Gamewright is a board game publisher that has been making high quality family games since 1994. Their games encourage learning and having fun. Each one is strongly themed to capture the imaginations of kids and adults, and usually contain plenty of humor or goofy components (especially the artwork). The rules are always easy to follow and include a note from the publisher about the theme and/or narrative behind the game, which supply a nice thoughtful element. Gamewright games are widely available, from your local game shop to big box stores like Target and Walmart. Their games provide a welcome alternative to the traditional family game fare one might fight on the toy store shelf.
I own 25 Gamewright games, by far the most from a single publisher. They were probably the first publisher I started noticing as I accumulated more of their games and came to trust that a Gamewright game would be enjoyable. I bought at least half of them before I even had kids for my wife and I to play together, since the low-key stakes are more in her style of non-confrontational gaming. Since these are all family games, there’s not a lot of vicious attacking your opponents but still enough ways to affect the outcome of each game.
I also enjoy that a lot of these games can be played with alternative rules. Many of them actually include variants for younger and/or older players. But in addition to those official rules, my kids have fun just playing with the components and making up their own rules. That means some of these games can be treated like toys, which is a great option for younger kids.
One more bit of information before I dive into the individual games. I have a seven year old son and a five year old daughter. My son really started playing board games within the past year. I think it was Ticket to Ride First Journey and chess that jumpstarted his interest. I’m amazed at how quickly he picks up the rules to most games (#humblebrag). My daughter doesn’t have as much interest in board games, which is perfectly fine, but does mean a lot of my experience with these games comes from playing two player, either with my wife or my son.
Since I play most of these games with my seven year old son, I had him rank the 21 games he’s played. I was surprised by some of his choices, especially compared to my own opinions. He didn’t provide much commentary for his choices, so it’s mostly just a relative numerical ranking.
Ages 4+
Hisss
The premise of Hisss is to match the color on an existing snake card to extend that snake. Each card has two colors, so the next card in that snake will have to be a new color. Each snake must have one head and one tail. That’s pretty much all there is to it. I think there’s some sort of scoring system, presumably based on how many cards are in a snake when a player completes it by placing the missing head or tail. But honestly, we’ve never once scored this game. My kids love to just make long snakes, either their own or working together to make a single mega-snake.
The focus of this game is obviously color matching. That’s the entire game. I suppose there’s a little bit of counting if you actually keep score.
The theme is just colorful snakes. They are cartoonish enough that no one should be scared, no matter how afraid of snakes you might be. You could probably even pass them off as worms if you want, although I guess worms don’t have eyes like this.
The components are just the cards. But they are nice thick cardboard, not regular card stock; they are almost like big tiles. That was smart since these cards will get used a lot and take a beating due to young kids not being as careful. It also really helps the cards lay flat and provides a nice way to push them together when matching, otherwise the cards would tend to slip over and under each other.
My son’s ranking: 15 out of 21. Not surprising, considering it’s a game for four year olds and he’s seven. I think the snake theme might have lifted it from an even lower ranking.
Ages 6+
Checkout!
The premise of Checkout! is to make six columns of cards without duplicating a color or food item within each column. So if a column contains a red apple and a yellow cheese, you can’t play any more red or yellow cards regardless of item and you can’t play any more apple or cheese cards regardless of color. The columns are all rooted from a central piece that also provides the starting item and color. I believe the actual rules have each player drawing a single card and attempting to place it on the shared columns. If you can’t play the card then you can use a coin to draw a new one. I’m fuzzy on the rules because we don’t really follow them. We all work together as a single collective player. We also ignore the penalty for not being to play a card. Sure, that removes any competition except playing against the game itself, but it makes a nice light cooperative experience.
The focus of this game is pattern matching. In a way it’s like Set, though, since you’re looking for items that don’t match. The “pattern” is something like “find something that isn’t red or an apple”. This can be a way harder concept for a kid to grasp than simply matching an existing color like in Hisss or even following a traditional pattern like red-blue-red-blue. We wind up providing plenty of help to our five year old daughter, but the game is rated as ages 6+ for that reason.
The theme is goofy food items. All the items are smiling and happy. I can see some parents being concerned about the inclusion of some unhealthy items in soda, donuts, and chocolate. There’s no cash register or other elements you might expect with a name like “Checkout”, though.
The components are good enough. The middle starter token is a nice thick cardboard. The coins are also cardboard, but we’ve never really used them so I can’t speak to their quality. The cards are regular cards. But even if they get beat up there’s no harm to the game sine there’s no hidden information to worry about.
