play (gathering the items on their initial profession cards to optimize those works), but also offers deeper strategy as it comes to them.
Reply to this
Excellent article, Chris!
I never knew that "gateway" came from "gateway drugs".
I recently spent a weekend playing games with two old friends who are non-gamers. We mostly played light to medium weight games. None of those heavy Eurogames that I usually prefer. But I had a blast. They enjoyed themselves very much too. And I think I got one of them addicted to Pandemic. What you said is very true, when introducing friends to games, it is important to keep in mind what they will like. Light to medium weight games worked very well for my friends. We wanted to try Ghost Stories (a theme that they find interesting), but it was simply too confusing for them, so we aborted after I had explained 90% of the rules. I had no regrets. We'd all suffer if I had tried to push ahead. They were resistant to Agricola at first, so I said let's just try a few rounds to see how it works, and we can restart. We ended up playing all the way to the end. So, when introducing games to newbies, being flexible helps to make sure everyone has fun.
Reply to this
I think that a lot of this "gateway agenda" comes from the fact that we, as hardcore gamers, have this... well, arrogance about how our games are "better" than other games. And stereotypical gateway games are therefore a tool to move people from traditional or party games (or total non-gaming) into an appreciation of our hobby. And a lot of times, I think that it's more about getting them to recognize and appreciate us as gamers, rather than it is about the games themselves.
The thing is, though, the whole point of games is to have fun. And does anyone have the right to tell someone else what is the "right" way to have fun playing games? It's also not wrong to ask and introduce people to the games that we love most, of course, but we shouldn't look down on people who just want the light, social fun of a party game, for instance.
Heck, if we'd just drop our assumptions about which are the "good games" from time to time, we might find that we actually have more fun that we thought playing games of all kinds with our friends and family.
Reply to this
I think you hit the nails on their heads.
1. We gamers do tend to be a bit arrogant about games. Most people are about their hobby. It is our job to put that aside if we want others to see the joy of gaming. As you said if we drop our biases we will have more fun. I played Aunt Millie's Millions twice last night with my kids. It is a simple game that probably wouldn't go over on game night. But we had fun and I was gaming with my kids. That is what is important.
2. Gateway is a falacy. Almost any game can be an entry into gaming if it is taught well. Your example of Princes is a good example of this.
3. Fun is the goal. And different people have fun differently. Some people think fun is watching a bunch of cars going around and around for 4 or 5 hours. Some people like to watch people chase a little white ball all over the yard. Some people like to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. Fine. I prefer Goa or Pandemic or even...Monopoly!
tomg
Reply to this