Teaching games
Greg
another story. I know that when I ask them if they want to learn a new
game they just cringe because I do have a short fuse when the same
thing happens everytime I teach them a new game. My kids are 14 and
15, my wife is 37. The only thing I ask when teaching a game is if you
have a question about the specific rule I am talking about, go ahead
and ask away. But please don't ask about something that you know I
will get to later on. I will always teach a game in the order that the
rulebook does. For example, last night I was teaching them Citadels. I
started by explaining that the object of the game was to build 8
districts. My daughter then asked, "What are these +4 and +3 markers
for"? "I will get to that", I said. Then I went on to how you pay for
the districts. "What are these other cards for"? my son asked. "I will
get to that", I said. I tell them that it will get too confusing if I
jump around from one rule to another without going in the proper order
and if they just would save the questions until the end they probably
won't have any question. I understand that there will be questions
about the game rules. Asking a question about the the rule you are
explaining at that time is OK. Asking about a rule that didn't get
covered when I say I'm done is OK. But not even letting me finish my
opening statement about the game before asking how the game is won is
driving me crazy. Any advice on how to teach a game or is this just my
problem and I need to be more patient?
David desJardins
> The only thing I ask when teaching a game is if you have a question
> about the specific rule I am talking about, go ahead and ask away. But
> please don't ask about something that you know I will get to later
> on. I will always teach a game in the order that the rulebook does.
> Any advice on how to teach a game or is this just my problem and I
> need to be more patient?
It sounds like your problem. If they all want to do it one way, and you
want something different, then you should adapt to all of them, rather
than the reverse. If they all want to ask questions, then just let them
ask questions. Maybe it will take longer. So what?
It would be different if all but one of them preferred your way of doing
things.
David desJardins
Jordan Wolbrum
Greg wrote:
>I love playing games with my family. But teaching them the game is
>another story. I know that when I ask them if they want to learn a new
>game they just cringe because I do have a short fuse when the same
>thing happens everytime I teach them a new game.
>
I think you're going about it the right way. Gently but firmly saying
"I'll get to that" works wonders even for me, and I might as well be 14
years old when someone is explaining the rules. :)
It can help with the eternally curious to withhold the components until
you are ready to explain the rules. This way, there's nothing to
distract people from what you're explaining.
Puerto Rico is a great example. I just explained the rules to 3 friends
last weekend, and the sheer volume of things to ask questions about can
be overwhelming. I'd have done a lot better keeping more components
inside the box and explaining it as I went along.
-JW
Christopher Bourassa
Why not just let them read the instructions, too? Then they shouldn't have any
questions. Or, let one of them read the instructions and then explain them to
the others.
--
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian proverb
D-Rider
It's not your problem that they interrupt you, but getting impatient
with their interruptions is your problem. Don't ruin your family game
nights with your short fuse! The idea should be to have fun together.
Not everyone learns games the same way, the questions they are asking
and when they ask them indicate how they want to learn - and that's not
necessarily in the order the rule book explains things. Try to see if
there is a pattern to their questions. For example, some people want to
know how to win the game first, so that when the mechanics are explained
to them they can better understand how those mechanics relate to
winning. Other want to understand the sequence of play first, others
need to start by understanding what everything on the map/cards/pieces
means. If you see a pattern then maybe you can help them out by
starting with the explanations most important to them, and then filling
in the rest.
You might try next time to ask your son or daughter to read the rules
first so THEY can explain the game to the rest of you, then watch how
they explain it - they're likely to explain the rules in the manner they
want to learn.
Good luck next time,
D-Rider
Jim Bolland
> problem and I need to be more patient?
I do think you need to be more patient, but that only part of it. (Yes,
get used to saying, "I'll explain that later.") In addition, following
the order in which the rules are written may not work very well.
Unfortunately, the order of many game rules can be really confusing.
Some rules are terribly written. Many (most?) of the rest are not as
good as they could be.
