Any game that involves a net in the middle (Tennis, Volleyball, Badminton or Ping-Pong) can be played in a way that's cooperative. The idea is to keep the ball in play as long as possible. It's a good low-stress way to improve basic skills, and can be a more relaxing pastime between friends. I can't really speak for wanting to watch these games, but you never know.
Some of this can also be done without a net - volleying a ball or balloon back and forth in the air to see how long you can keep it from falling.
While I'm on the topic of physical games, there's already a version of cooperative Dodgeball that I didn't make up. Players who get hit by a ball just join the other team. This continues until there is just one team. It works out pretty well.
[Cooperative Volleyball] [Cooperative Tennis] [Cooperative Badminton] [Cooperative Ping-Pong] [Cooperative Dodgeball]
Friday, January 15, 2016
Battleship Buddies
There are a couple of ways to play battleship cooperatively.
Option 1:
Similar to "Less Stress Guess...Who". Instead of playing as opponents, simply place pieces on one side, and let one person guess while the other tells them "hit" or "miss" and try to get to the end in as few turns as possible. You could even re-frame in a way that lets the "informing" player be the "spy". It's really no less challenging.
Option 2:
A friend of mine* came up with an interesting "coopetition" version of this game, to be played 2-vs-2. On each side you have one "main" player, and one "spy" (or "scout"). The main player asks directly if a spot is a hit or a miss, but the next time it's the team's turn, the spy must play. The spy indicates a 3x3 grid, and asks if the ship lies within it. Regardless of a yes or no answer, and no hits are made. But of course, this can really help the main player the next time it comes back to them.
(* Gregory, an avid gamer)
[Cooperative Battleship]
Option 1:
Similar to "Less Stress Guess...Who". Instead of playing as opponents, simply place pieces on one side, and let one person guess while the other tells them "hit" or "miss" and try to get to the end in as few turns as possible. You could even re-frame in a way that lets the "informing" player be the "spy". It's really no less challenging.
Option 2:
A friend of mine* came up with an interesting "coopetition" version of this game, to be played 2-vs-2. On each side you have one "main" player, and one "spy" (or "scout"). The main player asks directly if a spot is a hit or a miss, but the next time it's the team's turn, the spy must play. The spy indicates a 3x3 grid, and asks if the ship lies within it. Regardless of a yes or no answer, and no hits are made. But of course, this can really help the main player the next time it comes back to them.
(* Gregory, an avid gamer)
[Cooperative Battleship]
Perfect Perfection
This game is already geared toward cooperation, since it's player(s) vs timer. The competitive aspect is practically an afterthought.
Here, simply work together to get the pieces in their spaces before the time runs out. I wouldn't be surprised if many people already play it this way sometimes. The main point of even mentioning it is that it can be a helpful suggestion to squabbling kids.
[Cooperative Perfection]
Here, simply work together to get the pieces in their spaces before the time runs out. I wouldn't be surprised if many people already play it this way sometimes. The main point of even mentioning it is that it can be a helpful suggestion to squabbling kids.
[Cooperative Perfection]
Joint Jenga
This is pretty much the same idea as "Nice Don't Break the Ice". You want to take away as many total blocks as possible without knocking down the structure, and (important!) not removing any blocks from the top layer.
This can also be fun as "coopetition", using teams to see which towers can stay standing with the fewest overall blocks.
For more challenge, players should not be allowed to talk among themselves.
[Cooperative Jenga]
This can also be fun as "coopetition", using teams to see which towers can stay standing with the fewest overall blocks.
For more challenge, players should not be allowed to talk among themselves.
[Cooperative Jenga]
Nice Don't Break the Ice
A big part of the fun of this game is tapping the blocks, and the suspense at the possibility that they will fall.
Game Play:
Each player takes a turn removing blocks one at a time, just like in the normal game. But instead of collecting the highest number of blocks, you want to end up with the fewest blocks possible in play that still hold up the man/bear/thing in the middle.
I totally admit - the competitive version of this game is better. There's a whole new level of complexity when you have to think of a strategy to thwart the other players. But this version is still fun, especially for teaching beginners.
