« Against Intellectual Monopoly | Main | My favorite things Chile »
What are the best games?
I loved this post by Bryan Caplan, even if I don't quite agree with it. Here's his bottom line:
The best games are inter-disciplinary, combining economics and psychology. Games of pure strategic reasoning like chess are dry. Games of pure social interaction are a little silly. But games that bring together strategic reasoning and social interaction are a joy for heart and mind.
I do believe that Bryan's claim is true for smart people with no managerial or administrative responsibilities but not for those who experience such joys in the course of daily life and thus do not need the game. Similarly, I believe that people with highly analytical day jobs do not usually go to chess clubs at night, even if they in principle enjoy the game of chess.
A simple one variable theory is that the qualities of the games you play reflect the qualities which are missing in your regular life.
There are a number of obvious exceptions to this theory. For instance highly social people may play highly social games because their marginal utility for sociable activities does not decline very rapidly if at all. Or you might play a particular game just because your wife makes you. Still, my one variable theory is a starting point for understanding which people enjoy which games.
If you're wondering, I don't play any games at all. I'm not saying I'm so wonderfully complete, but overall I prefer stories to games, at least at my current margins in life.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 12, 2008 at 01:28 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Just to defend Bryan Caplan from the implicit criticism here
of him as infamously asocial nerd, I would note that he especially
praised the game Diplomacy, which is very much about social interactions,
as much as any game I have every played.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Aug 12, 2008 1:35:41 PM
I don't know about you, but I like to wind-down my day with 6 of my friends and play a nice relaxing game of Diplomacy.
Posted by: Xmas at Aug 12, 2008 1:43:08 PM
Both sexes tend to like Mancala, a game that involves seeing several moves ahead and social interaction.
And of course Risk is an all-time favorite for guys.
I'm not sure what kind of games just Girls like?
Posted by: Ryan Strickler at Aug 12, 2008 1:58:26 PM
You kind of outed yourself, there.
Looks like you don't need those Second Life lessons after all :-)
Posted by: Jens Fiederer at Aug 12, 2008 1:58:35 PM
> I'm not sure what kind of games just Girls like?
I thought EVERYBODY knew they toyed with men's passions!
Posted by: Jens Fiederer at Aug 12, 2008 2:00:22 PM
The mathematician Littlewood described all this decades ago, based on his observation of the Fellows of Trinity, Cambridge. Mathematicians, tired by hard thinking, liked silly diversions in the evening, whereas Physicists, who had spent the day searching for leaks in their apparatus, liked intellectual pursuits in the evening.
Posted by: dearieme at Aug 12, 2008 2:04:28 PM
I posted an alternate theory here. In sum, we find chess boring because we're free, and Russians love and dominate the game worldwide because they aren't.
By contrast, I explain why I believe Civ fills the strategy niche instead for free peoples.
Posted by: Jon Kay at Aug 12, 2008 2:19:15 PM
Every economist must play The Settlers of Catan, if only to marvel at its power as a teaching tool.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Aug 12, 2008 2:37:20 PM
Try bridge (www.acbl.org). Logic + psychology.
Posted by: A former GMU student at Aug 12, 2008 2:41:53 PM
3 cheers for Settles of Catan! Greatest economics board game ever created, and it also incorporates the psych-elements Caplan advocates.
Posted by: Scott at Aug 12, 2008 2:42:15 PM
A third approval of Settlers of Catan. Hits both intellectual, social, and economic points.
Posted by: Brian at Aug 12, 2008 2:50:05 PM
I'll have to agree ^ Settlers of Catan is great, far more strategic than Risk
Posted by: lt.milo at Aug 12, 2008 2:54:11 PM
Another vote for Settlers of Catan.
Although, despite my econ background, I truly suck at that game.
Posted by: perfectlyGoodInk at Aug 12, 2008 3:05:58 PM
Poker is the happy union of logic, economics and psychology.
Posted by: Darren at Aug 12, 2008 3:11:17 PM
I really need to play Settlers of Catan.
Instead I'll chalk one up for Dungeons and Dragons. (Yes I know, the pinnacle of geekdom).
Still it was a blast in college and we had a pretty diverse group we played with, physics majors, Econ guys, Political Science guys (funny how they usually started much of the violence), and philosophy guys.
Everyone enjoyed aspects of the game from social role playing to accomplish goals to tactical combat planning.
Posted by: Jon at Aug 12, 2008 3:13:28 PM
One of the best board games ever is "BALDERDASH". The goal of the game is
to amass points by either guessing the correct definition of obscure words
OR by getting opponents to guess your phony definitions. The potentinal for
reverse psychology and creativity is endless.
Posted by: Dan at Aug 12, 2008 4:03:25 PM
I wish to state for the record that Bryan is social, just not managerial (yet)
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Aug 12, 2008 4:05:55 PM
If you like Settlers of Cataan, check out Puerto Rico, made by the same German company, I believe. I have played both extensively and prefer Puerto Rico. It is similar in style except that there is no dice rolling, so all randomness is removed. In addition, you have to vary your strategy more in response to that of your competitors, which makes it more sophisticated.
Both are far superior to Monopoly or Risk.
Posted by: Ben at Aug 12, 2008 4:09:51 PM
I agree with those who note that both bridge and Settlers of Catan
have both intellectual and social interactions aspects, with S of C
also being very "economics-oriented." Diplomacy is still more
complex in terms of social interactions, however, easily.
Of course the most intellectually challenging game in terms of pure
abstraction without social interactions, although I perhaps should
not say this on a bog run by a leading chess expert, is Go.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Aug 12, 2008 4:11:40 PM
Settlers of Catan is awesome in both its simplicity and depth. Plus it appeals to both seasoned gamers like myself and my 80-year-old father. That takes some doing.
I especially enjoy stomping the pre-Ricardo types: "I won't trade with anyone unless I have get more out of it than my partner!"; Hah! Fools! They get stuffed in monopoly too.
Chess, beyond a certain level, (perhaps one crossed by 50% of touranment players), turns into a game of memorisation, centred about openings. That's why I don't play it any more; I haven't got the time...
Posted by: Alistair Morley at Aug 12, 2008 4:35:39 PM
Another vote for settlers.
In regards to the games that females like ... Settlers of Catan is up there. My wife and the wives of many of my friends enjoy the game. I'm not sure why, but it seems to resonate. Although their desire to play declines once you start adding the expansions...
Posted by: jmulls at Aug 12, 2008 4:57:36 PM
Insurance people love to gamble, thereby confirming Tyler's thesis.
Posted by: Kent Guida at Aug 12, 2008 5:39:48 PM
Ben - I totally agree with your post. Settlers is fun, but Puerto Rico is far more strategic. Settlers is a bit too dice-roll dependent. Puerto Rico may not have the trading element that Settlers has, but is still my favorite game. Also check out Tigris and Euphrates, and Ticket to Ride is a fun little game.
Posted by: Justin at Aug 12, 2008 5:42:59 PM
I think Intellectual Monopoly is the best game.
Posted by: Tom at Aug 12, 2008 5:54:59 PM
Bridge is certainly about logic and psychology, but I'm not sure it's "social" in the sense meant here. It's a two-person (two-partnership or two-team) game so forming temporary alliances or working out complex trades don't really enter into it. Free-form social interaction among players is not part of the game. Indeed, socila interaction is severely constrained.
The fascination lies in both the analytical aspects, which can be very tricky, if nowhere near the complexity of chess or go, the need to coordinate strategy with a partner using very strictly limited communications methods, having to decide what the opponents are up to, and some important probabilistic elements.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Aug 12, 2008 6:00:10 PM
