Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Voltaire]

Inspired to create this post based on a way a friend started teaching Euphoria last night. The first thing he said to the new player was "These are called markets. You flip them when their cost has been paid and you get to pay less for placing an authority token..."

For those not familiar with the game: he started teaching by describing something that happens in the mid-stage of the game, with no explanation of resources, points, overall goal, etc.

So what's the worst way you've seen a game taught?

[scott_pilgrim]

I once saw someone teach several new players 7 Wonders.  After they had finished explaining what all of the cards do, one of the new players finally asked, "So, uh, how do we get these cards?"  "Oh yeah, this is a drafting game, each turn you pick a card from your hand and pass the rest to the next player..."

It really bothers me when people are bad at explaining games, because it has a huge effect on how well new players understand the game, and consequently, whether they end up enjoying it or not.  A game that a player otherwise might have loved can be completely ruined by a poor rules explanation.

In general, I think any good explanation should start with the overall big picture, then work your way down to increasingly specific details.  So, like "each player has his own deck of cards; the objective of the game is to get the most VP; these green cards are worth VP; when you buy cards, they go into your deck; here's what happens on your turn; here's what all the different cards do".  I feel like I've seen way too many people try to start with "here's what the cards do; oh yeah, I forgot to mention each player has his own deck; oh yeah, here's what you do on your turn..." (using Dominion as an example, but the general pattern applies to all games).  The cards' effects don't have significance if I don't know the fundamental mechanics of the game, or the win condition, etc.

[liopoil]

I definitely agree that order of explaining is important, as scott_pilgrim outlined. I've found that sometimes the players make things difficult though. For instance, with 7 wonders, after describing how the card passing and choosing works, one could say "In the upper right of the card is the cost, in the top center of the card is the card's effect", and a new player might interrupt and ask "What do these shields mean?"

In that case, would it be better to answer the question or to say something along the lines of, "I'll get to that once I've explained the basics"

[sudgy]

Here's how I start whenever I'm teaching a game:

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

With dominion, I start by explaining the decks, the VP cards, then the phases of the turn, then what each card does.

[liopoil]

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

While this seems pretty trivial, it's pretty important. It annoys me when players make in-game actions for reasons other than trying to win in games with 3+ players.

[scott_pilgrim]

I definitely agree that order of explaining is important, as scott_pilgrim outlined. I've found that sometimes the players make things difficult though. For instance, with 7 wonders, after describing how the card passing and choosing works, one could say "In the upper right of the card is the cost, in the top center of the card is the card's effect", and a new player might interrupt and ask "What do these shields mean?"

In that case, would it be better to answer the question or to say something along the lines of, "I'll get to that once I've explained the basics"

I would definitely just say "I'll explain it later".  Assuming you know the order you want to explain everything in, the explanation will be clearer if you just do it that way.  You've played before and they haven't, so you know best how all of the mechanics work together and how you should explain it.

[Twistedarcher]

Here's how I start whenever I'm teaching a game:

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

With dominion, I start by explaining the decks, the VP cards, then the phases of the turn, then what each card does.

I agree -- win conditions are very important and should be explained very very quickly.

[Dsell]

This is something I've thought about a lot because I am usually the person to read the rulebook and explain everything, and I used to be pretty self conscious about it. In the last six months or so I've gotten a lot better at it, woo! Luckily I can't think of any time I've screwed things up so badly that it seriously affected our play. I had someone get really mad at me for not explaining a rule in 7 Wonders once, but other players confirmed that I did explain it and that person just wasn't listening.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Here's how I start whenever I'm teaching a game:

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

With dominion, I start by explaining the decks, the VP cards, then the phases of the turn, then what each card does.

This is also my go-to opener for explaining games. "You win this game by having the most points at the end."

[pacovf]

This is something I've thought about a lot because I am usually the person to read the rulebook and explain everything, and I used to be pretty self conscious about it. In the last six months or so I've gotten a lot better at it, woo! Luckily I can't think of any time I've screwed things up so badly that it seriously affected our play. I had someone get really mad at me for not explaining a rule in 7 Wonders once, but other players confirmed that I did explain it and that person just wasn't listening.

I've somehow developped an image of "forgetting" to explain rules until they suit me. That is despite the fact that most of the time some other player backs me up saying that I did explain the rule.