[Cooperative Don't Break the Ice]
Game Play:
Each player takes a turn removing blocks one at a time, just like in the normal game. But instead of collecting the highest number of blocks, you want to end up with the fewest blocks possible in play that still hold up the man/bear/thing in the middle.
I totally admit - the competitive version of this game is better. There's a whole new level of complexity when you have to think of a strategy to thwart the other players. But this version is still fun, especially for teaching beginners.
[Cooperative Don't Break the Ice]
Hi-Ho Cheery-O
Little kids like this game because it's fun to move the cherries from the bucket to the tree and back. In the process they learn fine motor control and counting skills. Why add any other drama to it?
When a player spins the spinner, together you can decide which player it should apply to. The goal is to fill all the buckets with cherries as quickly as you can. If cherries have to be spilled, you'll want to strategically apply this to the bucket that already has the fewest cherries.
If you're feeling politically distressed about the message this game sends (i.e. "Let's cooperate so we can more efficiently strip these trees of their vital natural resources!"), feel free to reverse the game and put the cherries ON the tree from the bucket. It's also a nice idea if your kid wants to play again immediately and you don't feel like re-setting the board. (I may be speaking from experience.)
[Cooperative Hi-Ho Cherry-O]
When a player spins the spinner, together you can decide which player it should apply to. The goal is to fill all the buckets with cherries as quickly as you can. If cherries have to be spilled, you'll want to strategically apply this to the bucket that already has the fewest cherries.
If you're feeling politically distressed about the message this game sends (i.e. "Let's cooperate so we can more efficiently strip these trees of their vital natural resources!"), feel free to reverse the game and put the cherries ON the tree from the bucket. It's also a nice idea if your kid wants to play again immediately and you don't feel like re-setting the board. (I may be speaking from experience.)
[Cooperative Hi-Ho Cherry-O]
Let's Fish
With this game idea, I might be accused of being a communist! I don't actually have an agenda, I promise. (My beliefs are far too pragmatically-oriented to embrace communism as a large-scale social system.) That said, learning how to strategically make things more equal is a good life skill. It teaches the same "theory of mind", but in a much more positive way than trying to take something from someone.
Game Play:
As in "Go Fish", each player starts with 5 cards and a "pond" of cards in the middle. You don't look at each others cards or let anyone know what you have. The idea is to try to guess what others need.
The goal is to help everyone get the same number of matches. For those who crave a certain amount of order (aka control freaks), you can remove cards from the deck ahead of time to ensure an evenly split number of pairs. Otherwise, you can just make the aim to get as close as possible to equal pairs.
For each turn, you choose another player and say "Do you need a [card]?" If they need it, then you give yours to them. If they don't need it, they say "no, let's fish!" and you pick up a card. If the card matches what they need, you give it to them. Otherwise, it goes back into the pond.
The main strategy is to be aware of which players need more pairs and what they will probably need so you can give it to them.
[Cooperative Go Fish]
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Mellow Memory
Kids typically love this game, and often beat their parents at it. So to avoid parental temper tantrums, here's a cooperative version.
Game Play:
Lay out cards as you normally would for memory, and make matches together.
Option 1: Player 1 flips the first card, and Player 2 flips the second one. (Better if the more mature player is Player 1)
Option 2: Player 1 flips the first card. Next, they can either flip a second card or offer the chance to Player 2.
This is another one of those games where the competitive aspect seems superfluous, and it's not clear why that would make it more fun for 3 year-olds.
[Cooperative Memory]
Game Play:
Lay out cards as you normally would for memory, and make matches together.
Option 1: Player 1 flips the first card, and Player 2 flips the second one. (Better if the more mature player is Player 1)
Option 2: Player 1 flips the first card. Next, they can either flip a second card or offer the chance to Player 2.
This is another one of those games where the competitive aspect seems superfluous, and it's not clear why that would make it more fun for 3 year-olds.
[Cooperative Memory]
Monday, January 11, 2016
Less-Stress Guess... Who
Guess Who has a certain educational aspect, in the sense that it teaches pattern matching and logical reasoning. So even though it can be very boring for adults (especially when played for the 50th time), it's probably worthwhile to play with kids.
The thing that's funny about this game is that it's already cooperative and the competition is somewhat artificially imposed upon it.
All that needs to change is that you just play one side. One person does all the guessing, and the other does all the answering. The "challenge" is to do it in as few turns as possible.
