These two games both put a shared display of cards in the middle of the table and ask players to look for patterns. So they look similar on the table, but they feel quite different to play. Unlike the previous game, these rely on everyone having a good view of the same shared layout in the middle.
In a nutshell…
In Swish, players try to combine transparent cards in a “Swish” by matching and overlaying circles and dots of different colours. Cards are laid out in a 4×4 grid pattern in the middle of the table, and all players look for combinations that work. When someone sees one, they call out “Swish” and demonstrate it by laying the cards on top of each other. A Swish must have at least two cards but can use many more. Cards can be turned around and flipped over to find the match.
Swish can be played solo or in a group. Most players understand what they are looking for after seeing one example, even if it takes longer to spot their first match. It works best around a stable table where everyone can see the cards easily.
In SET, cards are laid out face up in a 3×4 grid. Players scan the layout to look for sets of three cards that follow a rule. For each feature on the cards, the three cards must be all the same or all different. When someone sees one, they point to the three cards and show how they fit the rule.
SET, like Swish, can be played solo or in a group, and works best when the cards can sit clearly in the middle and everyone can see them easily.
SET combinations are usually harder to spot than Swish. Swish tends to allow several different ways of making something work, and more room for improvisation. SET has very specific matching rules and the “all different” combinations take a bit of getting used to.
What I love about them…
Both games concentrate everyone’s focus on the same thing. Instead of taking turns or working through separate hands, everyone is looking at the same set of cards. This means there is very little sense of being scrutinised. Attention stays on the cards rather than on the players.
I like that both games draw on pattern-focused skillsets, which can reduce age advantage. Swish is particularly good for this – it was the first game we found where my middle child consistently beats his older sibling.
In their normal forms, both games can be quite high energy. They are played as a race to spot matches, and with an evenly matched group that can be fun. I have versions to slow them down but if you take too much of the energy out, they can start to feel more like puzzles than games. With the right balance, there is lots of chatter and people join in when they feel ready.
These are also the first of the games I’ve written about that are genuinely pocket-sized.
Here’s the link to SET: https://amzn.to/4uEcpf9. Swish is often harder to find but it was available here last time I checked: https://amzn.to/4vrWjoU
When I use each
I bring out Swish when I want shared focus and a flexible feel. It works well when:
- I want to bring a group together
- I want something engaging, but not dependent on strict turns
- we are all ready for a change from the usual games
I go for SET when I want the same kind of pattern spotting, but with more structure and slightly more challenge. It works well when:
- players can manage both scanning on their own and speaking up when they find a set
- the group enjoys a more defined task
- people are comfortable with a slightly more demanding visual search
Why these games fit the way we play
- Everyone stays involved: In both games, attention stays in the middle. People can join in as they are ready.
- You can see what is happening as you play: Everything is face up. When something works, it can be shown clearly.
- Mistakes do not linger: An idea either works or it does not. If it does not, you adjust and move on.
- Results make sense: A valid match is clear once it is shown.
- Different versions still work well: Both games cope with small changes to pace and structure without changing what they are.
- Calm is possible (but not the default here): They can be played quickly, but they do not need urgency to work.
Versions
For both games, I tend to change the same few things, depending on the group.
- Changing pace: We sometimes move away from racing and play more slowly, so people can take part at their own pace.
- Adding structure: If the group is mixed, or one player finds time pressure stressful, we shift to a turn-based approach where each player has time to find one match.
- Sharing the task: We sometimes treat the display as a shared puzzle and work together to find combinations. People suggest ideas, try them out, and adjust as they go.
- Encouraging experimentation (Swish): We sometimes play a version where players take turns building a Swish that uses as many cards as they can. Any card they pick up has to be used.
When I am cautious
Both games need the cards clearly displayed in the middle and everyone able to see them easily. We’ve experimented with laying out fewer cards but it tends to make the game harder. For Swish, the cards are transparent, so it helps if the table surface is not too busy.
I am more careful with both games if:
- players find visual searching difficult
- a player will be uncomfortable with pressure to spot things quickly
- the group is tired or distracted
If this kind of game is not working for the group, I consider switching to:
- Sushi Go, when it helps to move to a game with a clearer shared rhythm
- Cobra Paw, when it helps to keep things quick and active
- Roll For It, when players need quicker positive feedback
In short:
Swish and SET both involve looking for patterns in a shared display. Swish leans towards trying and adjusting. SET leans towards spotting and showing. In their normal forms they can be energetic, and it is possible to shift the pace if the group needs it.
Some links in this post may be affiliate links. I only link to games I already use.
Leave a Reply