Well shit, color blindness would definitely make the game more difficult, but I bet a grayscale version of the game could actually be made to work.
> And of course some people are better at spatial stuff then other.
Of course. My remark was really that the starting skill level of players can differ so dramatically that some people will literally have no fun at all (because they can't possibly win).
I've never come up with a reasonable handicap system to make the game more fun for everyone.
Friend of mine was an ace at it, her handicap was to call "set" as normal but then wait three seconds - allowing others to chime in with "set" and grab it. If her set was still available after the three seconds (no one grabbed it or they grabbed a diff. one) then she got it.
Probably best to follow standard guidelines: Don't distinguish anything by color alone. Using color and a pattern within the color would work fine. Figuring out how to make that work with partial fills is another question...
For Set, it might not be enough to bridge the gap: being able to differentiate by colour and some pattern might still be faster for a player than relying on pattern alone? (But still better than the status quo.)
My vision ain't gray scale. I'm just red-green deficient.
A reasonable handicap system is to allow the better players to take set(s) only if they can take two at once (depending on difficulty, the sets may or may not share a card). Sounded scary at first, but works quite well actually.
> And of course some people are better at spatial stuff then other.
Of course. My remark was really that the starting skill level of players can differ so dramatically that some people will literally have no fun at all (because they can't possibly win).
I've never come up with a reasonable handicap system to make the game more fun for everyone.