I like to teach rules in this order:
1. Try to set up the game before you explain anything. If you don't
have the opportunity to set it up before anyone else sits down at the
table, get the others to help pass things out - if they have
something to do, they won't dive into asking all kinds of questions
when you're not ready yet.
2. Explain the components - ALL of them. You should at least give them
a name for every component. (You'll STILL get questions from some
people.)
3. Explain how the game ends and how you win the game.
4. Explain the sequence of events - how a turn goes.
5. Only if players want you to, explain some strategy.
In simple terms, it's where you start, where you want to end up, and how
you get there, in that order. If you tell someone how they can get
somewhere before you tell them where they are going, they WILL get confused.
Many game rules are written in a reasonable order, but are still
confusing for a variety of reasons. For example, I've run into a lot of
rules that explain everything two or three times in a very "chatty"
manner. It drives me crazy! What should be a simple, single page of
rules is turned into a wordy three or four pages that are not very well
organized.
The bottom line: Figure out a better order to explain things to your
family. It may be the order I like to use. It may be some other order.
Often it will not be the order in which the rules are written.
Jim
Todd Derscheid
"Jim Bolland" <jbol...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3DC720AD...@charter.net...
> I like to teach rules in this order:
>
> 1. Try to set up the game before you explain anything. If you don't
> have the opportunity to set it up before anyone else sits down at the
> table, get the others to help pass things out - if they have
> something to do, they won't dive into asking all kinds of questions
> when you're not ready yet.
> 2. Explain the components - ALL of them. You should at least give them
> a name for every component. (You'll STILL get questions from some
> people.)
> 3. Explain how the game ends and how you win the game.
> 4. Explain the sequence of events - how a turn goes.
My first game of Puerto Rico was at a gaming party. My wife, my friend
Larry, and I tried to learn the rules. My wife prefers beginning a game
with a minimum of learning how functions interact, and Larry prefers getting
more of an idea of the overall web of consequences. My instructions were
too long for my wife, and too short for Larry!
> 5. Only if players want you to, explain some strategy.
I try to limit strategy to explaining what a "good" placement in Settlers of
Catan resembles, because a bad placement (which most non-gamers will choose)
makes Catan tedious and disheartening.
>
> In simple terms, it's where you start, where you want to end up, and how
> you get there, in that order. If you tell someone how they can get
> somewhere before you tell them where they are going, they WILL get
confused.
>
> Many game rules are written in a reasonable order, but are still
> confusing for a variety of reasons. For example, I've run into a lot of
> rules that explain everything two or three times in a very "chatty"
> manner. It drives me crazy! What should be a simple, single page of
> rules is turned into a wordy three or four pages that are not very well
> organized.
I got into a couple of discussions this weekend while learning Kremlin. A
little sheet showing the exact turn order would have been nice, definitely
much better than reading rules written in the typical Avalon Hill fashion.
Jim Bolland
> Larry, and I tried to learn the rules. My wife prefers beginning a game
> with a minimum of learning how functions interact, and Larry prefers getting
> more of an idea of the overall web of consequences. My instructions were
> too long for my wife, and too short for Larry!
Ouch! I hate it when that happens! Strangely enough, I like both of
those approaches at different times.
It sounds like you should have explained the game to Larry beforehand
and then explained it to your wife just before you started to play. (Of
course, you might have to be clairvoyant to know this! :-)
>>5. Only if players want you to, explain some strategy.
>
>
> I try to limit strategy to explaining what a "good" placement in Settlers of
> Catan resembles, because a bad placement (which most non-gamers will choose)
> makes Catan tedious and disheartening.
Even then, some people just want to figure it ALL out for themselves.
My personal style us to take all the advice I can get - and then make
all the newbie mistakes anyway! :-) (At least I know what hit me.)
> I got into a couple of discussions this weekend while learning Kremlin. A
> little sheet showing the exact turn order would have been nice, definitely
> much better than reading rules written in the typical Avalon Hill fashion.
