>> Chutes and Ladders is an ideal game for teaching kids how to *cope with* frustration, which makes it useful for Bruce-and-Hulk. But they need to be fully comfortable with other aspects of play and emotions first, or it backfires as you have noted. <<
Hmmm. Candyland involves pure random chance, as you spin the spinner and move to the next space with that color. Once I realized I couldn't control how my piece moved on the board (no choice of how to move, no dice to shake in my hands), I lost interest in it; but for learning how to deal with deep simplicity, giving up control, and dealing with frustration I could definitely see Candyland as an excellent game for childlike persons. In fact, probably the whole point of the game many times is spending time with the other player(s)! People who are distracted (whether by fun or by something else) tend to open up a bit more than usual and say what they mean. For Bruce, that gives a whole new set of opportunities.
Plus, Candyland is meant for someone who isn't really able to control the world yet anyway, which makes it an ideal game for pre-reading children of about age 3-6, able to toddle around, talk, and move pieces but not really make the game about choice or control. That means Hulk must have gotten something out of that session, too, just by Bruce beginning to understand better how to give up control in a safe situation. :)
Me being precocious, I think I was ready for Uno and Parcheesi about age 5. Monopoly was fun for long enough that I didn't realize its whole point was to frustrate players, since only one player could win what is always an unfair fight once the ownership balance tips in their favor... leading to aggressive, socially manipulative players having the best advantage. If I remember, Phil decided not to include the game because of those competitive implications.
Backgammon, on the other hand, well, around age 12 my parents got me a nice set in a leather folding case that doubled as the board. I never did quite learn the rules properly, but I did enjoy the game the few times I played. Maybe that's a game that the older littles could have fun with; the math-lovers of the group would definitely appreciate its numerical focus.
And you know, once I realized the sort of rush Phil was getting from meeting JARVIS "face to face" rather than as an application interface, I couldn't help but open all the chapters in tabs and rush through, saving the comments for later. I'll be backtracking over the next couple of days, possibly replying here and there.
Re: comment by sweet co
Hmmm. Candyland involves pure random chance, as you spin the spinner and move to the next space with that color. Once I realized I couldn't control how my piece moved on the board (no choice of how to move, no dice to shake in my hands), I lost interest in it; but for learning how to deal with deep simplicity, giving up control, and dealing with frustration I could definitely see Candyland as an excellent game for childlike persons. In fact, probably the whole point of the game many times is spending time with the other player(s)! People who are distracted (whether by fun or by something else) tend to open up a bit more than usual and say what they mean. For Bruce, that gives a whole new set of opportunities.
Plus, Candyland is meant for someone who isn't really able to control the world yet anyway, which makes it an ideal game for pre-reading children of about age 3-6, able to toddle around, talk, and move pieces but not really make the game about choice or control. That means Hulk must have gotten something out of that session, too, just by Bruce beginning to understand better how to give up control in a safe situation. :)
Me being precocious, I think I was ready for Uno and Parcheesi about age 5. Monopoly was fun for long enough that I didn't realize its whole point was to frustrate players, since only one player could win what is always an unfair fight once the ownership balance tips in their favor... leading to aggressive, socially manipulative players having the best advantage. If I remember, Phil decided not to include the game because of those competitive implications.
Backgammon, on the other hand, well, around age 12 my parents got me a nice set in a leather folding case that doubled as the board. I never did quite learn the rules properly, but I did enjoy the game the few times I played. Maybe that's a game that the older littles could have fun with; the math-lovers of the group would definitely appreciate its numerical focus.
And you know, once I realized the sort of rush Phil was getting from meeting JARVIS "face to face" rather than as an application interface, I couldn't help but open all the chapters in tabs and rush through, saving the comments for later. I'll be backtracking over the next couple of days, possibly replying here and there.