My son’s ranking: 19 out of 21. A little surprised this wasn’t higher given how much he loves Set. Then again, he’d probably much rather play Set.
Chomp!
The premise of Chomp! is the classic card game War. Rather than numbers, the heirarchy is ocean animals. In ascending order: plankton, shrimp, little fish, big fish, seal, shark. If your card is the highest out of all the cards played at the same time, then you collect all the cards. If two or more players tie then you put down three more cards and then a fourth to determine the winner, just like War.
There are two additional animals included to throw curveballs. The octopus essentially cancels the current round; each player lays down a second card and the winner takes all the cards. The electric eel forces a quick reaction where the first player to slap it wins the round. We removed the eel from the deck pretty early on. We tend to dislike real-time quick reaction gameplay mechanics in general, and this one just felt out of place. It’s nice that it provides a potential for someone to get back into the game by stealing some higher cards, but little kids aren’t as adept as older kids. My son also tried to cheat a little bit and flip the card toward him so he’d have a quick glance before anyone else, although the rules do state you should flip the other way so you don’t get that advantage (although then all the other players get that advantage, so it’s not perfect).
The focus of this game is comparison via image recoginition. You have to be able to evaluate which animal is “greater than” all the other animals. This is an easier concept for younger kids to grasp than standard War. First, there are only five options in Chomp! versus the 13 options in a standard deck of cards. The pictures also help kids who haven’t learned all their numbers and avoids explaining how face cards work. So, if you really want to play War with a little kid, this is a good option. But you’re still playing War, which is going to get real boring real fast for an adult.
The theme can help alleviate that adult boredom, at least a little bit. It’s fun to make a big deal about a shark devouring other animals. Building the tension when a “war” occurs helps generate some excitement. You can also use the cards to do a simple food chain lesson.
The components are serviceable. It’s a deck of standard cards with the different animals. Even if they get bent or otherwise roughed up, there’s no harm done since there’s zero strategy involved. Not much else to say here.
My son’s ranking: 9 out of 21. I was shocked by this one. For such a simple game that doesn’t involve math and whose only mechanic is flipping over cards, he and his sister love this game. I’m not sure if it’s the theme, the game play, or the fact they can play it together on equal footing and without their parents.
Duck Duck Bruce
Duck Duck Bruce is a push your luck card game where you lay down cards in a row hoping to collect the highest of each type of duck. You stop whenever you want or keep laying down cards until you repeat a type of duck or unveil a Bruce (dog) card. If you repeat a type of duck, then you lose all the duck cards between the repeats and collect the remainder. So you don’t get some of the ducks but you still get some (hopefully, unless you repeated the first card in the row). If you get Bruce, then you lose all the ducks that turn but get to roll the Bruce die. Rolling the Bruce die lets you try and steal cards from another player, as long as the number you call is lesser than or equal to your die roll. So you don’t get any of the ducks in your row but you might get steal some from another player.
The focus of this game is deciding how to push your luck. Kids will learn that the more cards they lay down the more likely they are to hit a duplicate duck or Bruce. Of course, you can get unlucky and immediately turn over a Bruce on your first card, but that just helps prove that the previous player stopped at the exact right moment. You have to be able to recognize the different types of ducks, which isn’t hard since the backgrounds are very distinctive. The hardest concept is the scoring, which only counts the highest single duck of each type for each player. That does slightly change how you weigh your odds, since it’s not a matter of accumulating the most cards to win by sheer volume, you have to prioritize getting the higher numbers. So you might stop laying down cards after just two if they are both max value cards.
The theme is very loose. There’s no real connection to why you’re collecting ducks. Bruce is dog simply because dogs sometimes chase ducks. The original version of this game apparently used fish and octopus instead. The only real part of the theme we use is to chant “duck” as we turn over each card, then wildly exclaim “BRUCE!” when he gets turned over.
The components are a deck of standard cards and a chunky six-sided die. The cards could get beat up and scuffed, which would hurt the game since knowing what the next card is can greatly help a player. But the gameplay doesn’t lend itself to a situation where cards will get mangled. The artwork is cute, with the ducks in human settings like a gym or football field and Bruce being a goofy dog. The die has numbers rather than pips. That’s partially so they could include a -1 side, which results in the targeted player taking a card from the die roller. Our copy has held up for many years.
My son’s ranking: 1 out of 21. He claims this ranking has nothing to do with the fact his name is “Bruce”, but I have my suspicions. His explanation was that he likes the “technique of the die and when you get Bruce you get to roll the dice and pick the person you’re going to attack.”
