7 ms·

One solution strategy that works very well from my experience is to ask them upfront whether they want to play "for real" or to play to learn. [edit: A third mo

One solution strategy that works very well from my experience is to ask them upfront whether they want to play "for real" or to play to learn. [edit: A third mode is "for (silly) fun" where everything is allowed.] This works for all ages... and for boardgames and physical games. It's their choice which mode they want to play in, and they trust and respect you more when given the choice. You treat them as a peer. You can beat them mercilessly, or you can join their side and practice the game together. And the thrill and confidence they get when they beat you playing 'for real' is just priceless.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago
I am curious. Can you give a concrete example or two? Also, if not about a board game, where else would this apply?
- ethbro 10y ago
  Physical contests (sports, racing, wrestling), knowledge contests ("Do you know x?"), practice based games (as you mentioned, some board, chess, etc). Essentially anything where "I've consumed more calories that you have" or "I've had more years to think that you have" are an unfair advantage for purposes of fun.
- jungrothmorton 10y ago
  The comment you're replying to described it as three choices, but you can also consider it a spectrum. pure instruction -> teaching through playing -> friendly match -> competitive match Let's use a card game as an example. Pure instruction: Both players play with their cards visible to each other, and the teacher coaches rules and strategy as they play. Teaching through playing: The hands are now private, but the teacher will tell the student if they're making bad moves and allow do-overs. The teacher may also set up situations for the student to take advantage of. Friendly match: The teacher is playing against the student. No coaching is given. But, nit-picky procedural rules are not always followed. (You've set that card down and your hand left it, you can't pick it up again). Competitive match: Rules are followed to the letter.
  - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
    Thanks. Wouldn't there also be the "I am wiser than you, and can either play 'easy' or play my best" even when playing competitively? "Competitive match" as you define it is more about following the rules, not the effort put in to actually try to win and outmaneuver the other player. Think of a chess game, for example. We can play by the rules to the letter, but if I decide to systematically take your pieces one-by-one or "forget" some of my own experience to perhaps make it more fun, are elements I assumed are in the original comment above.
foobarian 10y ago
How did you get your kids started with board-game type games? I have a 3yro and we just have "silly fun" with dice but I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.
- tetrep 10y ago
  Try teaching them to count with dice. Roll the dice, choose/count N objects, and try to have them do the same.
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    My dad tried to teach me to count using dimes. I had some kind of learning dissabliity. I just couldn't remember how many dimes he would throw on the table, once he would take them away. He started to get bored with my lack of progress. He then decided to play Magician. He would take a dime and, (Palm it--without me seeing), act like he's putting a dime into his mouth, and then pull it out his navel. I was floored. He did it about ten times. My dad was truly amazing. "Dad--can I try it." I can still picture the look of fear/doom on my dad's face when the dime didn't come out my belly button. I just asked him, "Where's the dime?" I couldn't go to the bathroom without my parents for the next two days. They finally found the coin. (I'm not passing this along as any warnings. I think parents are a bit too overprotective today. If I had a child I would defiantly use dice to teach counting. It's just a funny story I just recalled.)
- kosma 10y ago
  Isn't 3yo a bit too early? I mean, at three years old a child is legally smart enough not to swallow the dice... but I thought knowing how to interpret numbers and apply them is a bit more advanced than knowing not to eat the numbery thing. ;)
  - foobarian 10y ago
    Yeah fair enough, I was just wondering about the future. How did you build up to a full board game with your kid? What were the phases? 1. Succeed in not eating the dice 2. ??? 3. Play a game of Sorry! within the rules.
masklinn 10y ago
An other option is to play cooperative rather than competitive games.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tel 10y ago
A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player who endeavors to play poorly so that they are only slightly better than their opponent and have the opportunity to share new ideas and tricks at a level appropriate to their student. Obviously, these have to be done intentionally. A weaker player who nearly wins only to discover their opponent was "teaching" is probably a bit offended: their accomplishment stolen from beneath them. What aids all of this is that Go has a handicapping system that can be very well tuned so that for people who would score within 40-60 points of one another you can probably tune the game down to even odds.
- lazyant 10y ago
  > The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typical errors made by intermediate players that won't show up in chess books (another example is "The Amateur Mind"). I tell soccer players than besides enjoying watching the games of the big teams and star players to watch "journeymen" games from a 2nd division to learn the basics. Also the reason why we frequently learn more from a student mate explaining something that from a veteran teacher or professor, who forgot the struggles of the beginners.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Which is why Napoleon favored generals who had the reputation of being consistently "lucky" - i.e., those whose excellence wasn't easily understood.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Could you maybe clarify the connection? Is the idea that "lucky" generals were actually experts beyond the comprehension of their peers?
mncharity 10y ago
Another option is to take on additional objectives, which serve to handicap you. For instance, when competing to win, there's little room to be exploratory, playful, envelope pushing, maximizing learning. First tries at anything mostly fail. So I'll say "I'm going to focus on learning new things, not just on winning". And verbalize the exploration like "hmm, I wonder if...", attempt, and post mortem review ("I just tried X... and Y happened"). Or offer that as an option - "I'd like to try throwing (at target) under my leg... or would you rather I throw regular?" Play to teach can be mixed in as a part-time objective. "Fake-oops, I dropped my card face up. What was it? What's something you might do differently knowing I have that?" One can also optimizing for game interesting / fun. "Well I could use this card to wipe you out there, instead of discarding it, but this is so much fun, I want to fight it out". So never "illusionary success", always transparent honesty. But being explicit that there can be more than one "game" at play. But also have to watch that this all doesn't become an "it's unpleasant to lose" avoidance strategy - if playing "for real", maybe that's to the bitter end.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

eatbitseveryday 10y ago

I am curious. Can you give a concrete example or two? Also, if not about a board game, where else would this apply?

