Jesus, but I haven't posted anything in a long time.

Alex has a note on his blog asking why some people target winners (the longtime Jeopardy champion as a case in point)

Which, in turn, reminds me of a great piece in the NYT about the inventors of the board game Cranium.

Most classic board games are all about winning and losing. When you play Monopoly or Risk or Sorry! there is always someone crowing in triumph while others quietly sulk in defeat.

in contrast, the philosophy behind game design at Cranium is to produce games "where everyone has a moment to shine"

(they) design games that no single player can dominate; at some point,every player will be the hero. ''And then they have that moment of glow, that moment of shine, that moment where everyone celebrates them,'' (co-founder Richard Tait) says, speaking practically in the cadence of a preacher.

That makes the games particularly appealing to young children, who can be unhinged by the sting of losing. And for parents, it means that playtime is unlikely to end in tantrums. You can win a Cranium game, but no one really cares. It is, as one Cranium designer delicately puts it, ''a softer win.''

The article states that sales of "Legacy" games (Battleship, Clue, etc.) are to Baby Boomers or Gen Xers but that kids don't request these games. If they want to play a win/lose game, computers are more satisfying.

If, on the other hand, the point of playing a game is to spend time with one another, then indeed why NOT have a game that emphasizes strengths, that lets everyone feel a sense of accomplishment?