Dominion is a simple game to explain. Usually I go like "Every player has their own deck. Every turn, you play one action card from your hand, and then you buy one card from the common pool and put it in your deck. There are three basic kind of cards: action cards, which do diverse things that help you; treasure cards, which you need to buy new cards; and victory cards, which do nothing, but are worth points. At the end of the game, the player with more points in his deck wins". And then get into the specifics.
Usually the way your deck cycles and how buys get mixed in it is the things that perplexes new players the most, aside from specific action cards (I try to avoid text heavy cards in first games, but I don't always have all my boxes with me).

Compare that to trying to explain Dungeon Lords. The first time I tried, rules + game took close to 6 hours. Luckily everybody enjoyed it, despite the extraordinarily long time it took.

[AdamH]

To answer the question, I agree that the worst way to start explaining a game is to start with details. I try to explain games from the top level down so that everything else you say has a context and it makes more sense. This may sound terrible, but when people ask questions about details I usually don't answer them and say I'll get to it later.

This is how I teach Power Grid, and though it can take some finesse that's specific to the game you're teaching, I find that one of the best things you can do for a new player is to get them playing the game as soon as possible. Often times, if the game allows it, you can just not explain some of the rules until after one or two rounds of the game, just make sure they aren't screwed because they made early decisions not knowing what was coming up later on in the game. I've had a lot of success teaching Power Grid this way and it's not uncommon for a first-time player to win a game of Power Grid with a group of experienced players (with them only giving advice for the first 3 rounds or so); I've also gotten a lot of positive feedback on the video (in the comments).

This is how I teach Dominion (rules are explained in the first two videos of the playlist). Explanation of the rules for me usually revolves around Big Money so I can try and get people to skip the "buy random action cards without any focus" step, which has helped with some people and completely whiffed with others. Of course, I'm open to suggestions on how I can improve this :-)

I've been told that I should put more videos on my channel where I explain the rules of games, I don't necessarily think I'm all that spectacular but with these two games, I've explained them enough that it seems to work well...

[Robz888]

Best explanation for how to play Agricola is actually in the Agricola rulebook: "To do an action, simply do that action."

[sudgy]

Best explanation for how to play Agricola is actually in the Agricola rulebook: "To do an action, simply do that action."

When I'm teaching dominion, I'll say, "In your action phase, you play an action card from your hand and do what it says."  I then go on to the buy phase, and explain action cards in more detail later.

[Watno]

In my gaming group theres one guy who's really bad at explaining games.
I haven't witnessed this myself, but apparently he started explaining Stone Age with "There's a hunger strategy in this game".

[jonts26]

This really only works with shorter games, or games played in shorter rounds, but I find it often best to just explain the very basics and then play a practice whatever or two. For instance, I've taught bridge to a whole bunch of people. Generally, I explain what tricks are (if they don't already know), how to count points in your hand, and the most common few opening bids and responses. Then we play a few open hands and I can go into detail if a specific situation arises. Bridge is a bit more complex than say, dominion, but I still do mostly the same thing. Start with general goals (getting VP), general turn order (play actions, spend treasure, buy new cards) and then just play a few rounds open handed so I can make sure they get the general idea.

[silverspawn]

i think a good way is to figure out how to explain a game, if you really want to be good at it, is to view it as a mathematical directed graph, where nodes are packages of content and edges are dependencies. the graph will come close to, but not quite be a tree. consequently, it's best to stat at the top of the "tree" (what do you need to win, what different types of cards are there, how do you do your turns), and it's worst to start at the bottom. a bottom node would be a specific card or the lose track rule or something like that.

obv. it's more of a theoretical concept, but if you did make one, I suspect that the more incoming edges a node has, the less sense it makes to explain it first.

[GeoLib]

I think a good way to explain a game is to describe it as a mathematical directed graph, where nodes are packages of content and edges are dependencies. If you can break every game down into this graph format, then the problem is easily generalizable to all games. Just teach people how to read the graphs and then whenever you want to teach them a new game, show them its graph. It takes a little more time in the beginning, but think of how much easier it will be in the long run!

[Kirian]

I think a good way to explain a game is to describe it as a mathematical directed graph, where nodes are packages of content and edges are dependencies. If you can break every game down into this graph format, then the problem is easily generalizable to all games. Just teach people how to read the graphs and then whenever you want to teach them a new game, show them it's graph. It takes a little more time in the beginning, but think of how much easier it will be in the long run.

