Recently I've come to the conclusion that party games can be categorised into three types, characterised by the number of active participants that are required for the game to function.
That is, how many people need to actively participate in the game for it to work?
When I think about party games there are a number of characteristics and associations that come to mind:
Often they involved a large group of people (friends and family)
Generally they are played in a loud environment (a pub or house party)
There is probably music playing in the background
People may be regularly arriving and leaving which can cause many distractions
People will likely be eating and / or drinking (perhaps to excess)
People are generally looking to chat with friends as their primary goal, and playing games is secondary to that.
This is the backdrop against which party games must not only compete, but thrive in. It's an environment where players can be regularly interrupted, they may need to leave the table mid-game or they may get caught up in conversation with friends.
Party games are seeking to capture some or all of the attention of its players in this context. The greater the attention required by the game, the greater the risk it will alienate some. This is because the attention span demanded by the game can be at odds with peoples true desires to relax and have fun in other ways. (Yes, there are other ways to have fun that don't involve playing games!)
Additionally, games that demand a lot of attention often have the unintended consequence of making players feel bad. This may be because a player is taking a long time to play, or they are are regularly distracted, and that is causing other players at the table to become frustrated. Being aware you are causing others frustration can also be stressful.
To this end, I have classed games into three categories as below:
It's important to note that I don't view these categories as being better or worse, they are just different from one another.
High Attention
If you don't have the right number of active participants the game won't work. These games are a bit like your phone screen; if you aren't careful with it, it will easily break.
For example:
Captain Sonar In Captain Sonar players form two teams of Navy officers, playing against each other in real time to blow the other teams' submarine out of the water. The game is designed to be played with 8 players working cooperatively. Each team has 4 participants, each with their own unique role and each role has a critical (and unique) function to be carried out. In an 8 player game, all 8 players are required to be active participants which makes this game the perfect example of a high attention party game.
Other Examples: Taboo
Medium Attention
If you don't have the right number of active participants the game can continue to function but will likely cause other players to feel frustrated / it will interfere with the enjoyment of others. Like the DeLorean these games can fly, but they can also break down pretty easily.
Codenames
The super popular and fun game Codenames requires two active participants; the two Codemasters, to be engaged or the game won't work. Arguably at least one guesser from each team should be paying attention as well, but not necessarily. However, if one or both of the Codemasters is not actively participating the game will likely drag out for a very long time and may cease to be fun for all players. Because the game can support 6, 8 or even 10 players and the majority of these players do not need to actively participate this game sits in the middle band.
Other Examples: Just One, Monikers, Wavelength
Low Attention
If you don't have the right number of active participants the game will continue to function. Like the Energiser bunny, these games just keep finding a way to go on.
Cards Against Humanity
Cards Against Humanity needs no introduction, as one of the most wildly successful party games in history. And it is my view that one of the key reasons for its astronomical success is that the games' required number of active participants is - wait for it - zero!
That's right; Cards Against Humanity still functions (and functions well) as a game even when not a single player at the table is actively participating in it.
The Judge for each round simply needs to flip the card(s) off the top of the deck to set up the round and does not need to participate beyond that step. They can continue to chat with friends, or grab another beer from the fridge to the detriment of no one. When it comes time to selecting their favourite answer they can pick at random and few would know the difference (or care).
For the other players, they may choose to scrutinise their card choice, but they certainly aren't required to. In fact, picking a card at random is often a better way to score points as the non-sequitur that the answer provides will often lead to laughter and may win the judge over (in the same way that Rando Cardrissian always performs much better than you would expect).
In this way, players can continue to talk, laugh and drink and the game will continue to function and provide an additional layer of entertainment with minimal input.
Consider that for a moment; as it is a phenomenal achievement.
Sure, many criticise the game precisely because of the low required input, but it is arguably it's greatest strength and surely a key to it's success.
Other Examples: Jenga (another mega hit game). Coincidence or no?
What do you think?
What do you think about this concept? Can you think of some other examples?
Let me know in the comments below.
Comentarios