A provocative title, to be sure, though I think it’s probably true. At least in the context I mean it. 

Now Snakes & Ladders gets a lot of flak from gamers. Is it even a game? How do you define “game”, anyway? Well naturally I have thoughts on the topic, but that’s a tale for another time. Today, let me tell you why I think that Snakes & Ladders is perfect. 

The key is to understand that it’s not a great game if it’s even a game at all. Definitely not a perfect game. I’m talking about something else. I’m saying that it’s perfect at training people to be gamers. Let me explain.

Tiny humans aren’t born with an understanding of how to riffle shuffle and min-max a points salad Euro. They have to learn those things. They also have to learn far more basic skills. Skills that most gamers don’t even think about because they’re so ingrained. But things like taking your turn rather than moving what you like when you feel, or following the rules even when they’re not to your advantage, or that you can’t win ’em all are all key underpinning skills to any enjoyable gaming session. We default to taking turns in clockwise order around a table, but that’s not an immutable law of physics, it’s learned. And why clockwise instead of the other way, or in height order, or age, or whoever is last? All had to be learned somewhere.

If we know that we aren’t born with skills we need to be good gamers, then where do we acquire them? There are many “games” that could do some or all of that job, but for my money Snakes & Ladders does it best. At the role of training future gamers, I think it is unsurpassed. Snakes & Ladders is perfect.

Snakes & Ladders teaches the concepts of taking turns and that rules have to be followed like anything else. That’s easy. Ludo or Draughts is the same. But Snakes & Ladders has something that those others lack, and which is the source of most of the arguments that it isn’t a game at all, and that’s a complete lack of agency. This is ideal for its teaching of such fundamentals. Strip away the concept of agency and you’re left with the real basics: taking turns, following the (nicely simple and unambiguous) rules, and accepting a win or a loss. 

Another touch of genius that Snakes & Ladders teaches is the more subtle idea that rules may be both beneficial (ladders) and detrimental (snakes) and that you must follow them regardless. Picking and choosing the rules you prefer is not allowed. 

Tiny humans are also fond of the safety of repetition, and this may play a part in their enjoyment. Eventually though, they’ll grow tired of the lack of agency and move beyond it, to things that allow them some influence over their own destiny. Not straight to Lacerda, perhaps, but there’s plenty of options between those two poles. And they carry the fundamentals with them. This doesn’t mean that Snakes & Ladders is bad or has failed, just that its work is done. The proto-gamer is ready to move on.

I think that Snakes & Ladders deserves to be applauded for the vital role it achieves in training the gamers of the future, not vilified for being a crap game. It’s never going to stand alongside the best modern games, nor arguably alongside other venerable options such as Ludo. However, we are better off for having it as this perfect training tool for tiny humans who may one day grow up into fully-fledged gamers.