Fowl Play
Fowl Play is a pure push your luck card game. You lay down chicken cards until you decide to stop or turn over a wolf. Whoever has the most chickens when the deck runs out wins. That’s it. There’s a few different types of chicken illustrations but they all function exactly the same. I’m actually a little shocked this is rated in the ages 6+ group, especially based on the other games here. Duck Duck Bruce is another push your luck game that adds several layers of complexity on this. As long as your kid can tell the different between a chicken and a wolf, they should be able to play this game. Even if you have to flip the cards from them.
The focus of this game is on pushing your luck, pure and simple. You have to count your chickens at the very end but otherwise you’re just weighing your odds of pulling a wolf. You can help out younger kids by pointing out how many wolves are left relative to the number of cards. And savvy players (i.e. anyone paying attention) will know when the last wolf is gone and just take the entire remainder of the deck. Unless there’s a real that stops the round when the last wolf is pulled, which could be an addition if it isn’t already in there.
The theme is pretty meaningless. Sure, wolves eating chickens is a pretty standard kid theme. But this could just as well be cats and mice or any other predator and prey. The chickens are all goofy and anthropomorphic. The wolves have some variety as they try to disguise themselves, including the classic fairy tale grandmother outfit. There’s real good hook like chanting “Duck” in Duck Duck Bruce, which makes turning over cards not as exciting.
The component is a deck of standard cards. Any damage to a card will harm the game by letting a player know what the next card is. This one is more likely to see damage than Duck Duck Bruce since you can flip the cards faster without as much thought. The artwork is goofy but nothing memorable.
My son’s ranking: 21 out of 21. Glad to see even a seven year old can see how lacking this game is. I’m sure if you asked his five year old sister, though, it might be higher. But Duck Duck Bruce is far superior.
Rat-a-Tat Cat (10th Anniversary Collector’s Edition)
Rat-a-Tat Cat is one of the tentpole games from Gamewright. That’s why it gets a 10th Anniversary Collector’s Edition that comes in a metal case. The premise of the game is each player is trying to get the lowest sum across four cards. The trick is all the cards are kept facedown and you only get to see two of your cards once at the beginning. Each turn you draw a card and either discard it or replace one of your cards. So if you draw a card with a lower number you’ll replace one of your facedown cards with a higher number. When you think you have the lowest total sum, declare “Rat-a-Tat Cat” at the end of your turn. Everyone else gets one final turn, then you all turn over your cards and see who won.
There are also action cards that let do differen things. Peek lets you peek at one of your cards. Swap lets you swap one of your cards with another player. Draw Two lets you draw (optionally) two more cards. Super Peek lets you look at everyone’s cards. You use that red film visor thing you see in the picture. Each card has its value written on the back, but it’s only visible using the viewer. The problem is, you can still vaguely see the value without the visor. You can at least get the gist of the word length. All the number cards also have their numbers written as a word, but most of the number words a comparable in length except “seven” and “eight”. Also, just don’t cheat, you cheater!
The focus of this game is memory and comparison. You really have to dial in to remember each of your four cards. Then someone will swap with you and screw up your carefully laid plans. The main mechanic is just comparing your new card’s value to the value of each card in your hand and picking the lowest. So you have to be able to sort numbers 0 through 9.
The theme involves a different cat for each number and action with a rat for the worst number, nine. Besides the rhyming name, though, there’s no real connection to the theme. You could play this with any other animal or even a standard deck of playing cards. The artwork is pretty forgettable, although maybe I focus too much on the numbers and using the pictures might help remember my cards better.
The components are a deck of standard cards and the Super Peek viewer. The cards are good quality. They are stiff and coated to stand up to the constant turning and bending they will go through. The Super Peek viewer is kind of cheap but I actually kind of like the game without even using Super Peek. For the longest time we just removed that card from the deck, which makes the game way more portable since it becomes just the deck of cards.
My son’s ranking: 12 out of 21. I think the blend of simple addition with the memory element piques his interest. He also enjoys that my wife willingly plays it with him.
Rory’s Story Cubes: Batman
There are tons different Rory’s Story Cubes sets. The one we own is Batman themed. They all play the same. You roll a set of dice and have to use all the images to make up a story on the spot. It’s not really a “game” per se, since there’s no scoring or competition. I suppose you can compete to see who tells the best story, but that’s not really in the spirit of the cubes. A cool variant might be to pass along telling the story so each person is responsible for linking in a new die. Basically the dice just provide the “audience input” from an improv routine.
