Teaching a new game
Jennifer Schlickbernd
the game is complex or 2) you don't know the game yourself. I had
two examples of this happen a couple of weeks ago. First, I was trying
to teach this guy Up Front. He was reasonably familiar with WWII type
games so we started with patrol and used nearly all the rules except
flanking. He really wanted to get started, so I told him that at RR5
you could infiltrate the other's group, and then you could do CC. Well,
he didn't want to wait for all the details (people never seem to want
the whole game explained at once!) and of course when his A group got to
RR5 to my B group I told him I was going to infiltrate his A group,
and proceeded to explain infiltration. He got mildly upset that he hadn't
been told about the rules earlier. I've had this happen before with
other games and other people, does anyone have a good solution? Also
what do you do when no one knows the rules? I read the rules before
hand over and over, but it's just not the same as when everyone is
playing or trying to play and there's a bunch of rules questions. Even
tho I explain this is a learning game, etc, etc, people still feel
cheated if a rule wasn't explained properly at the beginning of the
game, yet they don't want to wait for the explanations. Very frustrating,
and any help given will be appreciated.
--
Jennifer Schlickbernd Jet Propulsion Laboratory
jenn...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jenn...@csvax.caltech.edu
72466...@compuserve.com Voice:(818) 354-1167
Steve Chapin
}}
}} How do people teach other people new games, particularly when either 1)
}} the game is complex or 2) you don't know the game yourself.
I don't have an answer for 2), but in the first case, I will usually
explain the basic rules, and then we start playing. As the game goes
on, I will introduce rules as they come up (e.g. I might suggest to a
player that they acquire a certain object, or use a certain tactic,
and explain why). I almost always play the first game under the premise
that the person is learning and a) isn't going to get everything the
first time, and b) probably won't win. As long as the person is
willing to take the first game as a learning experience, this works
out well.
}} Jennifer Schlickbernd Jet Propulsion Laboratory
}} jenn...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jenn...@csvax.caltech.edu
}} 72466...@compuserve.com Voice:(818) 354-1167
s...@cs.purdue.edu Steve Chapin Today's Grammar Lesson:
I advise that you take his advice.
"Oh my God! I shot my eye out!" (Ralphie Parker, in "A Christmas Story")
Jeremy Louis Billones
like to/prefer to read rules and learn that way, while others
prefer to learn by playing... and this means that they occasionally
miss rules that haven't been "shown" to them.
As far as Up Front goes, I would've stuck to the basic fire & movement
rules that the programmed rulebook reserved for scenario 1. True,
you miss the full complexity of the system, but with less rules,
there's less to explain/worry about.
If you know ahead of time you'll be explaining a game, try and get a 2-3
minute speech laid out ahead of time that covers all the important
points. That worked out well for Cosmic Encounters at our local
gaming group.
Jeremy Billones bil...@rpi.edu or jbil...@jarthur.claremont.edu
"We bust through the door, surprise 'em, and blow their brains out."
Joshua Smith
> How do people teach other people new games [?]
I think of any game (by which I mean a particular playing of a game, not a
game in general--that is, A game of Diplomacy, not THE game of Diplomacy) in
one of three ways:
1) A "serious" game. The players know how to play, they all think they're
fairly good at the game, they're out to win, and if they don't at least
feel like they've put up a good fight, they won't have enjoyed the
experience. The primary emphasis is on winning, and players won't do
things unless they help them get closer to victory. Any advice given to
other players is almost certain to be selfishly motivated towards helping
the advisor win. Diplomacy makes a good serious game. Many people who
I've played Titan with play it as a serious game.
2) A "fun" game. Some players may not know the rules very well, some
probably aren't very good at the game (though not necessarily), the point
is more to hang out with friends and be social than to win, and even the
losers will have a good time. The primary emphasis is on having a good
time, and people are more willing to do wacky things because they're cool
or fun. People may give each other ideas about weird things they could do
to liven things up. Wiz War is a good fun game, as is Cosmic Encounter.
Titan is a lot more enjoyable as a fun game than as a serious game, IMHO.
3) A "teaching" game. Some players don't know the rules very well, or have
never played before, those who do know the game may not be very good at
it, the point is to learn the game so that future games can be serious or
fun, and everyone will have a good time if they keep this in mind. The
primary emphasis is on getting better at the game, and people who know
the game well may make moves just to illustrate a point, to help the new
folks figure things out. Those who know how to play will often give
advice to those who don't, but they should try to make it clear why
they're suggesting what they're suggesting--the point is to teach, not to
help the newbies win. Any game can be played as a teaching game.
If you haven't guessed by now, I'd suggest that having the right attitude
towards the game is as important as any teaching technique. I had a friend
who refused to learn bridge, because the first time she tried to play, she
"learned" from an aggressive and cuthroat bunch of players who were much
more interested in winning than in helping her figure out what the hell was
going on. When she finally played with a group who had a better attitude,
she picked up on the game quickly, and surprised herself by how "easy" it
was when folks weren't so tense about it.
