hist-games: What's the one game (or maybe two or three) you would include?

[Jane & Mark Waks]

SEDWilkins at aol.com wrote:
> I think you do best with games that have a hint of familiarity (so as 
> not to be intimidating) but enough novelty to feel archaic (really, 
> draughts and checkers don't make people feel like they're in another 
> century). So a tables game that is less like modern backgammon, such as 
> sixe-ace, might be more fun.

Definitely possible, yes. My personal variant of choice is Tick-Tack, 
but that's specifically a gambling game; I'm of mixed minds about 
whether that's ideal for this introductory article. Sixe-ace is 
certainly an option worth considering.

> If you want a card game, ombre would be easier/quicker, and the cards 
> aren't hard to find.

True, but the usual version is a tad OOP for the SCA -- I'd prefer games 
that are at least attested to the 16th century. (Do we have the 16th 
century rules for L'Hombre? I've seen references to it many times, but 
never any details about how the game worked.) It also has the downside 
that I haven't taught it, so I'm less confident about writing it into an 
article on such short notice.

> If you want to go beyond table games, quilles, shuttlecock and tops 
> and/or hoops are nice (and can involve kids, obviously).

Yaas. I'm leaning towards Bowls as an active game, mostly because Bocce 
sets are currently so easy to come by...

				-- Justin