A similar notion can be applied to games like Battleship (though I plan to do a separate entry on that, eventually).
[Cooperative Guess Who]
The thing that's funny about this game is that it's already cooperative and the competition is somewhat artificially imposed upon it.
All that needs to change is that you just play one side. One person does all the guessing, and the other does all the answering. The "challenge" is to do it in as few turns as possible.
A similar notion can be applied to games like Battleship (though I plan to do a separate entry on that, eventually).
[Cooperative Guess Who]
Better Boggle
Using Boggle, you can work together to find as many words as possible against the timer. With little kids, you can just keep a list together. With older players, you keep the lists from each other, but come up with a strategy so that you don't get the same words together.
In the "coopetition" version of Boggle, you can work as teams of 2 against 2. During game play, no one actually shares what they're doing, but they can work out strategies ahead of time so that they don't end up getting the same words together and cancelling each other out.
[Cooperative Boggle]
[Cooperative Boggle]
Bananagrams goes Bananas
Maybe I should stop with the "clever" titles...
In Bananagrams, the idea is to race the other player(s) to see who can use all their letter tiles to build a complete crossword-type grid.
Cooperative Bananagrams could be as simple as selecting a number of tiles and working together on it, or working together against a timer.
"Time" is often an easy way to add the element of challenge to a cooperative game.
A 2-vs-2 game (Bananagrams Split?) could be played by having teams work together against each other (the way you'd normally play 1-vs-1).
[Cooperative Bananagrams]
In Bananagrams, the idea is to race the other player(s) to see who can use all their letter tiles to build a complete crossword-type grid.
Cooperative Bananagrams could be as simple as selecting a number of tiles and working together on it, or working together against a timer.
"Time" is often an easy way to add the element of challenge to a cooperative game.
A 2-vs-2 game (Bananagrams Split?) could be played by having teams work together against each other (the way you'd normally play 1-vs-1).
[Cooperative Bananagrams]
Actually Friendly Words with Friends (or Serene Scrabble)
I have to say up front that really love Scrabble-type games, and I feel like the competitive aspect did help me become a better player.
That said, the cooperative version(s) bring out a different kind of creativity and skill-set which is nice. Plus, it engages younger children more, which gives them the benefit of learning new words without having to feel bored or "always losing".
Option 1 - stick to a theme:
Lay out all the letters. For each player's turn, they can choose tiles from the pile to make a total of 7 to work with. The idea is to keep to a certain theme. (Probably best to pick something fairly broad, like "Christmas".) The players need to try to set up the board so that everyone can easily place their words. All plays can be open to discussion.
Option 2 - try to get the highest total score possible:
The idea here is to play Scrabble the normal way (no players can see the others' tiles). However, since you want to help the other person as much as possible, you have to re-think the normal strategy. (This idea got me wondering what the highest possible joint score in Scrabble could possibly be.)
Option 3 - (Suggested by Bill) Similar to Option 2, you try to get the highest total score possible. In this one, each player rolls a 6-sided die at the beginning of their turn. The number on the die indicates how many letters you can choose from your wooden holder and place down in front for everyone to see. Then, each other player (going clockwise) has the opportunity to add one or two letters they think could help. When it gets back to the player whose turn it is, that person must make the best play they can out of the letters provided. The nice thing about this particular version is that all players are engaged all the time. It's easier to play with beginners too, without making them feel discouraged.
I bet there are other possibilities. I'll add them if/when I think of any.
[Cooperative Scrabble]
That said, the cooperative version(s) bring out a different kind of creativity and skill-set which is nice. Plus, it engages younger children more, which gives them the benefit of learning new words without having to feel bored or "always losing".
Option 1 - stick to a theme:
Lay out all the letters. For each player's turn, they can choose tiles from the pile to make a total of 7 to work with. The idea is to keep to a certain theme. (Probably best to pick something fairly broad, like "Christmas".) The players need to try to set up the board so that everyone can easily place their words. All plays can be open to discussion.
Option 2 - try to get the highest total score possible:
The idea here is to play Scrabble the normal way (no players can see the others' tiles). However, since you want to help the other person as much as possible, you have to re-think the normal strategy. (This idea got me wondering what the highest possible joint score in Scrabble could possibly be.)