This applies to a lot of other things as well (dancing comes to mind as a
good example): everyone needs to realize that there are newbies here, and
that the point is to help them learn how to play, and that it's just a bad
idea to play cutthroat with novices.
Verbosely, does that help?
--
iri...@cs.swarthmore.edu :: Copyright 1991 by Josh Smith, all rights reserved.
Josh Smith '92 19081-1397 :: May not be reproduced outside of Usenet.
"You have ten seconds to become a peaceful, productive member of society. If
you fail to do so, I will pluck out your eyeballs and squash them flat."
Steffan O'Sullivan
>How do people teach other people new games, particularly when either 1)
>the game is complex or 2) you don't know the game yourself. I had
>two examples of this happen a couple of weeks ago. First, I was trying
>to teach this guy Up Front. He was reasonably familiar with WWII type
Hmm. At first read, I thought he was a novice gamer, but you say he was
reasonably familiar with WWII games. I think with something like Up
Front, you have to stress that this game contains New Concepts for an
experienced gamer, and that nothing should be taken for granted. It
sounds like you did this, but he didn't want to listen. There is an old
adage that goes something to the effect that the greatest teacher in the
world can't teach anything to someone who doesn't want to learn . . .
In this case, I can only say STRESS New Concept! When I taught Up FRont
to a friend, who is an ASL freak, I laid it on heavy at first how
different it was. He didn't even want to play a "card game" so I had to
bribe him by playing some complex game I don't care for first. When we
got to Up Front, I said that the first game wouldn't "count" - that is,
we shouldn't judge each other's abilities by the first game. He agreed
and was surprised to find that Up Front is an excellent simulation of man
to man combat, better than ASL in things like the "Advance under Cover"
concept of modern warfare. He became enthusiastic, and wanted to learn
more - and infiltration wasn't a problem because the game "didn't count."
> Well,
>he didn't want to wait for all the details (people never seem to want
>the whole game explained at once!)
This is the problem - it's not your fault, but a flaw in him. Perhaps
ego? Maybe he thought he knew too much about gaming in general to have
to learn a new rule . . .
The hardest people in the world to teach anything are those that know
everything already . . .
>He got mildly upset that he hadn't
>been told about the rules earlier.
This is the problem - his ego was on the line.
>I've had this happen before with
>other games and other people, does anyone have a good solution?
Well, disengage his ego. Play a few rounds with hands exposed. Once
he's got it, then say - "Alright, suppose now we replace the range chits
with these, and we are at RR5. Here's what I would do in this
situation." He can they see the potency of an infiltration and secretly
guard against it. He has nothing at stake in an open-hand situation.
Hmmm, is it possibly because you're a woman? Woman wargamers are, you
must know, rare. Some men might be threatened by the thoughts (A) a
woman might have a better grasp of game than he does, and (B) she might
beat him in a game. I like to think that I don't have that sort of
ego attachment, but I don't get to play against women, so who knows? I
certainly believe some men would feel that way, though.
>Also
>what do you do when no one knows the rules? I read the rules before
>hand over and over, but it's just not the same as when everyone is
>playing or trying to play and there's a bunch of rules questions. Even
>tho I explain this is a learning game, etc, etc, people still feel
>cheated if a rule wasn't explained properly at the beginning of the
>game, yet they don't want to wait for the explanations. Very frustrating,
>and any help given will be appreciated.
Once again, maybe you should try the game "hands exposed." I taught Adel
Verpflichtet this way - "You would probably want that C antique since it
joins your groups at either end, but don't risk it at an exhibit where
there are thieves!" and so on.
Good luck!
--
- Steffan O'Sullivan s...@oz.plymouth.edu
ivan m 92feb05 begley
Chris Baldwin
>How do people teach other people new games, particularly when either 1)
>the game is complex or 2) you don't know the game yourself.
around who has never played Dragon Master, and, since its a pretty easy game
to pick up,we decide to teach him. The way we have always done it is to play
a round with everyone showing their hand and each player explains why they
made a particular play. It seems to work pretty good, since their can be no
real claim of winning a card game when all of the cards are face up on the
table. BTW, does anyone know if it is possible to get dragon Master anywhere.
I don't have it and my roommates copy is falling apart.
As for case 2, when we started playing Blood Bowl last year none of
us were experienced players. The people that got us into it live in Las
Alamos, about 70 miles north of here. All of us knew that none of us had
a real grasp on the rules, so until we got it straightened out, we just
realized that if a rules mistake was made, that was you ouwn fault for not
knowing the rules, and you'd get it next time. Within 2 or 3 games we got
the rules down pretty good, or so we thought. After travelling up to LA
one weekend, the fact that we had missed tons of rules and conditions was
pointed out to us, so we started playing with them. In short, since we
knew that a rules error was not an attempt to screw someone else over, we
didn't get upset about it.o
--
bal...@carina.unm.edu | 'Beer is for relaxing after the hack is over.