The focus of this game is creativity and imagination. The only mechanic is rolling the dice, then it’s whatever comes out of your brain. This is great to get anyone’s creative juices flowing, which is something we all need today. With all the focus on STEM in schools, this type of activity can sometimes be given short shrift.
The theme is different based on which set of Rory’s Story Cubes you get. Ours is Batman. As such, you need to be able to recognize different Batman elements. Several villains are depicted by their faces. Some of Batman’s tools are included. Some locations and symbols round out the dice faces, along with some generic stick figures common across Rory’s Story Cubes. The story based on the dice can be as ligh or dark as the teller makes it. And be prepared for some convoluted plots.
The components are simply the dice. They do come in a nice 3×3 grid carrying case made of hard plastic, although any dice bag could also hold them just as well. There’s also an instruction sheet that includes a decoder for each of the images. I actually discovered what I thought was a ladder was supposed to be a prison cell door. That could be a complaint about deciphering the images, but that really just adds to the creativity. Try looking at each image from different angles to see if they turn into something else. The “rules” aren’t really meant to dictate your interpretation or limit your creativity.
My son’s ranking: N/A. I forgot to include this in the list I gave him. Which is a shame since he loves Batman. But I’m not sure he loved the improv nature of this story telling game.
Snap
Snap is a game grafted onto a jigsaw puzzle. Each turn you pull a new piece and have to connect it to any existing piece. The only rule is all the connected dragons have to match in color. I guess there are also rules about needing at least one head and one tail per dragon, although a dragon can have more than one of each. There’s also a way to score that involves multiplying the number of “snaps” by two, with a “snap” being where the notches on two pieces connect. But, we’ve never once played by any sort of scoring rules. My kids love to just connect the jigsaw pieces to make a single large puzzle rather than follow the rules. I don’t think they even care about making “complete” dragons or making long dragons. They just enjoy the challenge of figuring out where they connect each piece.
The focus of this game is on color matching and puzzle solving. The pieces really are just jigsaw pieces and the only rule is matching dragon colors across pieces. If you keep score then you need to know how to multiply by two or just count by twos.
The theme is just the different colored dragons. The Gamewright note in the instruction manual discusses Chinese dragons, so that’s a nice cultural influence. You could replace the dragons with snakes, but that’s about it since not many animals stretch long enough to fit across the pieces. There are also some tiger pieces which seem to unnecessarily clutter the theme and rules.
The components are the set of jigsaw pieces. They are nice and thick cardboard. I haven’t had any pieces break, which is impressive since kids will try and force pieces that don’t fit. I’m also amazed at the engineering that goes into creating a game where the puzzle pieces can fit in so many different configurations.
My son’s ranking: 16 out of 21. He pretty much knows this only has a jigsaw puzzle, not an actual game. He does like making long, intricate dragons.
Ages 10+
In a Pickle
In a Pickle sounds like a good idea. Each card has a single object written on it and you have to place it on top of another card with a smaller object. If you place the fourth card in a set then you collect that set. The rules’ example is “a baby goes in a bathtub, which is in a house, in Hollywood.” That sequence makes perfect, logical sense. But too many of the objects are just way too conceptual or ambiguous. Look at the “Juice” card in the promotional picture above. You’re supposed to have fun with it like Apples to Apples but it was just frustrating to try and debate whether a card was actually smaller or larger than another card. This was one of the few games we purged when we moved.
The focus of this game is comparing relative sizes of objects. But as I already mentioned, we always spent more time debating those sizes than actually playing the game.
The theme is just words on cards. There’s no cute graphics like Apples to Apples. The name “In a Pickle” doesn’t evoke any sense of what the game is about, either.
The component is a large deck of standard cards. You don’t really need anything more for a game like this. But they could have really helped the fun factor by including some sort of theme in the cards. I know including a picture of each object would have been a lot and might have inferred certain choices (e.g. using a glass of juice for “Juice” might preclude someone from thinking of juice in a pickle) but would have added a ton of personality.
My son’s ranking: N/A. We gave away this game before we ever played it with him.
Loot
Loot might have been the first Gamewright game I ever bought. I think I was originally attracted by the Mensa sticker on the front of the box, before I learned how many games have various award stickers plastered on them. For all that, this is one of the games I’ve played the least on this list. That’s mostly because it works far better with at least three players and my most common gaming is two player. I recently played it several times and have a few refreshed issues with its gameplay.