Option 3 - (Suggested by Bill) Similar to Option 2, you try to get the highest total score possible. In this one, each player rolls a 6-sided die at the beginning of their turn. The number on the die indicates how many letters you can choose from your wooden holder and place down in front for everyone to see. Then, each other player (going clockwise) has the opportunity to add one or two letters they think could help. When it gets back to the player whose turn it is, that person must make the best play they can out of the letters provided. The nice thing about this particular version is that all players are engaged all the time. It's easier to play with beginners too, without making them feel discouraged.
I bet there are other possibilities. I'll add them if/when I think of any.
[Cooperative Scrabble]
Hungry, Helping Hippos
This game can be pretty fun. But really, the best part is scurrying to grab lots of marbles; counting them at the end seems kind-of incidental (and where the hard feelings typically begin).
The cooperative version doesn't really change the fun part so much. The idea is to give a time limit (10, 15 or 20 seconds) to see how many the group can grab together. With really little kids, the game play isn't much different that it normally would be. With older kids, it may encourage them to strategize a little, by getting into a timing or a pattern.
A hybrid ("coopetition") version would have 2 vs 2, to see which team can collect the most.
[Cooperative Hungry, Hungry Hippos]
The cooperative version doesn't really change the fun part so much. The idea is to give a time limit (10, 15 or 20 seconds) to see how many the group can grab together. With really little kids, the game play isn't much different that it normally would be. With older kids, it may encourage them to strategize a little, by getting into a timing or a pattern.
A hybrid ("coopetition") version would have 2 vs 2, to see which team can collect the most.
[Cooperative Hungry, Hungry Hippos]
Less-Stress Chess
I'll grant that normal chess is a good enough game in itself.
However, alternatives have their place, because they can be fun and help you to improve your normal game. For example, you could still play competitively, but each side tries to lose the game (where you have to take a piece as long as it's possible).
The cooperative version is really good for teaching inexperienced players (especially children) the rules of the game. The idea is that you pick one side in advance to be the losing side, and together you figure out how to end the game in as few moves as possible. With expert players, there may be just one solution (or a small handful of solutions) that will truly yield the fewest moves.
But it will still be a challenge when one of the players is a novice. You can let the inexperienced player (playing the winning side) make any move, and then discuss openly what the "losing side" should do to lose. Or you can switch it up and let the inexperienced player make their choices on the losing side and discuss together what the winning side should do.
[Cooperative Chess]
However, alternatives have their place, because they can be fun and help you to improve your normal game. For example, you could still play competitively, but each side tries to lose the game (where you have to take a piece as long as it's possible).
The cooperative version is really good for teaching inexperienced players (especially children) the rules of the game. The idea is that you pick one side in advance to be the losing side, and together you figure out how to end the game in as few moves as possible. With expert players, there may be just one solution (or a small handful of solutions) that will truly yield the fewest moves.
But it will still be a challenge when one of the players is a novice. You can let the inexperienced player (playing the winning side) make any move, and then discuss openly what the "losing side" should do to lose. Or you can switch it up and let the inexperienced player make their choices on the losing side and discuss together what the winning side should do.
[Cooperative Chess]
Sorry, not Sorry
Sorry is loosely based on the game "Parcheesi", except that it includes "sorry" cards which allow you to send a chosen player home. With a strategy that involves intentionally kicking other players back to the beginning, this game is really great for starting fights among siblings and friends alike.
I played "Sorry, not Sorry" with my son and we enjoyed it quite a bit more.
Game Play:
Normally, when you select a card, you use it to advance your own piece forward. Here, you can instead choose to use it the normal way or help another player. There are a few options for interpreting the "sorry" cards:
1) Use it to send anyone home that you choose (including yourself).
2) Use it to send someone to someone else's base, especially if it's close to their end goal.
3) Use it to help someone get out of their starting area. In other words, the meaning of "I'm sorry" is that you're sad that someone is stuck and you want to help them out.
The goal is for everyone to get to their "destination base".
Note: Parcheesi can operate with similar rules. In Parcheesi, if you land on another player, that sends them home. In cooperative Parcheesi, you can work to avoid that by giving someone else your roll or splitting your roll with another player.