Chris Baldwin | In the middle of the hack, you need all the
"Get your head out of your | edge you can get, for those 30-hour runs.'
ass, you clueless geek!"-Dac| -Rich Alderson
Rick Heli
your audience. Some people are very studious and detailed --
photocopy the rules for them a week in advance. Others like
to get into the flow of a game so what I like to do is give
them the bare outlines and announce that this is a practice
game which will continue only until all the basic rules have
been exposed. There is no win or lose and the rules will be
introduced as the game proceeds. Another way to do this is
to play an introductory scenario if the game is kind enough
to provide one.
When no one knows the rules, I read them carefully and take
notes, particularly of all those little exceptional gotchas,
you know, those rules that just don't fit in. Then paraphrase
them and write down in what page and section you found the
rule for future reference. The more people who do this, by
the way, the better, since everyone is sensitive to different
subtleties.
--
Rick Heli
Internet: el...@Eng.Sun.COM
john.a.foley
posting:
I won't rehash, since Jennifer mentions a very, very common
problem, and I think Steffan diagnoses it properly, that is,
this fellow had his ego on the line for whatever reasons. I
think we can be sympathetic to this person because it is sometimes
quite easy to get "hooked" by the latent competitiveness of
a gaming situation. However, I am more sympathetic to the
plight Jennifer is in: she is taking on the burden of explaining
the game, and in effect takes on a dominant role. I don't get
many satisfying chances to game, so, apart from the excellent
local group of ASL players, I play with various far-flung members
of family whenever we can. Most of them hate reading rules. I'm
the one who has almost always read the rules or knows the game.
Steffan's solution, that is, playing an open hand or a bunch of
open turns is the *only* thing that regularly works. It almost
always works. Why? Playing open the first time is a psychological
leveler: the person who doesn't know, now has an actual experience
of the game. It's true that this method does not always iron out
every last rule kink and detail, but you have built a common bond
of immediate game experience that tends to prevent undue upset
whenever some surprise rule shows up.
John A. Foley
Melvin H. Nicholson YBH
new game, usually one person will prepare a whole rules spiel, and
explain it to the other players. The person will usually miss LOTS of
rules, and the first game everyone except the person who explained the
rules will usually send some time searching the rulebook for things
which got left out. As long as everyone realizes how hard it is to
prepare such a presentation, thing go rather smooothly. In some cases,
we're able to have more than one such person read the rules, in which
case the one not eexplaining everything can be corrected by the others
when he makes mistakes. When done, that works better, but in practice
it's not big enough of a deal to worry about.
The most important thing is to have a friendly group, even if you are
interested in "serious" games.
Mel
Eric W. Lund - Subop
> How do people teach other people new games, particularly when either 1)
> the game is complex or 2) you don't know the game yourself. I had
> two examples of this happen a couple of weeks ago. First, I was trying
> to teach this guy Up Front. He was reasonably familiar with WWII type
> games so we started with patrol and used nearly all the rules except
> flanking. He really wanted to get started, so I told him that at RR5
> you could infiltrate the other's group, and then you could do CC. Well,
> he didn't want to wait for all the details (people never seem to want
> the whole game explained at once!) and of course when his A group got to
> RR5 to my B group I told him I was going to infiltrate his A group,
> and proceeded to explain infiltration. He got mildly upset that he hadn't
> been told about the rules earlier. I've had this happen before with
> other games and other people, does anyone have a good solution? Also
> what do you do when no one knows the rules? I read the rules before
> hand over and over, but it's just not the same as when everyone is
> playing or trying to play and there's a bunch of rules questions. Even
> tho I explain this is a learning game, etc, etc, people still feel
> cheated if a rule wasn't explained properly at the beginning of the
> game, yet they don't want to wait for the explanations. Very frustrating,
> and any help given will be appreciated.
The feeling is mutual. I think for cases where you know the game your
self, a great way to teach it is to play a few "open hand" rounds of a
game. Make sure the player(s) know you're not playing this game all the
way through, and you'll play a real game directly after. The second case
whereby neither of you know the game is the stinky one. Reading the
rules aloud never seems to work well for me. Some people have short
memories when it comes to plain-vanilla rule readings, others have to see
words to get them to sink in, but most just seem to bog down, get bored,
and jump out the window. A better solution seems to be reading the
manual beforehand, even if you don't understand it yourself. When time
comes to play a game, at least you can coordinate the learning effort..
_ _
Eric W. Lund | | | UUCP:...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!elund
Friend, Countryman, Ears | | | BITNET: elund%graphics.rent.com@pucc
=THE=GRAPHICS=BBS============== |o o|___ INTERNET: el...@graphics.rent.com
(908) 469-0049 = "It's better < v > \ \* <-- killer bunny DELPHI: elund
than a sharp stick in the eye!" /.W.\,|,| from Dimension Z GENIE: e.lund1
Eric W. Lund - Subop
> table. BTW, does anyone know if it is possible to get dragon Master anywhere.
> I don't have it and my roommates copy is falling apart.
Wow, I haven't played DragonMaster in a while. All I remember is "it's
like Bridge", and that's enough to scare away any of my diehard gamer
friends from trying it. Thanks for reminding me though -- I gotta take a
second look at this game...
(p.s. No, you can't buy it. %^))