"So, this is cool and all, sure, but we were going to play games and instead got an hour lecture about graph theory."

[AHoppy]

I definitely agree that order of explaining is important, as scott_pilgrim outlined. I've found that sometimes the players make things difficult though. For instance, with 7 wonders, after describing how the card passing and choosing works, one could say "In the upper right of the card is the cost, in the top center of the card is the card's effect", and a new player might interrupt and ask "What do these shields mean?"

In that case, would it be better to answer the question or to say something along the lines of, "I'll get to that once I've explained the basics"

I constantly run into this.  And I do say I will explain it later.  The problem is, often when I am explaining games the people I am explaining it to are not patient even then...  While I'm trying to explain top level stuff, they a) don't pay attention or b) are unwilling to listen to all the rules and just want to get started or c) insist they cannot remember them all anyway and get exasperated with me... Hey, I didn't write the rules.  I often find the best way is to just start playing.  Then questions can be answered as they arise.  The problem is, with people being impatient or not being able to remember all of the rules (read: not paying attention), they then get mad at me for something I "didn't explain" earlier but I actually did... sigh...
/endrant

[pacovf]

I definitely agree that order of explaining is important, as scott_pilgrim outlined. I've found that sometimes the players make things difficult though. For instance, with 7 wonders, after describing how the card passing and choosing works, one could say "In the upper right of the card is the cost, in the top center of the card is the card's effect", and a new player might interrupt and ask "What do these shields mean?"

In that case, would it be better to answer the question or to say something along the lines of, "I'll get to that once I've explained the basics"

I constantly run into this.  And I do say I will explain it later.  The problem is, often when I am explaining games the people I am explaining it to are not patient even then...  While I'm trying to explain top level stuff, they a) don't pay attention or b) are unwilling to listen to all the rules and just want to get started or c) insist they cannot remember them all anyway and get exasperated with me... Hey, I didn't write the rules.  I often find the best way is to just start playing.  Then questions can be answered as they arise.  The problem is, with people being impatient or not being able to remember all of the rules (read: not paying attention), they then get mad at me for something I "didn't explain" earlier but I actually did... sigh...
/endrant

This. A thousand times this.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

"The goal of this game, like all activities, is to promote the propagation of one's genetic lineage."

[ipofanes]

It's ok to defer some of the explanation into the phase when it actually happens. For instance, combat rules in Titan should be explained at full detail not before the first combat happens. Before, something like "one number is creature's hit points, the other number is its ability to strike successfully, and creatures generally have an edge in the terrains they can be mustered in" should be enough for beginners to weigh their chances befor entering their first melee.

[Jimmmmm]

I definitely agree that order of explaining is important, as scott_pilgrim outlined. I've found that sometimes the players make things difficult though. For instance, with 7 wonders, after describing how the card passing and choosing works, one could say "In the upper right of the card is the cost, in the top center of the card is the card's effect", and a new player might interrupt and ask "What do these shields mean?"

In that case, would it be better to answer the question or to say something along the lines of, "I'll get to that once I've explained the basics"

I constantly run into this.  And I do say I will explain it later.  The problem is, often when I am explaining games the people I am explaining it to are not patient even then...  While I'm trying to explain top level stuff, they a) don't pay attention or b) are unwilling to listen to all the rules and just want to get started or c) insist they cannot remember them all anyway and get exasperated with me... Hey, I didn't write the rules.  I often find the best way is to just start playing.  Then questions can be answered as they arise.  The problem is, with people being impatient or not being able to remember all of the rules (read: not paying attention), they then get mad at me for something I "didn't explain" earlier but I actually did... sigh...
/endrant

This. A thousand times this.

"You never said that!"

"Actually I made special mention of it and repeated it about three times."

[Awaclus]

Here's how I teach games:

1) The basic idea of the game (this is skippable if it's clear to all of the players; for example, when teaching Dominion, I would say something like "in this game, each player builds his own deck of cards during the game", and when teaching a game that the new players have seen others playing, I skip this, and when teaching Catan, I skip this)
2) Turn structure
3) Win conditions
4) Ask the players if they want any brief strategy advice

[eHalcyon]

"The goal of this game, like all games, is to win."

While this seems pretty trivial, it's pretty important. It annoys me when players make in-game actions for reasons other than trying to win in games with 3+ players.

Depends on the game. If it's more of a story-telling game,  I don't mind playing to tell a more interesting tale.