[Cooperative Sorry] [Cooperative Parcheesi]
[Cooperative Sorry] [Cooperative Parcheesi]
Pictionary Telephone
This is one I learned recently, and can actually be done pretty easily without using the Pictionary game. But since the theme is to include original board games, I figure I can explain it that way.
Game play:
Requires a decent number of players - at least 4, but more is better.
Player 1 takes a Pictionary card, and rolls a die to see which color they should use. (Or, to keep it simple, just choose whatever picture on the card they'd like to start with. To do this without using the Pictionary board game, you just make up a phrase or draw an odd picture.) Player 1 then draws a picture of what they read on the card.
Player 1 hands the drawing to Player 2, who writes a short description of what they see. Player 2 then folds down the drawing part so that only their written description shows at the top.
Player 2 hands the page to Player 3, who draws a picture based on the written description, folds down the description, and continues forward.
When it gets back to Player 1, you can all look at how the picture was interpreted and mis-interpreted.
For large groups, multiple people can start at once so that people aren't just sitting around waiting for a turn.
To include non-readers in the game, an older player can be their partner who will read the description and help them write a description. It's actually good to have a really wide range of ages and include really little kids, because the more it gets "mixed up", the better.
[Cooperative Pictionary]
Game play:
Requires a decent number of players - at least 4, but more is better.
Player 1 takes a Pictionary card, and rolls a die to see which color they should use. (Or, to keep it simple, just choose whatever picture on the card they'd like to start with. To do this without using the Pictionary board game, you just make up a phrase or draw an odd picture.) Player 1 then draws a picture of what they read on the card.
Player 1 hands the drawing to Player 2, who writes a short description of what they see. Player 2 then folds down the drawing part so that only their written description shows at the top.
Player 2 hands the page to Player 3, who draws a picture based on the written description, folds down the description, and continues forward.
When it gets back to Player 1, you can all look at how the picture was interpreted and mis-interpreted.
For large groups, multiple people can start at once so that people aren't just sitting around waiting for a turn.
To include non-readers in the game, an older player can be their partner who will read the description and help them write a description. It's actually good to have a really wide range of ages and include really little kids, because the more it gets "mixed up", the better.
[Cooperative Pictionary]
No-cry Chutes and Ladders
It's so awful playing a game based on pure luck with a very small child. At least with the children I've seen play (including my own), they seem to take their bad luck personally, as if losing reflects on them. Or maybe it's your (the parent's) fault that they lost, and a great injustice has occurred. They don't learn anything much better by winning, because then they just think they're better somehow (and justice is amazingly no longer a concern). But they miss the truth about what "It's all luck" implies.
"Chutes and Ladders" is derived from a much older game, "Snakes and Ladders". The main difference is that there are chutes instead of snakes, which I guess means it's a little less scary. Also, at the bottom of the ladders there are pictures of kids doing good deeds and then being rewarded at the top of the ladder. At the top of the chutes are kids misbehaving and then falling to ruin at the bottom.
The thing is, whether or not you do something "moral" is totally encumbered by pure chance. I've joked that they should make a "Game of Thrones" version of this game, except that the "goodness" or "badness" of the behaviors that make you rise up the ladder or go down the chute would have no relevance. (More true to life?)
Anyway, presuming that the best thing kids get out of this game is the moral lesson it imparts, (and maybe some basic counting skills?), there's not much to lose by making it cooperative. In fact, as far as the morality goes, it's arguable that helping others to make moral decisions and avoid bad ones is really what it's all about. Call me a Universalist, but I'd like to see everyone get to that blue-ribbon "100" space in the sky.
Game Play:
"Chutes and Ladders" is derived from a much older game, "Snakes and Ladders". The main difference is that there are chutes instead of snakes, which I guess means it's a little less scary. Also, at the bottom of the ladders there are pictures of kids doing good deeds and then being rewarded at the top of the ladder. At the top of the chutes are kids misbehaving and then falling to ruin at the bottom.
The thing is, whether or not you do something "moral" is totally encumbered by pure chance. I've joked that they should make a "Game of Thrones" version of this game, except that the "goodness" or "badness" of the behaviors that make you rise up the ladder or go down the chute would have no relevance. (More true to life?)