That's one advantage to having someone pour over the rules ahead of
time. They can usually spot when it would be useful to have some sort
of player's aid.
Jim
Josh Adelson
news:3012469d.0211...@posting.google.com...
> I love playing games with my family. But teaching them the game is
> another story.
The hell with them. The next time they interrupt you, backhand them
mercilessly and proclaim "I am the master here!" If this proves
ineffective, take up bowling, where suppressed rage coupled with a steady
supply of beer makes things really scintillating....
Glenn Kuntz
D-Rider <nomail...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3DC6F111...@nowhere.com...
> It's not your problem that they interrupt you,
I disagree with this point - they're his kids! ;-)
Otherwise, I agree.
Jody
"Glenn Kuntz" <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:usfhakk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> D-Rider <nomail...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC6F111...@nowhere.com...
>
> > It's not your problem that they interrupt you,
>
> I disagree with this point - they're his kids! ;-)
> Otherwise, I agree.
It's fun to bug people when they are explaining the rules.
I tell people i'm gettin mad, and i'm about to kick ace, and
everything settles down! Actually, the problem usually gets
worse after that now that i think about it...
Just give them a short answer drifting back to the rule you are
talking about and they'll get bored of it.
Christopher Dearlove
<jbol...@charter.net> writes
>I like to teach rules in this order:
I think different games work better in a different order. For example
many
of my explanations (to gamers) start with "the object of this game is to
score the most points" but in some cases how to win is almost a
throw-away comment at the end. I guess the guideline I follow more
often than not is to explain the basic rules, with special cases later.
So for Puerto Rico I mention that buildings are the usual "allow rule
breaking" type mechanism (I did say this was to gamers) and only
cover them all at the end. I appreciate that others might prefer to
explain buildings as each job is described (construction hut with
settler etc.). Maybe their way is better for them - or even better
full stop - I just go with what seems to work for me.
(My worst experience was explaining X-Pasch. They didn't listen,
they talked through it, they built towers of cubes - and then beat
me hands down into last place, so perhaps they were listening.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
Derscheid <ders...@houston.rr.com> writes
>I got into a couple of discussions this weekend while learning Kremlin. A
>little sheet showing the exact turn order would have been nice, definitely
>much better than reading rules written in the typical Avalon Hill fashion.
That's what the board is for - it's got all the information you need
presented
in a quite clear colour coded form, even down to order of precedence for
each task (the oddball being the Ideology Secretary being No.2 to the
KGB Head) and the rules for votes needed and the SPs for each action.
Whilst you could play without the board, it's actually an excellent
design
and well worth it. (Contrast Outpost with a useless board, and Republic
of Rome with an intermediate value board which could be dispensed
with.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Geenius at Wrok
> I will always teach a game in the order that the rulebook does.
I think this is part of the problem. I've noticed that the rulebooks of
German games, in particular, tend to start at the beginning and work
through things in the order you're likely to encounter them, placing the
endgame condition and victory criteria at the end. This is fine if you've
been trained since birth to wait until you've heard the whole sentence to
find out what the verb is going to be, but it doesn't play here in the
English-speaking world.
Whenever I know a game well enough to teach it without the rulebook, I do
it in something approximating the following order:
1. Explain the theme and identify all the parts.
2. Explain the goal and specify the condition under which the game ends.
3. Explain the various ways of working toward the goal (e.g., in Puerto
Rico, describing the things that earn you victory points).
4. Explain the turn-by-turn mechanics that get you there.
5. Mop up any remaining details.
In my experience, this works WAY better than simply reading the rulebook
aloud from start to finish.
--
Und sperrt man mich ein im finstern Kerker § Keith Ammann is
Dies alles sind nur vergebliche Werke § gee...@cifnet.com
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken § www.cifnet.com/~geenius
Und Mauern entzwei -- die Gedanken sind frei! § Lun Yu 2:24
M. Petty
> Any advice on how to teach a game or is this just my
> problem and I need to be more patient?
