I think my point is that Set really lends itself to someone with strong visual abilities, and is much much harder for everyone else.
I'm curious about this and would like to subscribe to your newsletter ;)
I play a game with the creative name "make 10" with my kids sometimes that was inspired by Set, except that you have to pick groups of cards that add to 10 (or other numbers, if they're too good at it). My daughter has to find groups of three cards and can use addition and subtraction, and my son just uses addition on groups of two cards. We use regular playing cards with only A-9 included.
Needless to say, we got really good. After the initial learning curve of "getting" the rules, it becomes almost entirely a game of memory and recognition. You just remember sets, having seen them so often, that you can almost instantly spot them.
It loses a lot of its mathematical shine at this stage, of course, so I consider it less of a mathematical game.
And of course some people are better at spatial stuff then other.
> 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.
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.