4 ms·

I played and tried many board games. These day I only play the ones with rules that are understood on the first try/first game.

IshKebab 3y ago
I feel like that's almost all games? Which ones are you thinking of that can't be understood on the first play?
- yummypaint 3y ago
  Wingspan tends to trip people up alot on the first play. It seems more complicated than it is
- cpitman 3y ago
  There are lots of euro games that require a full play through to understand the game. And even then, many popular games where everytime I play with a new group I expect the rules to have been misunderstood in new ways. Look at Root, a very popular game. It has one long manual just for your first play, and then an even longer manual that explains all the rules. They recommend you read that one later.
- boerseth 3y ago
  A lot of games are incredibly involved, requiring a long explanation and rundown of the rules at the start of a session to all those not already familiar with it. It's a common enough issue that Shut Up & Sit Down made a 15 minute video on mastering "the teach" [1] I don't think I've had a single gaming night lately where there isn't some explanation stage to every game, where it is eventually decided that "it will make sense once we start", yet frequently everyone agrees that it will be a lot better next time. Then you have games like Root where learning about the insanely intricate rule-set and how the different factions interact is almost half the point and fun of playing it, still a process after multiple sessions. I've never played that one, however. Seems too daunting. [1] https://youtu.be/P5fjDaFuft8?si=jN5LUnOBv9iqTGvI https://youtu.be/P5fjDaFuft8?si=jN5LUnOBv9iqTGvI
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    Ah right but that's "you'll get the tactics next game" really. I don't think there are many games where you literally can't know all the rules first time round, or at best after a practice round. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to play well the first time you play any game. The only one I can recall that really would require multiple plays just to learn the rules is this: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/329716/eleven-football-manager-board-game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/329716/eleven-football-m... which I tried to play through at Essen but it has a crazy number of disconnected rules. I played 40 games at Essen and that was the only one where the number of rules made it unplayable first time round.
    - johnchristopher 3y ago
      This went from "understanding the rules" to "know all the rules". Having read the rules, so "knowing the rules", doesn't mean you understand them or that you already have the muscle memory required to play. It's also not yet about tactics.
      - IshKebab 3y ago
        I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. For example here's a rule: * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it?
        eszed 3y ago
        Which of my playing pieces count as "guards"? How far away from the king can the guards be for him to still count as "between"? Do diagonal placements count as "between"? I already don't understand your rule!
        johnchristopher 3y ago
        > I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. Please, here are some materials that explains the differences between knowing and understanding: - https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-difference-between-knowing-and-understanding https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-... - https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-and-understanding-222 https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-an... - https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-and-understanding/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-a... > You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. > I feel like that's almost all games? Which ones are you thinking of that can't be understood on the first play? Well, I made that distinction because of the implications of that remark: that rules of a game can be understood by reading them. As you mention in another comment that's not always the case and in my experience that's more often not the case that it is. On a side note, regular players can grok rules faster because mechanics are common to games but it's not how it works for casual players but I can see why it gives the illusion to regular players that rules can be understood just by reading them but they ignore that not only they are reading the rules but they are also seeing the underlying mechanics they are already well aware of. To go further, knowing the rules, understanding how they work and then seeing patterns in a game session and plan accordingly are three separate things. > > * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. > How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it? I'd have written it like this * The king must always stay between the guards. Moves that end with the king not between the guards can't be performed.* and argue that's two separate rules. Now, I know these rules but I don't understand why they are necessary and I don't understand how they apply to the game.
- lukifer 3y ago
  This is going to vary wildly by game experience; many board game veterans learn shorthands for mechanics, and learn rule-learning as its own meta-skill, picking up even complicated games in 10 minutes. That said, there are countless games where it's not unusual to budget an hour or more for "the teach". A great one I played recently is "Hegemony": a game that simulates political economy and class struggle, where one player is The State, and the others are economic classes (Working, Middle, Capitalist). Each player has their own rules, mechanics, and goals, each requiring a unique full-sized rules reference. I tend to treat the first play of every new game as a "sacrificial round": I expect to do poorly, but I'll grok the game by the end. But I've found some need at least two sacrificial rounds: one just to get the mechanics, terms, symbology, and flow; and then another to internalize strategy and actually play well. So yeah, this is all going to vary based on on one's experience level and definitions. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want to spend a whole afternoon basically just to learn a game; as opposed to a game like "Photosynthesis", which might have seem intimidating to an inexperienced player, but after ten minutes they've internalized both the rules and the strategy.
- sudosteph 3y ago
  I actually love games with weird mechanics, but I see this problem a lot when I try to teach certain games to friends and family. Even if they're sober and used to playing board games. Some that take at least one playthrough for us are usually: Terraforming Mars, Terra Mystica, Gloomhaven.
- morelisp 3y ago
  Most GMT games still take me at least two shots, unless it's something in a familiar line e.g. another COIN game. (But sometimes even then.) SpaceCorp took me at least three but maybe it's three games so that doesn't count. I consider myself above-average at learning games but I doubt I could front-load all of Mr. President. But I agree that for the median or even p90 game demoing at Essen, even if there's "a lot" going on, you can get it easily in one game if you have any experience with hobbyist games. I don't think there's as big of a difference as you're drawing between "knowing the rules" and "knowing the tactics". To take one of Amabel's games as an example, I recall the rules for Aurelian being easy to understand in a literal sense (esp. having played Charlemagne), but I also recall it taking three games before I didn't wipe out disastrously just a few rounds in. I also think if you rule any of these out you miss a lot of really interesting games.