I know what you mean about questions at the wrong time. The more you
explain new games to them, I think they'll realize you'll cover
everything necessary before the game begins.
Here's an article I wrote last summer for the Games Journal:
http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/FirstTime.shtml
I've introduced a lot of games to friends since then and I still find
this to be a good approach with 90% of the people I game with.
Mike
--
www.fairplaygames.com
Aaron D. Fuegi
: On 4 Nov 2002, Greg wrote:
: > I will always teach a game in the order that the rulebook does.
: I think this is part of the problem. I've noticed that the rulebooks of
: Whenever I know a game well enough to teach it without the rulebook, I do
: it in something approximating the following order:
Well, Greg can correct me if I'm wrong but I gather this is part of the
issue. Greg many not have played the game yet himself (or at least not very
often) and only have read the rules. He thus (understandably) feels much more
comfortable explaining the game in the same order that the rules do and has
trouble jumping ahead because he may get lost himself. This is pretty
understandable and in this situation I think he probably does need to get them
to live with it although this does sound hard with this group.
For someone experienced and thoroughly familiar with the game, I
agree with you. I also think such teachers are much more able to handle
interruptions because they won't get lost about things themselves.
: 1. Explain the theme and identify all the parts.
: 2. Explain the goal and specify the condition under which the game ends.
: 3. Explain the various ways of working toward the goal (e.g., in Puerto
: Rico, describing the things that earn you victory points).
: 4. Explain the turn-by-turn mechanics that get you there.
: 5. Mop up any remaining details.
: In my experience, this works WAY better than simply reading the rulebook
: aloud from start to finish.
Aaron
Icarus
Greg wrote:
> Asking a question about the the rule you are
> explaining at that time is OK. Asking about a rule that didn't get
> covered when I say I'm done is OK.
When they don't have clue one what the game is about, how are they
supposed to know the difference?
Teaching is far more about accomodating the learner than the teacher. A
good teacher finds the way that the learners learn and speaks to those
ways. If you want them to learn the game most quickly and thoroughly,
you should teach them the way they need to be taught. Rigidity is not a
good thing.
If you do feel that you must approach a game in a certain way, try not
putting all the implements on the table before starting. If you don't
want them to ask questions about these cards, or those chips, don't put
them out on the table until you're explaining them :)
icarus
Greg
Finaly an answer that I can live with....
Todd Derscheid
"Christopher Dearlove" <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GstwFaVr...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk...
> In article <tJFx9.278781$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>, Todd
> Derscheid <ders...@houston.rr.com> writes
> >I got into a couple of discussions this weekend while learning Kremlin.
A
> >little sheet showing the exact turn order would have been nice,
definitely
> >much better than reading rules written in the typical Avalon Hill
fashion.
>
> That's what the board is for - it's got all the information you need
> presented
> in a quite clear colour coded form, even down to order of precedence for
> each task (the oddball being the Ideology Secretary being No.2 to the
> KGB Head) and the rules for votes needed and the SPs for each action.
Yeah, the board was nice (should have put the Health chart on it, though).
Our question had something to do with order of replacement of candidates, I
forget what. We also were playing the basic game, and couldn't decide what
was "simultaneous" play. The board doesn't have ALL the information needed,
and an intermediate steplist a la Ursuppe would be awesome. Ursuppe's
spoiled me in that regard.
Mike Urban
worth. Usually -- depending on the game -- after a brief mention
of the goal of the game, I try to begin at the "center" of the
game, i.e., the major mechanic that people will use the most. For
example, with Vinci (whose territory-grabbing goal is fairly
obvious), I will start with a handful of armies -- doesn't much
matter how many -- and demonstrate a turn where a player starts
off conquering an assortment of empty and non-empty territories --
then I score it. Then I will demonstrate the player's next turn
by picking up the existing units and expanding some more. Then I
say, "Now, you'll notice that since you don't get new armies, like
in Risk, you eventually hit a limit where you're stretched pretty
thin..." and explain declining empires. Then I fill in the other
details.
