Connection.Questions Make your own

Christmas games for family

This is not a game. It is 50 questions for the hour after the games finish, when the table has thinned and nobody wants charades again — about this day, the year just gone, and the people in the room.

Easy ones, to start

Nobody opens with the hard question. These are the ones you can ask with the plates still on the table, and they still tell you something.

Questions that actually go somewhere

The middle rung. Still safe, but the answer is about who someone is rather than what they did, which is the whole difference.

When something is off

The ones people skip. Skipping them is usually why the same thing keeps coming back.

Where things are going

Fewer of these on purpose. A conversation that is only about the future is a planning meeting.

Some questions are easier to answer when neither of you chose them.

Turn one over. You would not have picked it — that is the point.

Six questions from this page, face down.

On the site they live on a wheel. You spin, it lands, nobody chose it.

Now make one that knows you → $11 once · your photos and inside jokes · yours to keep

Does any of this actually work?

A table of twelve is not one conversation, and that is measured rather than felt. Observations of freely forming conversational groups in everyday settings put an upper limit of about four people on the number who can hold a single spontaneous conversation — and the authors attribute that ceiling to the mechanics of speech production and hearing, not to manners. So by the time the plates are cleared, a table of twelve has already broken into three or four conversations. A question aimed at everybody at once is arguing with that.

Size also changes who gets listened to. In an experiment comparing group discussions at two sizes, five-person groups behaved like dialogue: members were influenced most by the people they actually exchanged words with. Ten-person groups behaved like serial monologue — members were influenced most by the dominant speaker. Same task, different number of chairs. Which is an argument for asking your question inside the group of four you are already sitting in, rather than tapping a glass and putting it to the whole room. The whole room is where a question goes to become a speech.

And the famous finding about deeper questions does not transfer to this table. Across experiments 1a–5, conversations went better than people expected — less awkward, more connecting — and the misprediction was largest for the deep questions rather than the shallow ones. The part almost nobody quotes is Experiment 5, where participants predicted their conversations more accurately when the other person was a close friend, a family member or a partner, because what people misjudge is how much a stranger cares, and with family that is already known. So the usual promise — it will go better than you fear — is weakest exactly where this page is set. You are not miscalibrated about your own family; you are right about the room. Which is why nothing here sits at the deep end.

For the ordinary-Tuesday version of this table, the family dinner questions are the set to use. This one is about the day itself.

Dunbar, Duncan & Nettle (1995), Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups, Human Nature · source
Fay, Garrod & Carletta (2000), Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size, Psychological Science · source
Kardas, Kumar & Epley (2022), Overly shallow?: Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · source

None of this helps a room that is already tense. A question asked across an argument that has been running for four years is not a question, it is a move, and everybody at the table will hear it as one. On that kind of day the loud game is the correct call — it gives people something to do with their faces, and that is a real service, not a lesser one.

Last checked 28 August 2026.