I just recently wrote about playing games with my 4-year-old: http://blog.earthlingshandbook.org/2009/04/14/growing-a-gamer-geek.aspx but I didn't spell out my simplified Aquarius rules in full, so I'll give that a shot: Set aside the action cards and goal cards. Deal 3 cards to each player. Then take the top card from the deck and place it face-up in the middle of the table. On each turn, a player draws a card and then plays a card. Cards must be placed such that at least one element matches, as in standard Aquarius. If a player does not have a card in her hand that can be placed on the table, she does not play a card on that turn. Play continues until the draw pile is gone and the player who plays the last card in his hand is the winner. This familiarizes players with the pictures and the rule that all cards must face the same way (no perpendicular placement). Nicholas started playing this at 2 (maybe even a few months younger) and it was enough challenge for him for several months, but after he saw people playing the full game he wanted to try it...and all I had to do was read him the words on the action cards and explain what to do. After playing a couple games in a row, he remembers which picture goes with which action and announces what he's playing without my having to read it. The reason I start without goals is that the rules for what does and doesn't count as "connected" are a bit confusing even for adults, and the best way to explain is to get all the cards laid out matching on the table. Here's what I'd say about that in the instructions: When the game is over and all the cards are placed on the table, ask, "Which picture won?" Point out a chain of connected cards of one element and count them. Together, count up all the chains you see and find out which is the longest. If children enjoy this and understand the rules of connectedness, introduce the goal cards. Kristin wrote: > We are putting the age on the game as 6 to > Adult, but want to include a rules variant for playing with 3 > or 4 year olds. I really like this idea! I'd say 6 is the right age for catching on to the full rules within one or two games, but younger kids need more coaching. I once brought Aquarius to a Girl Scout camp for ages 5-9 and just taught the full rules, and the 5-year-olds took longer to play fluently than the older girls; part of this was that they couldn't read so didn't know what an action card would do until they tried to play it ("Oh wait! I don't want to do that!") until they'd mapped the pictures to the actions as above. > Lydia's Rules > > The player who completes their goal chain first wins. The > number of cards > that must be connected is decided by the players. We base it on the > youngest player's age. In Lydia's case we match 3 and > sometimes 4 cards. That sounds okay if you want a short game. (My child has a very long attention span, so that's not a big concern for us.) Another possibility is to play all the cards and then see who has the longest chain. > * Place any four block card that has at least one goal face > up to begin. [...] > * Players take turns drawing a card from the top of the pile. > If the player has a card that matches his or her goal the player can begin > to make a > chain. If the card chosen doesn't have a match it is set it aside. If > player's goal is not part of the first card placed on the table, that > player has to wait until another card from another player is > connected to begin play. It's because players have just one card to choose from that you have to start with a four-block card that has at least one goal, to avoid having too many turns before anybody can play. Giving each player a hand of cards, and allowing a player to play a card that does not involve her goal, greatly reduces the odds of non-matching cards and allows you to start play with any element card--although a four-block does give more options to start with. I think that making a player wait until her own goal turns up is unnecessarily frustrating. Especially in a two-player game, an unlucky shuffle could give one player a big head start. Also, the idea that each of your plays is a means of extending your own chain is setting you up for a tantrum when another player includes one of "your" cards in his winning chain! I can easily imagine my son thinking of the cards he played as his and the ones I played as mine, not realizing that I'm connecting to my element on his cards, and then claiming that I can't win that way. Kristin wrote: >I would like for our simpler version in the rules to be a simpler version >of the real game - so that kids who learn the simple version can move into >the full game as they get older by adding in more of the game - rather than >it being a completely different game you can play with the cards. I agree. Other variants can be online, but for the rules that come with the game, you want a simpler version of the real game. >Does anyone else have any thoughts on how we should pitch the idea of >playing Aquarius with younger children? If you have space on the box, a little starburst that says, "Now with preschooler rules!" will attract gamer geek parents who are eager to get their kids started, as well as families who have both a kid over 6 and a preschooler and are looking for something they can play together. Announce a demo of these rules at Origins and schedule it for mid-morning, the most attentive time for most preschoolers. (I haven't looked at your plans for this coming Origins, and the schedule's probably set now, but it's something to consider for next year.) You might want to make this a more inclusive demo of Looney games for preschoolers, which would include Fluxx and simple pyramid games as well. Bill wrote: >If I were to play this with ,6 yr olds again (my daughters are 9 and >13) I would keep secret goals, drop the action cards, and draw and >play the game as written otherwise. For 5- or 6-year-olds, I think this is a great approach. Younger kids have a harder time understanding the placement and connection rules and think more about the present moment than working toward a goal. (For example, as I mention in my article, my 4-year-old will happily play Chrononauts or Carcassonne without even thinking about what he'd need to do to win. He's just interested in using the game pieces and being included in what the people are doing.) So, it might be best to print a full set of modified rules for ages 3-4, and then say, "For ages 5-6, simply remove the action cards from the deck and play the game as usual. When children are comfortable with the game, introduce the action cards." >Over repeated playing, as the >child became proficient with playing the basic game, I would add in >the change goals action card. If that's the only action card, most >preschoolers can learn what it means without having to read. I like that idea! It would be much easier to learn the association between the picture and the action if you introduce one action at a time. >The only other change we ever played was to have our "hands" face up >on the table, so we didn't have to hold them. That also let me guide >my daughters' strategy if they needed help. And, I could explain my >thinking as I played my cards. We were never too concerned with the >competition. This is a good policy for playing card games in general with young kids. I don't think it needs to be spelled out in the rules, though. It tends to happen naturally, as kids get tired of holding their cards or forget that they're supposed to hide them. Juanpablo wrote: >Good start but, to make it variably difficult for the changes I'm making, Isay you >just base the chain on each player's age. That way, a six year old who knows the >game's strategy really well has to match 6 and is handicapped versus a four year >old who has to match 4 and is just learning the game. this way, they feel their >moving up into a "big kid" game as they get older. That sounds pretty good...except that it follows logically that Mama has to match 35, which may not even be possible! I guess it's, "match your age up to 7"? from Kristin's draft rules: >Each player picks a goal, which is placed face up in front of them. I don't see any advantage to getting to choose your goal. It doesn't make anything easier to understand. It just makes the real game more upsetting when you not only have no choice but can get your goal switched against your will. >Place a 4 panel card in the center of the table, and give each player 3 cards. Take >turns drawing and playing (just like in the full game) until a player gets enough >panels of their goal connected together equal to the youngest players age. That sounds pretty good but needs rephrasing, something like, "...until a player connects a number of panels of her goal, equal to the youngest player's age." >should we try listing the order to add the action cards back in? I think it's better to let the parent decide based on which actions they think the child(ren) will best comprehend. For clarity, it's important to say, "add all the cards of one action" rather than "add one action card at a time"--there is more than one copy of each action in the deck, correct? >Also - does this really work with 3 year olds? or should we say as young as 4 ? "As young as 3" conveys the idea that some 3-year-olds may be ready for it and others may not. My son's school uses picture dominoes in the classroom where the youngest kids are 2 years 6 months, and it seems that most of them catch on to that "taking turns matching a picture" game pretty quickly--those who don't are the ones who are more into running and jumping than sit-down games, so I think it's more a matter of preference than cognitive ability. Thanks for doing this! I hope it will help to expand your market wonderfully! ---'Becca