Rules are often organized VERY badly for learning purposes -- you
have to read all the way through to the end before you find out
what the heck you're trying to DO with all this manipulation (I
think that Titan: The Arena has become something of a classic
example of a thoroughly awful rulebook that manages to obscure a
fairly simple game). Before explaining a game, you _must_ read
through the rules by yourself, solitaire the game to see how it
actually works, and always be thinking in terms of 'how am I going
to explain this' as you are doing so.
Also, play aids for games are sometimes inadequate. Thanks to
the age of computers, though, it is easy to produce your own
cheat sheets, turn summaries, unit capability charts, or whatever
you think is missing, and print them onto light card stock, looking
good enough so as not to detract from the experience of playing
with all the nice wooden pieces on the colorful board (it also
pays to see if boardgamegeek has links to such files produced
by others).
Eric Nielsen
>
> http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/FirstTime.shtml
This article is worth reading if you are in a position of occasionally
teaching games. A couple more points:
-Being the owner, best player, or oldest player of a particular game is
independent of teaching ability. If there is a better teacher in the group,
let him/her instruct the rookies without interruption.
-Keep vocabulary, mechanics, and strategy clearly separated when explaining
a game.
-Avoid extemporaneous instructing. If you are asked to teach a game you had
not planned, take a minute or two to organize your lecture
Cheer,
Eric
Greg
will be using alot of the ideas I've read. Secondly, After reading
some of the comments, I re-read my initial post. I guess I sounded
like an animal who beats his kids when they don't shut up and listen.
They do like learning and playing new games with me and pick up the
rules very fairly fast. Most of the time the games are new to myself
also. I've read the rules and even played some solo games to try to
get the feel of the game before I show it to them. I think I do a good
job at teaching the games but I know when I'm being taught a game with
a group of people and there are always people who are not listening
but are thinking about questions to ask even before that part of the
game has been described drives me crazy. The teacher isn't going to
leave out important aspects of the game. Give him the benefit of the
doubt that he will go over everything if you just give him a chance. I
not saying don't ask questions. You don't start teaching "Settlers" by
by explaining what the robbers does. You need to explain first how all
the things that the robber can steal got there. Also just because one
person needs their question answered doesn't mean everyone else has
the same question and you need to be fair to everyone learning.
Anyway, keep the comments coming. I will listen to them all and save
my questions til the end.
David desJardins
> I think I do a good job at teaching the games but I know when I'm
> being taught a game with a group of people and there are always people
> who are not listening but are thinking about questions to ask even
> before that part of the game has been described drives me crazy. The
> teacher isn't going to leave out important aspects of the game. Give
> him the benefit of the doubt that he will go over everything if you
> just give him a chance.
Why? Seriously, why should they do it your way if they prefer some
other way?
David desJardins
Iron58
Isn't it : "SILENCE!! <Smack> I am the master here!" Cue background rolling
thunder...
I hate it when the thunder is late.....
-------------------------------
I Have no Webpage, I am Everywhere.
I am Iron58. You don't know it yet, but you want to be just like me.
The question is often asked these days, 'Who are we to judge?' My answer is, We are members of society, and that gives us full jusidiction and duty to judge and be judged by other members of our society when it comes to subjects of morality. Because it is that, boys and girls, which allows us to live together peacefully.
The Doctor
rulebook is written exactly like your kids questions.
You read about something and then in the last sentence or semi-last of a
paragraph some new word pops upo, they'd ask 'what's that' and I'd just
read the headline for the next paragraph and read on, it was almost
always coveed in the next paragraph, and we all had a good laugh about
it.
I never had to say 'I'll get to it later' coz later was always now.
But in general in explaining rules to a game, I say a lot of 'I;ll get
to that later', and in fact sometimes I don't, and we play a game for a
few turns and then someone asks 'erm, how does this game end?'. My
groups usually just want the basics, then start play and we'll see about
the other rules later....