Anyway, presuming that the best thing kids get out of this game is the moral lesson it imparts, (and maybe some basic counting skills?), there's not much to lose by making it cooperative. In fact, as far as the morality goes, it's arguable that helping others to make moral decisions and avoid bad ones is really what it's all about. Call me a Universalist, but I'd like to see everyone get to that blue-ribbon "100" space in the sky.
Game Play:
With each roll, decide to use the spin yourself or to help other players. If you are about to fall into a chute, you can instead give the other player the spin. Same if your spin could help another player get to a ladder. Players can also ask for help to avoid chutes or get to ladders.
The goal is for everyone to reach the end, as close to each other as possible.
Another advantage: This game is much shorter.
[Cooperative Chutes and Ladders]
[Cooperative Chutes and Ladders]
Escape from Candyland
I tried to get the URL "escapefromcandyland.blogspot.com", but some goofball already took it, posted some non-post, and then abandoned it. Ugh.
Bill (my husband) came up with this game, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is WAY more fun than actual Candyland. That may not be saying much, since Candyland is intensely boring for anyone over the age of 5.
Game play:
To start, you need to include an extra piece: a "monster". This can be a small plastic dinosaur, a lego piece, or any small item that suits your imagination and reasonably fits on the board.
Place all your pieces at the Candy Castle, including the monster. Each person takes 5 turns, but the monster stays back. After the 5 turns are done, the "monster" can start to take turns. One person can be just the monster if they prefer, or they can play a normal player and move the monster too.
Bill (my husband) came up with this game, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is WAY more fun than actual Candyland. That may not be saying much, since Candyland is intensely boring for anyone over the age of 5.
Game play:
To start, you need to include an extra piece: a "monster". This can be a small plastic dinosaur, a lego piece, or any small item that suits your imagination and reasonably fits on the board.
Place all your pieces at the Candy Castle, including the monster. Each person takes 5 turns, but the monster stays back. After the 5 turns are done, the "monster" can start to take turns. One person can be just the monster if they prefer, or they can play a normal player and move the monster too.
If the monster gets past a player, that person is "out" and everyone loses. When you select a card, you can use it to help one of the other players. The goal is for everyone to escape to the beginning before the monster overtakes them.
[Cooperative Candyland]
[Cooperative Candyland]
Simple ways to do more cooperative gaming
I never really finished my other blog, but hey - why not start a new one? This is another idea I really want to get out of my head.
For a long time, I thought cooperative games were kind-of a sad shadow of competitive ones. Something you did to make sure everyone felt good, but weren't actually particularly challenging or inspiring. Also, not particularly fun. Then, I witnessed some cooperative games my daughter played in Girl Scouts. I thought - wow. These are actually fun AND they teach some really important life skills.
It occurred to me that children are taught something about the nature of the world through games. Competitive games make it seem like the point of it all is to "win" (win what?) as an individual. But there's no reason to think that "winning" can't mean making sure everyone in your group gains something in the process, including those who are weaker or slower. The best kind of cooperative games allows for a kind of creativity that lets people start to recognize the strengths that everyone can bring. Maybe that weaker or slower person is also smaller, which can be an advantage in certain situations.
It occurred to me that children are taught something about the nature of the world through games. Competitive games make it seem like the point of it all is to "win" (win what?) as an individual. But there's no reason to think that "winning" can't mean making sure everyone in your group gains something in the process, including those who are weaker or slower. The best kind of cooperative games allows for a kind of creativity that lets people start to recognize the strengths that everyone can bring. Maybe that weaker or slower person is also smaller, which can be an advantage in certain situations.
It's not that I have any philosophical problem with doing things competitively, neither in the world in general nor in the microcosm of a board game. I DO have a problem with the idea that this is the only way things can be, when it clearly isn't. None of us can survive alone. Cooperation is the keystone to our existence - we started our lives utterly dependent and most of us will die in the same circumstance. Competition is useful in context, when it's inside a framing of an overall cooperative mindset.
So, given that cooperative games can be a good thing and CAN be fun, what's the best way to make them happen? Why not use what many of us already have - Candy Land, Scrabble, Monopoly, Pictionary? Board games that are sitting around gathering dust in our closets and storage containers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)