Each turn you can take one action: you can draw a single card, play a merchant ship, or attack a merchant ship. You attack by playing a pirate ship card on either a merchant ship you have not attacked yet or adding to a previously attacked merchant ship. You also attack your own merchant ships to win them back from your opponents’ attacks. At the beginning of each turn, you win any merchant ships on which you are the lead attacker, or a merchant ship you played last turn that no one else attacked. Each merchant ship is worth coins, from two through eight, with more of the lower values available. You play until the deck runs out, then everyone counts their captured coins to determine the winner.
My biggest gripe is the fact that drawing a card consumes your entire turn. This especially hurts in a two player game. If you don’t immediately attack any merchant ship your opponent plays in that scenario, then he will automatically win that ship on his very next turn. This leads to a lot of stockpiling of pirate cards so you can be sure to always have a steady stream of attack options. There’s also not a lot of decisions to make with just two players. When we roped in my wife to play a three player, there were many more strategic decisions to be made.
The focus of this game is the strategy of whether to play a merchant ship, which merchant ship to play, how strong to attack a merchant ship, how strong to defend, when to throw down a pirate captain to hopefully win a ship regardless of attack level. The more players you have the more you have to think about what you’re doing. In two player, we quickly found it was basically worthless to ever attack a ship worth two or three coins so you could reserve all your attacks for the higher level ships.
The theme is pirates. Our copy has a goofy feel with nonthreatening caricatures of pirates. The newer versions look a little more serious. The pirate aesthetics certainly make it feel daunting to play a merchant ship and weather the barrage of pirate attacks that will come your way, particularly if you play one of the higher value cards. The pirate captains manage to feel like more than just trump cards, although it can be a little anti-climatic to have a captain come out immediately after a player lays down a single skull attack; it would be a little cooler if the captains could only be played after a certain attack level, but I guess that would destroy the comeback potential.
The component is a deck of standard cards. The merchant ships are fairly generic. I wish the coins were more pronounced. My son mistook the highest card, an eight, for a six, and I had a hard time telling the difference between the five and seven. The pirate cards are nice and distinctive, although the blue and green can sometimes appear too similar. The pirate captains and admiral have the most personality but there’s only five of those cards total. The card backs are cool with a little treasure map that really fits the theme.
My son’s ranking: 3 out of 21. This one skyrocketed to the top of his list, despite my misgivings about playing it two player. He says he likes it because he likes “the way that skull and crossbones on the card can get you coins.”
Tiki Topple
Tiki Topple is a fun logic game. Each player has a secret card with a specific sequence of which tiki pieces should finish in first, second, and third place on the line. Each turn you play a card that either moves any tiki up a certain number of spots (1, 2, or 3), moves any tiki to the bottom of the line, or removes the bottom tiki from the game. Each player will eventually have to play every card from his hand. After everyone has played all their cards, you reveal your secret goal and count points. If your first place tiki finished in first place, then you get 9 points. If your second place tiki finished in the top 2, then you get 5 points. If your third place tiki finished in the top 3, then you get 2 points. Whoever has the most points wins the round.
The focus of this game is logic. You need to plan out how to play your cards to help push your tikis to the top. You have to weigh the different point values, since it might be worth it to get the 5 points and 2 points while sacrificing your 9 point tiki. You can try to infer which tikis the other players have by how they move the tikis on the board. But to be honest we’ve always wound up playing this game open hand, which actually destroys a lot of the strategy since you can see your opponents’ tikis. It’s still a fun, fierce battle since you can’t always help yourself without also helping your opponent.
The theme of Polynesian idols feels very unique. I don’t recall seeing this type of design in other games. The tiki totem pole works fantastic as the line to move the tikis up and down. The board’s graphics enhance the Polynesian setting.
The components are very nice. The star of the game is the tiki pieces themselves. They feel just weighty enough and slide up and down nicely. The board is nice and glossy, although the seam can sometimes block a tiki from sliding. The cards are thicker than normal cards but not by much. Unfortunately some of our cards have bent pretty badly which leaves a very noticeable crease, but it’s not like you’re playing poker so recognizing an opponent’s card isn’t a game breaker.
My son’s ranking: 10 out of 21. Higher than I might have expected since we haven’t actually played it in a long time. The tikis are fun to arrange and he loves to play Tiki Toast to remove one of his opponents’ tikis from the game.
To Be Continued…
So that’s games for ages 4+, 6+, and 10+. Check out my remaining Gamewright games in part two, including all the games for ages 8+ as well as a highly regarded cooperative series of games.
This article has 2 Comments