But I prefer all the rules read first...
O hwell
Depens on the kind of game too, if it's got a lot of complicated rules
I'll read em up front. But the simple AMigo cardgames I'll read on the
spot.
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen." - Loesje
http://www.noorderspel.nl - 22 Maart 2003, Groningen.
The Doctor
>
> Why? Seriously, why should they do it your way if they prefer some
> other way?
Why should he do it the way they prefer? Same difference eh?
David desJardins
>> Why? Seriously, why should they do it your way if they prefer some
>> other way?
>
> Why should he do it the way they prefer? Same difference eh?
Because there are three of them who prefer it the other way, and only
one of him to prefer it his way. That's the whole point.
As I said in my original reply, if there are three people who want to
go through the rules methodically and systematically, and one person who
wants to ask lots of questions and jump around in the rules, then it's
reasonable to ask the one person to go along with how the other players
want to learn the rules. But when everyone but him has a different way
of learning games, why should they all do it his way? It seems to me
he's just trying to dominate the situation.
David desJardins
Greg Aleknevicus
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>"The Doctor" writes:
>>> Why? Seriously, why should they do it your way if they prefer some
>>> other way?
>>
>> Why should he do it the way they prefer? Same difference eh?
>
>Because there are three of them who prefer it the other way, and only
>one of him to prefer it his way. That's the whole point.
I'm conflicted as to whether "the needs of the many out-weigh the
needs of the few" in this regard.
I think explaining rules is a difficult job and it may be considered a
favour when someone does it. As such, I think it's discourteous for
those receiving such a favour to say "We don't like how you do it, do
it this way instead." Of course, in a real life situation there should
be much give and take (particularly since everyone at the table has
the same goal of playing the game). However, given the difficulty of
teaching rules I'd be inclined to offer just two possibilities:
1. Adapt to how I teach the rules.
2. Have someone else teach the rules.
Greg Aleknevicus
Editor, The Games Journal
http://www.thegamesjournal.com
Anthony Simons
<snip>
>
> However, given the difficulty of
> teaching rules I'd be inclined to offer just two possibilities:
>
> 1. Adapt to how I teach the rules.
> 2. Have someone else teach the rules.
>
This is the best advice I've seen in this post; I also think Greg is
correct about the discourteous aspect.
The Doctor
>
> I'm conflicted as to whether "the needs of the many out-weigh the
> needs of the few" in this regard.
>
> I think explaining rules is a difficult job and it may be considered a
> favour when someone does it. As such, I think it's discourteous for
> those receiving such a favour to say "We don't like how you do it, do
> it this way instead." Of course, in a real life situation there should
> be much give and take (particularly since everyone at the table has
> the same goal of playing the game). However, given the difficulty of
> teaching rules I'd be inclined to offer just two possibilities:
>
> 1. Adapt to how I teach the rules.
> 2. Have someone else teach the rules.
I think I have to agree here.
I also remember having used the 'Well, would you like to teach us then?'
argument towards some particularly annoying question-poser. THis and the
more used 'I'll get to that later' are the best two things in teaching a
game to someone who has too many questions at the wrong time.
Good post Greg.
Icarus
The Doctor wrote:
> David desJardins wrote:
>
>>Why? Seriously, why should they do it your way if they prefer some
>>other way?
>
>
> Why should he do it the way they prefer? Same difference eh?
Because he already knows the rules and they are the ones that need to
learn them. To best teach something it should be presented in a way
that best facilitates learning, which is more likely they way they want
to be taught than the way he wants to teach it.
icarus
Christopher Dearlove
<ica...@NOSPAM.nc.rr.com> writes
>To best teach something it should be presented in a way that best
>facilitates learning, which is more likely they way they want to be
>taught than the way he wants to teach it.
Except he knows the game and they don't. That values his opinion more
than theirs. Not necessarily overwhelmingly more, but more nevertheless.
--
Christopher Dearlove