Teaching Novices Board Games.. Properly

Thanks to The Games Journal for their new article discussing how to teach board games to those playing them for the first time. The author provides a how-not-to guide from his own experience, citing a friend who "..had to repeatedly refer to [the] rulebook.. [and] conveniently introduced a few rules during the course of the game, usually just as he needed to take advantage of them", then suggests an 'incremental approach' to boardgame teaching, consisting of a basic outline, then more detailed fleshing-out, suggesting: "..most people don't have the patience to hear out or the ability to absorb a detailed, chronological approach from top to bottom." Is there an approach that works for you?

Comments

Re:This is so obvious it hurts me to type it

[Andy_R]

Because the rules often don't function well as a tutorial, since they (ought) to deal with every concievable circumstance.

Also, there are some games where the rules are horribly incomplete, for example the board game Risk, which (in all the editions I have seen here in the UK) doesn't bother to explain when a player's turn ends. Differnet people use different conventions for when it's the next person's turn, and for the inadequately defined 'reinforcement move at end of turn'.

Make sure the goal is clear and obvious

[dmorin]

I've found that the one thing that makes new players get all glassy eyed is if they don't immediately grasp the goal of the game. They'll understand the rules better in the context of the goal.

The two best examples I know are Go and Chess (I just had this conversation recently after trying to teach my wife Go). Take Chess first. Beginners are taught that the goal of the game is Checkmate. This immediately causes most of them to always go after "Check" thinking that it is "almost there." And if you ever suggest to them a draw, or that they surrender, they think you're nuts. The concept of the game being over before somebody is in checkmate is lost on them. This was clearly shown during that experiment when Kasparov played the world over the net. The expert advisors recommended a draw at a particular move, but the masses said oh hell no, we want to win.

Go has the problem that, for beginners, the ending is very difficult to understand. You are probably NOT going to play until the board is full. THe game ends by mutual agreement. But a beginner doesnt really understand what goes into that agreement. So they insist on playing on.

Re:Make sure the goal is clear and obvious

[MrWa]

I think a bigger problem with Go is not the ending, it's the beginning.

Chess starts with a board populated with pieces; these pieces move certain ways and there is a very small number of first moves. Since the goal is clearer (checkmate) in chess, even the novice has a good chance of starting out alright.

In Go you have a huge board with a lot more possible first moves. If the beginner isn't aware of opening theory there is almost no way to decide where to place the first stone.

That is why starting out on a 9x9, or 13x13 at most, board is a good idea. The games are quicker, the number of moves is more limited, and you can quickly start teaching fighting (9x9) and endgame (13x13) which is needed before you understand what the point of opening theory is.

Re:This is so obvious it hurts me to type it

[Rupes]

> Why not just tell them to read the damn rules themselves?

Well, looking at four random but highly regarded games from my shelves (Age of Steam, Puerto Rico, Amun-Re, and Funkenschlag), the english rules average a bit over eight 8"x11" sides each. This is a bit much for three other players to read in turn before a game when the explanation could be done in parallel.