ethbro 10y ago
Physical contests (sports, racing, wrestling), knowledge contests ("Do you know x?"), practice based games (as you mentioned, some board, chess, etc). Essentially anything where "I've consumed more calories that you have" or "I've had more years to think that you have" are an unfair advantage for purposes of fun.
jungrothmorton 10y ago
The comment you're replying to described it as three choices, but you can also consider it a spectrum. pure instruction -> teaching through playing -> friendly match -> competitive match Let's use a card game as an example. Pure instruction: Both players play with their cards visible to each other, and the teacher coaches rules and strategy as they play. Teaching through playing: The hands are now private, but the teacher will tell the student if they're making bad moves and allow do-overs. The teacher may also set up situations for the student to take advantage of. Friendly match: The teacher is playing against the student. No coaching is given. But, nit-picky procedural rules are not always followed. (You've set that card down and your hand left it, you can't pick it up again). Competitive match: Rules are followed to the letter.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  Thanks. Wouldn't there also be the "I am wiser than you, and can either play 'easy' or play my best" even when playing competitively? "Competitive match" as you define it is more about following the rules, not the effort put in to actually try to win and outmaneuver the other player. Think of a chess game, for example. We can play by the rules to the letter, but if I decide to systematically take your pieces one-by-one or "forget" some of my own experience to perhaps make it more fun, are elements I assumed are in the original comment above.

foobarian 10y ago

How did you get your kids started with board-game type games? I have a 3yro and we just have "silly fun" with dice but I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.

tetrep 10y ago
Try teaching them to count with dice. Roll the dice, choose/count N objects, and try to have them do the same.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  My dad tried to teach me to count using dimes. I had some kind of learning dissabliity. I just couldn't remember how many dimes he would throw on the table, once he would take them away. He started to get bored with my lack of progress. He then decided to play Magician. He would take a dime and, (Palm it--without me seeing), act like he's putting a dime into his mouth, and then pull it out his navel. I was floored. He did it about ten times. My dad was truly amazing. "Dad--can I try it." I can still picture the look of fear/doom on my dad's face when the dime didn't come out my belly button. I just asked him, "Where's the dime?" I couldn't go to the bathroom without my parents for the next two days. They finally found the coin. (I'm not passing this along as any warnings. I think parents are a bit too overprotective today. If I had a child I would defiantly use dice to teach counting. It's just a funny story I just recalled.)
kosma 10y ago
Isn't 3yo a bit too early? I mean, at three years old a child is legally smart enough not to swallow the dice... but I thought knowing how to interpret numbers and apply them is a bit more advanced than knowing not to eat the numbery thing. ;)
- foobarian 10y ago
  Yeah fair enough, I was just wondering about the future. How did you build up to a full board game with your kid? What were the phases? 1. Succeed in not eating the dice 2. ??? 3. Play a game of Sorry! within the rules.

masklinn 10y ago

An other option is to play cooperative rather than competitive games.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tel 10y ago

A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player who endeavors to play poorly so that they are only slightly better than their opponent and have the opportunity to share new ideas and tricks at a level appropriate to their student. Obviously, these have to be done intentionally. A weaker player who nearly wins only to discover their opponent was "teaching" is probably a bit offended: their accomplishment stolen from beneath them. What aids all of this is that Go has a handicapping system that can be very well tuned so that for people who would score within 40-60 points of one another you can probably tune the game down to even odds.

lazyant 10y ago
> The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typical errors made by intermediate players that won't show up in chess books (another example is "The Amateur Mind"). I tell soccer players than besides enjoying watching the games of the big teams and star players to watch "journeymen" games from a 2nd division to learn the basics. Also the reason why we frequently learn more from a student mate explaining something that from a veteran teacher or professor, who forgot the struggles of the beginners.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Which is why Napoleon favored generals who had the reputation of being consistently "lucky" - i.e., those whose excellence wasn't easily understood.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Could you maybe clarify the connection? Is the idea that "lucky" generals were actually experts beyond the comprehension of their peers?

mncharity 10y ago

Another option is to take on additional objectives, which serve to handicap you. For instance, when competing to win, there's little room to be exploratory, playful, envelope pushing, maximizing learning. First tries at anything mostly fail. So I'll say "I'm going to focus on learning new things, not just on winning". And verbalize the exploration like "hmm, I wonder if...", attempt, and post mortem review ("I just tried X... and Y happened"). Or offer that as an option - "I'd like to try throwing (at target) under my leg... or would you rather I throw regular?" Play to teach can be mixed in as a part-time objective. "Fake-oops, I dropped my card face up. What was it? What's something you might do differently knowing I have that?" One can also optimizing for game interesting / fun. "Well I could use this card to wipe you out there, instead of discarding it, but this is so much fun, I want to fight it out". So never "illusionary success", always transparent honesty. But being explicit that there can be more than one "game" at play. But also have to watch that this all doesn't become an "it's unpleasant to lose" avoidance strategy - if playing "for real", maybe that's to the bitter end.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]