Shut up about gateway games

Two topics on r/boardgames caught my ire yesterday. The first was pretty straightforward. Someone was underwhelmed with their first play of Catan and was asking what they had missed. A few people politely pointed out that the game really isn’t at its best at two players, but plenty more jumped in to dump on one of the most important and singular games of the past thirty years and recommend whatever else.

The second asked what the best gateway games of the past five years were. It wasn’t the answers that bothered me so much as the tone. People asked whether the suggestions were actually easy enough, and everyone seemed to be treating them as stepping stones to more complex and heavier games.

Maybe this is catching me because I’ve been trying to play more games with my six- and four-year-olds. Sure, at this age there are real constraints like reading and game length that can keep their attention, and yes, I would love to play the Arkham Horror LCG or War of the Ring with them some day, but if they are happy playing King of Tokyo and Ticket to Ride: New York for the next ten years and nothing else, that’s fine. It’s time together.

Why does our hobby demand everyone descend to our depths? I like riding my bike, too, but I’m not asking my wife to ride a century with me. The five miles to bring the boys out to the playground is great.

And what is this, “Is it easy enough?”nonsense? I was playing Decipher’s Star Wars CCG when I was seven. I was playing it wrong and poorly, but it got me excited. That’s all a new game needs to do. It needs to capture your audience’s attention and enthusiasm. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Wingspan for the friend with six bird feeders or Imperial Assault for the Star Wars obsessive.

I agree with you.

I don’t like the term “gateway” because it implies these games are entry points, but they are perfectly good “end” points.

I have introduced people to games like Star Fleet Battles and they took to it. Does that make SFB a gateway?

Just a silly concept. Kind of gatekeeping, in a sense.

Oddly enough, the term is borrowed from gateway drugs, which addicts think is the most amusing phrase ever invented. In particular, it was a tarring phrase for marijuana, which a vested portion of the American political apparatus wanted to remain fully illegal for reasons that currently seem quaint at best.

Addicts will joke that oxygen was their gateway drug.

To some extent I think the people that originally used it for gaming were fully tongue-in-cheek. But it has grabbed on with gaming people as they enter the hobby as a more serious term, as if there's some magic to some games that means they will make people like playing. I think the longer someone is in the hobby, the more they stop giving a damn about people that aren't interested. The phrase goes back to its prior absurdity and people just stop caring.

Totally agree. I have little patience or time lately to even learn, let alone master, some heavy complex game that no one gives a shit about except for some online neckbeards. And if mastering a complex game were important to me, I'd go get good at chess. At least that has some social cachet.

The problem, from the online neckbeards' POV, is that chess is hard to get good at, and there's a lot of competition. Much easier to get good at Fucking Reef Encounter (etc.) where you're competing against virtually no one.

It can be kind of fun to grapple with a system and then make it work for you. But mostly I like hanging out with friends, and I'd rather play games with them than watch TV with them.

I hate the term as well, except when used in the past tense-- "What was your gateway game?"

When used in the present, it takes on the meaning of "What game can I use to trick my friends into becoming as obsessed with this hobby as I am?" Which is just plain selfish. Just teach them something fun. If they have the Jones in their DNA, they'll come to you.

For the record, my first "modern-style" game was Scotland Yard, but my "gateway" was definitely Catan.

Yeah, some of the leadership of one of the local meetup groups that calls itself casual is full of BGG speak, and routinely uses terms like "gateway game," "game weight," etc, with new people and it drives me up the wall. At the end of the day they just want to buy overpriced food at the restaurant (where the group meets) and then play Feld games. I'm mocked for bringing the same 4 or 5 games every time, even years later.

The other group that is people that have been playing since the 90s and early 2000's is stuck alternatively on things like Arnak and Dune Imperium at one table, or Nemesis at the other. I kind of agree with Matt Thrower that the latter is a bit overwrought.

I kind of end up bummed every time I go out. Maybe I'm just a little jaded, I don't know.

When it comes to gaming at home, I've tried lots of stuff, and a lot of the games we liked are currently in storage and need to be moved back into our new place. X-Wing was going over much better than when I tried Machi Koro recently, which she thought was too simple and prone to snowball effects. My girlfriend really loves Kingdomino, and I like it too, but I'm starting to feel bad for how often I win.

What I'd really love is to somehow convert an entire squadron of M:tG commander players into Summoner Wars 2e players, but that seems like a tall order.

The whole "gateway" thing kind of gnaws at the old question of whether you should try to turn the friends and people you love into gamers, or find people who already enjoy the games you love. I'm finding that by disliking popular mechanics (i.e. point salad stuff, worker placement) I dislike a lot of the tables I find myself at, and it seems selfish (as others said above) to try to foist your games onto friends and family.

Reminds me of the same annoying question, "what would you recommend for a non-gamer"? How about... something that isn't a game.

