[[Delete or move this if it is in wrong place or I shouldn't be typing these kinds of things or this has been covered already. Also I have deplorable grammar so let me know what to fix.]]
I am probably as far from a game as one can imagine; however, I was thinking about something important in making a game. Unless you are trying to make a game for who aren't easily discouraged or making a very complicated game, you are going to want almost any who plays to have a chance at winning. Now that's not to say you want a pseudo-game such as fluxx where you can win by accident(I do like it nonetheless) but a game that is not intimidating to people who are young or have never played your game before. I can think of two ways in which you can give people with an inherent handicap a chance at winning without playing Chutes and Ladders.
Randomness
Adding a small bit of chance into a game is a good way to keep someone who is less skillful interested in a game as they have a chance of winning. One end of the spectrum would be Chess. I don't like Chess. It's a good game, but I don't like playing because I know from the onset I'm going to lose and that ruins it for me. The other end is the previously mentioned Fluxx in which it's hard to believe that skill plays any roll in winning(with the exception of being able to pull of large combos). The key is finding a balance so that your fourteen-year-old is wins on occasion and is able to have enough fun trying the rest of the time.
The method in which you add randomness can very from the oft forgot deck of cards to the ever ubiquitous dice. Many people are against randomness which is completely arbitrary. It is much perfer that someone won because they adapted to the new resources on the board than because everyone else rolled double sixes and was hit in the head by a cave troll.
Player interaction
Any game which involves heavy trading, bluffing, or negotiation can give an advantage to newcomers. Many of you have found out in real life that being able to play the game and being able to play the people aren't always inclusive traits. A subset of this is in games were there is a bash the leader tactic where the person who seems least powerful such as someone who just learned the game can often win as she is rarely the target.
A third option is lowering the learning curve so people can just jump into a game. I'd be interested in hearing how to go about making a game thats simple and not intimidating such as blokus and still have much more depth than say tic-tac-toe.
I hope you found insight in my repetative rambling because I sure didn't.
Intersting arguments!
I think that this is also why the Game of the Year is always a Family game!
Family games by design must be easy to aprehend, easy to explain, have some randomness and chaotic elements, still there need to be some decisions that every player FEELS he can influence the outcome!
IMO if someone follows your suggestions he or she is on the best way to produce the next "Game of the Year"! :wink:
Sorry for repeating myself here! I think some designers are so in love with their intriguing 40-80 pages rulebook, and special cases that they forget about this simple rules.
Still I think these extensive games have their value and I am glad to have the possibility to play them from time to time. But as the rulebook gets more geeky, so get their players. IMO! :wink: