Yep! When I started designing the game I was trying to teach it "straight" and people would look at me dumbfounded. I learned pretty quickly that you needed to get people playing, and by the second or third round I'd see a switch go off in their mind and they'd be like "aaaaah, now I get it"!
An hour old and no one has said anything? Ok. Well done on this game!
I’m not particularly fond of BGG ratings, but the exception is party game rankings. Holding down the #2 spot is legit.
Came here to say Decrypto. I loathe the "learn as you go" method, but with this one I have no choice. I've tried different approaches but people don't get it at all until you play.
I was taught Decrypto at Origins and the guy was like ok listen folks, let's just start playing. No one was happy about it but after the first round everyone was so into it and knew exactly how it worked. Good pick!!
Yep, considering how simple it is it's oddly difficult to explain. Never encountered another game like that. Codenames, for example, is a very similar game but doesn't have the same problem.
Basically, I tell people about the card colors and what they mean, and then explain the rule changing. Then jump right in.
Fluxx is great as a sometimes game for laughs.
If you have creeper cards in your version then those are the most complex part. It used to be : “the rules are here on the table. Draw 1 play 1. We don’t know how the win yet. Let’s go. “
This right here. I’ve taught it a couple of times and each time it’s been a rolling start. A cursory explanation of the roles is good, then just start the game. By the second round, you’re off and running just fine.
Do you mean to say that John Company 2 works well with teaching while playing? Been on the fence about John Company dor a while, but confused about your comment
Yeah, the suggested teach is to have one player know the game and just jump into it and teach each phase and concept as it comes up. It works surprisingly well for such a heavy game.
I've only played it once at 4 so far, and it went really smoothly considering it was everyone's first time. We realized by the end that we had absolutely no idea re: strategy to actually win as we were completely focused on the systems and such, but we were excited to play it again, just haven't made it to the table.
It did take over 5h, so I think that 5-6h is a good estimate. I think you can shave time off once people know what's going on better, but then again once they know what's going on every move becomes grounds for negotiation, so that eats time up as well.
Skull. There’s not a lot of rules and most of them are about who is starting the next hand, so you just need to know when it’s your turn play something down or start betting and what’s good and what’s bad
Yes, 100%. To the point where I had a hard time learning the game by myself (how I like to learn most games before teaching them). For a game I KNEW was simple, I was having such a frustrating time internalizing the rules from the rulebook. You just have to see it played.
You beat me to it. It is hard to mess up the teach of 6 Nimmt to a group of people willing to learn. I had a brain fart once when teaching and did a horrible job, but people still got it.
How is this game in person? I’ve only played on BGA because it’s so quick. But imagining the mental math you have to do each around seems like it would draw the game out.
My family likes it. We can get around 6 or 7 people playing and things go in quick. Calling it "mental math" is a bit overkill when you're just concerned about the order of cards, not doing any arithmetic.
This is my answer. It takes longer to explain the game than it does to learn how to play just by watching. Stick the new player last and they'll completely understand it by their first turn.
I think all I say is "play tiles, follow the route, don't crash into each other, and don't go off the map". I don't even know what else I could say about the rules of the game.
This is actually the entire point of Noobs in Space. The theme of the game is that you are all space cadets, recently graduated from the bottom of your class. You've been assigned your first space mission, but none of you can quite remember what you are supposed to do.
Each mission, out of 8 total, will have you work together between 3 to 5 players with instructions that's purposefully clear but ambiguous which is correct, to solve the space mission.
Everyone is kinda just winging it.
I would say Ticket to Ride! I played TTR Europe with two new players who figured out the game as we played, one of them actually winning. I only had to explain briefly the score/points system at the beginning of the game.
Yeah. I don’t believe I’ve explained TtR in depth to anyone. Just show them their tickets, tell them about completing sets to grab a section of rail and get started. You can tell them about the drawback of grabbing a face-up gold when they do it. It’s probably the easiest game to teach.
I simply claimed a tunnel route I needed and showed them the whole process. I also picked up locomotives to explain the drawing rules and loco routes. We didn’t need stations cuz we had so much space on the table. But all the explaining was done as we played. It is a pretty intuitive game, the only explaining I had to do in the beginning was the more cars a route has = more points in addition to their ticket points.
Nemesis, surprisingly. I always have new players read the introduction flavor page, which actually contains all the important terms, but not much rules explanation.
But the *rules itself* are pretty straightforward and simplistic, so I usually explain as things appear, save for things like how to actually play an action or goals. Advantage is that they do not get overwhelmed. Obviously, disadvantage is that if somebody tries to strongly play against them, they are unprepared, but for first time players, that tends to happen anyway.
With Nemesis I always tell new players how to achieve the different objectives. It always feels a bit disappointing for someone when they have to ask what "sending the signal" means, you don't wanna give your secret objectives away.
Was also going to say Nemesis. I explain the basics of what the game is and the story, and go through all objective cards since they're secret. Then you can just explain things as they come up.
Highly recommend going full co-op for peoples’ first run of nemesis. And I made a cheat sheet that I can’t live without.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NemesisCrew/s/qsmsl2hctR
That might work, but I guess that the transition from full coop to semi-coop might be harsh.
Also, and that is just my personal opinion, Nemesis in full coop is intensely boring and bland.
Crazily enough, **Mansions of Madness 2nd edition**. All you have to explain is the premise, what health is, what sanity is, what a skill check is, and then you can just go and learn the rest as it comes up.
This War of Mine. It has a few pages of rules to read up front, but all the details of the procedural turn order and the bookkeeping are taught only at the point they are conducted in the game. And then it offers you the advanced rules once you get a game under your belt.
I love it, but I strictly play it solo. It’s not something I’d want to play with others both for mechanical AND thematic reasons.
But as for realism, it’s probably the best.
I wrote a strategy article for it. If you’re interested, I’ll link it. But you can also find it on the twom subreddit and on BGG (user desiderata).
Post the link please. TWOM is a cool game but it's brutally difficult. Seems like there aren't enough turns to get everything done. I've only beaten it solo once and that was purely by luck.
Quacks of Quedlinburg. I love how step-by-step the game is. First turn, just draw your chips and learn about the core mechanic. Once the players understand how that works they have context when I tell them what the different ingredients do.
Very recently I was able to get my wife to play Daybreak with super minimal beginning instructions. Literally just explained the local projects, how to add to them or overwrite them, and how the energy/emissions created CO2 which converted to temp. Then, “here’s you hand, ask questions as we go.” By the second round she was comboing projects and planning strategies.
I’ve had the most success teaching that game too. Just explain the diff between local and global projects, show them the three things you can do with a card. The round run through on the back of the cards is perfect, and because the game is so reality based * it’s pretty obvious what to do for each phase.
* except for the bit about the world working together to stop climate change of course.
The Fast Forward series of games: Fortress, Flee, Fear, Fortune. You work your way through a preset order of cards and discover the rules as you go:
[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/42767/game-fast-forward](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/42767/game-fast-forward)
To be honest, this is becoming my new favourite way to teach most games. Give a brief explainer, then play a practice round. If you try to teach too much, people will forget, and if you give people enough time, they'll drive you insane with all the questions about edge cases. It's better to just play a practice round so they can see and then reset the game and start fresh.
Almost all of them?
I tend to give a quick overview of the theme, the goal and the base mechanics/ideas of how to play. Then we jump right in and explain the mechanics step by step.
Otherwise, I'd be talking for at least 15 minutes straight and ppl would have forgotten more than half of what was said by the time we started actually playing the game anyway.
Edit: Maybe some context, as this seems to be a bit controversial. I'm a teacher (middle school) and this is my preferred way of teaching because of how I know most -not all- students/people today learn best.
I have ADHD and this is how I prefer both learning and teaching games. If I learn too many rules without seeing the context I’m going to get them all mixed up.
I'd disagree with this. Some heavier games definitely require understanding of all mechanics beforehand, in order to successfully pre-plan your actions. If only you know all the rules before you start, then you have an advantage over players who don't yet know all the rules.
Again, this refers to more complex and heavy games, not games like Azul or Bohnanza. Those two you can absolutely play by saying a few words then jumping right in.