It's valid to acknowledge that some games are more accessible to someone with limited board game experience. And it should also be acknowledged that a new player isn't necessarily a moron, even if the new player is a kid. My dad taught me to play Acquire at age 5, though admittedly I didn't win until I was 8. He also taught me how to play Battle-Cry (1961 version) at age 7, but I was too young to really get it and just wanted to play with the pieces.

I have had surprising success over the years at persuading people to try board games. Maybe it's because I don't waste their time with an insultingly simple-minded procedural that lacks any theme or texture, like Catan. Instead, I pitch games that have a distinct sense of setting and maybe offer the semblance of a narrative, so it's a similar conversation to talking somebody into trying a tv show or watching a movie. You know, something actually entertaining and not a work-like exercise. But I still reject the concept of the gateway game, because I am not interested in acting like a playground pusher, using free samples to hook new addicts.

This is all very interesting, because when I think of a game as a "gateway game" I think of a game that has a good history of selling well & being reliably accessible to folks who may otherwise not be interested in gaming. Like, if I were a game designer and any of my game designs ever got called a "gateway game" I would feel pretty flattered & consider it an honor. I wouldn't be like, "Eww, don't call it that!!!"

(Not saying everyone has to go through some formal 12-step introduction to boardgaming if they are already so inclined, just thinking the idea of a "gateway game" holds merit as a positive thing.)

Yeah, but I think "selling well" is what makes journeyman gamers turn on the title. Without the rarity it's not trendy anymore.

And let's face it, dissing Catan is like putting grandpa on an ice flow and kicking him out to sea. It had a huge influence on the hobby, and is still one of the few games that a majority of us can speak with each other about, even if it's not a personal favorite. It's one of the games you can use as a metaphor to describe other titles.

At some point I think everyone that doesn't leave the hobby gets to a point of comfort in their own self-value to stop caring so much about what game they get caught playing. Sitting down in public to a round of Bratz Babyz Stylin' Scavenger Hunt is a sure sign that you've made it to the senior tier of the hobby.

Gateway games aren’t a real thing and they never were. It’s a gatekeeping term that hobbyists use to elevate themselves above the “sheeples” and to try to suggest that what they are doing is so sophisticated, clever, and exclusive that it requires an initiation through several levels until you are an Ascended Master and can “handle” something like A Vital Lacerda game. Like this shit is a Masonic lodge or something, I swear.

The only thing worse than these gaslighters recommending a whole slew of “better” flash in the pan junk games that won’t be remembered in five years (let alone for nearly 30 like Catan)) is their fundamental lack of comprehending what makes a game great and what makes a game timeless and accessible to anyone other than other hobbyists.

When I see someone shit on Catan, I see someone that doesn’t understand the history of gaming and what makes games appealing and successful regardless of personal tastes. I don’t care for Pandemic but I can look at it and appreciate how significant and impactful it was (and is) and value it for elevating the entire hobby and bringing new folks into it. I would never be that fucking asshole gatekeeper going up to someone with a new copy of Pandemic “we’ll, actually, there are all these other games that are BETTER…”

I fucking hate so much about the board gaming hobby. Lately, this entire subject has been at the top of the shitlist.

Fuck’s sake, if someone who’s never played a game sees a copy of Terra Mystica and thinks “that looks fun, I want to try to play it” are you really going to be the shitbird that runs up “well, actually, these gateway games are better for you to start with because you just can’t handle that kind of game yet”?

Honestly, I think your own enthusiasm (and theirs) and ability to teach a game is more important than how complex it is.

I used to run a 5e campaign that included a 5-year-old (as a Fighter). I've taught Power Grid to the "poker and monopoly" crowd, etc.

Like this shit is a Masonic lodge or something, I swear.

Did you just flash a secret symbol? I'm supposed to turn your ass in for that.

Michael Barnes wrote: Like this shit is a Masonic lodge or something, I swear.

There used to be (and probably still is) that annoying subset of "power gamer" who replies to very basic, very innocent questions about "I'm not super familiar with boardgames, which one is right for me?" with a deliberate acceleration into crunchy-town:

Poor dewy-eyed fellow: "What should my first wargame be?"
Holier-than-thou power gamer: "ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER!!!"
Decent gamer trying to help: "Maybe Memoir '44, or..."
Holier-than-thou power gamer: "IT'S NOT THAT HARD, STOP CODDLING THEM!!!!!"

Which then inevitably leads to some other doofus recommending some dusty Avalon Hill hex-&-counter game that's been out-of-print since the Carter administration.

Don't bring us grognards into this. We are much more accommodating and welcoming to new gamers than the point salad, allergic to dice and randomness crowd. lol

To be fair, are numbers are dwindling and we can afford to let anyone pass by. hahahaha