IshKebab 3y ago

I feel like that's almost all games? Which ones are you thinking of that can't be understood on the first play?

yummypaint 3y ago
Wingspan tends to trip people up alot on the first play. It seems more complicated than it is
cpitman 3y ago
There are lots of euro games that require a full play through to understand the game. And even then, many popular games where everytime I play with a new group I expect the rules to have been misunderstood in new ways. Look at Root, a very popular game. It has one long manual just for your first play, and then an even longer manual that explains all the rules. They recommend you read that one later.
boerseth 3y ago
A lot of games are incredibly involved, requiring a long explanation and rundown of the rules at the start of a session to all those not already familiar with it. It's a common enough issue that Shut Up & Sit Down made a 15 minute video on mastering "the teach" [1] I don't think I've had a single gaming night lately where there isn't some explanation stage to every game, where it is eventually decided that "it will make sense once we start", yet frequently everyone agrees that it will be a lot better next time. Then you have games like Root where learning about the insanely intricate rule-set and how the different factions interact is almost half the point and fun of playing it, still a process after multiple sessions. I've never played that one, however. Seems too daunting. [1] https://youtu.be/P5fjDaFuft8?si=jN5LUnOBv9iqTGvI https://youtu.be/P5fjDaFuft8?si=jN5LUnOBv9iqTGvI
- IshKebab 3y ago
  Ah right but that's "you'll get the tactics next game" really. I don't think there are many games where you literally can't know all the rules first time round, or at best after a practice round. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to play well the first time you play any game. The only one I can recall that really would require multiple plays just to learn the rules is this: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/329716/eleven-football-manager-board-game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/329716/eleven-football-m... which I tried to play through at Essen but it has a crazy number of disconnected rules. I played 40 games at Essen and that was the only one where the number of rules made it unplayable first time round.
  - johnchristopher 3y ago
    This went from "understanding the rules" to "know all the rules". Having read the rules, so "knowing the rules", doesn't mean you understand them or that you already have the muscle memory required to play. It's also not yet about tactics.
    - IshKebab 3y ago
      I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. For example here's a rule: * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it?
      - eszed 3y ago
        Which of my playing pieces count as "guards"? How far away from the king can the guards be for him to still count as "between"? Do diagonal placements count as "between"? I already don't understand your rule!
      - johnchristopher 3y ago
        > I understand rules if I know them. If I don't understand them I don't know them. You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. Please, here are some materials that explains the differences between knowing and understanding: - https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-difference-between-knowing-and-understanding https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30091/on-the-... - https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-and-understanding-222 https://www.diffzy.com/article/difference-between-knowing-an... - https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-and-understanding/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-knowledge-a... > You're making a weirdly pedantic distinction. > I feel like that's almost all games? Which ones are you thinking of that can't be understood on the first play? Well, I made that distinction because of the implications of that remark: that rules of a game can be understood by reading them. As you mention in another comment that's not always the case and in my experience that's more often not the case that it is. On a side note, regular players can grok rules faster because mechanics are common to games but it's not how it works for casual players but I can see why it gives the illusion to regular players that rules can be understood just by reading them but they ignore that not only they are reading the rules but they are also seeing the underlying mechanics they are already well aware of. To go further, knowing the rules, understanding how they work and then seeing patterns in a game session and plan accordingly are three separate things. > > * The king must always stay between the guards. If a move would end with the king not between the guards it cannot be performed. > How can you "know" that rule but not "understand" it? I'd have written it like this * The king must always stay between the guards. Moves that end with the king not between the guards can't be performed.* and argue that's two separate rules. Now, I know these rules but I don't understand why they are necessary and I don't understand how they apply to the game.
lukifer 3y ago
This is going to vary wildly by game experience; many board game veterans learn shorthands for mechanics, and learn rule-learning as its own meta-skill, picking up even complicated games in 10 minutes. That said, there are countless games where it's not unusual to budget an hour or more for "the teach". A great one I played recently is "Hegemony": a game that simulates political economy and class struggle, where one player is The State, and the others are economic classes (Working, Middle, Capitalist). Each player has their own rules, mechanics, and goals, each requiring a unique full-sized rules reference. I tend to treat the first play of every new game as a "sacrificial round": I expect to do poorly, but I'll grok the game by the end. But I've found some need at least two sacrificial rounds: one just to get the mechanics, terms, symbology, and flow; and then another to internalize strategy and actually play well. So yeah, this is all going to vary based on on one's experience level and definitions. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want to spend a whole afternoon basically just to learn a game; as opposed to a game like "Photosynthesis", which might have seem intimidating to an inexperienced player, but after ten minutes they've internalized both the rules and the strategy.
sudosteph 3y ago
I actually love games with weird mechanics, but I see this problem a lot when I try to teach certain games to friends and family. Even if they're sober and used to playing board games. Some that take at least one playthrough for us are usually: Terraforming Mars, Terra Mystica, Gloomhaven.
morelisp 3y ago
Most GMT games still take me at least two shots, unless it's something in a familiar line e.g. another COIN game. (But sometimes even then.) SpaceCorp took me at least three but maybe it's three games so that doesn't count. I consider myself above-average at learning games but I doubt I could front-load all of Mr. President. But I agree that for the median or even p90 game demoing at Essen, even if there's "a lot" going on, you can get it easily in one game if you have any experience with hobbyist games. I don't think there's as big of a difference as you're drawing between "knowing the rules" and "knowing the tactics". To take one of Amabel's games as an example, I recall the rules for Aurelian being easy to understand in a literal sense (esp. having played Charlemagne), but I also recall it taking three games before I didn't wipe out disastrously just a few rounds in. I also think if you rule any of these out you miss a lot of really interesting games.