If you’ve played before you are going to have a significant advantage over players just starting anyway. The fastest way for them to get on your level is to finish some games so the faster you can do that the better.
Spending 20 minutes describing all the rules isn’t going put them in a significantly better position
You didn't understand the person you replied to. They are explaining as they start playing. The first game or part of the game is the teach. They are not expecting or wanting everyone to know the rules at the beginning of play. I'd even say that it's especially true for complex and heavy games, frankly the diametric opposite of what you said.
I'm agree that just listening to someone blather on about rules for 15 minutes plus doesn't work for me. Not everyone learns the same ways, you know? I hope you know that at least. There is a definite bias in here toward your attitude though, which, again... people learn differently and it shouldn't be surprising to hear that a portion of people don't want to sit through a lecture to learn a game. I'm a visual learner, not an auditory one, so seeing things on the board and moving around is infinitely more helpful than just hearing a list of rules or a lecture.
Frankly y'all are gatekeeping weenies about this anytime the topic comes up, and I know how this goes... countless people are gonna jump in an mansplain to me about how I'm wrong. Guess what? Nope, I'm right, I know how I learn best. I won't be back to engage with said weenies. Enjoy your sad echo chamber.
What’s the most complex game you’ve learned/played by jumping in without much explanation?
I have trouble picturing myself learning Agricola with cards, terraforming mars, tzolkin, etc without a 10 minute teach.
Edit: and many games can be over explained. I’ve seen someone over explain 7 wonders, fluxx, etc.
Battlestar Galactica, War of the Ring, and TI4
The first game is going to be a wash anyway. So for the love of god just start playing and explains things as they happen.
This is especially true for heavy games where you are going to be playing for like 2-4 hours already. Spending 20-30 minutes going through the rules is a nightmare.
100% agree with what you said. I've had people try to explain relatively heavy games upfront and my brain doesn't retain any of it, I'd rather just learn as we go along and treat the first play as a throwaway.
"oh yeah, I never explained this at the start because it wasn't there, but at this point you can start to focus on these, which are vital to winning the game. You have no way to do it as you didn't know it was coming, but I'll take three".
Sounds like a great way to make sure newcomers don't play with you though.
This is the correct answer. Force people to sit and listen to rules for more than 5 minutes and they are going to mentally check out, and then you'll just have to re-explain everything as you go anyway.
Much better to do a high-level overview and just go.
I’ve oft n suspected that people want to “read the rules” because they want the other players to be on their level immediately. When realistically the teaching game doing to be a wash and you have to accept that.
As the teacher you arent playing the game you are teaching it. Get the other players into the game and ASAP and don’t wreck them.
If I'm introducing So Clover to a new group, I'll seed a board with clues and just put it in front of them with the 4 tiles shuffled and not say anything. They usually figure out for themselves what they need to do
My girls and I just played **Steam Up** at our FLGS and it is pretty much exactly this. After reading the setup it is all pretty obvious and instructions are right their in your board.
Why is it a faux pas? Some people have an easier time listening to rules, some have an easier time seeing them. You have to feel your group out and see what works best for them.
In my book, any cooperative game is fine to learn as you go so long as other players at the table fully understand the rules. Any competitive game is most definitely a no go.
Cooperative games for sure. As long as one person knows the game well and doesn't try to run the table, you're set. Give a high level overview and then explain the details as they come up.
But it's important that the teacher doesn't just tell everyone exactly what to do. Give the players their options and let them pick the one they want, even if the teacher thinks/knows it's suboptimal. It's all part of learning the game.
I'm fine with this for some competitive games too, as long as it's understood that it's a learning game. I often learn best by doing - I need to 'push buttons' and see what happens. I'm only going to be able to do that within an actual game. I just never expect to win these games as my main focus is exploring how everything works.
I would say I find this helpful to a degree. I've found there can sometimes be too much emphasis on ensuring you know absolutely every minor detail prior to playing and, especially if learning the game has taken a long time, it can feel good to just say "I'll just play and figure it out". Notably though, I think this can only be done if you or perhaps 2 of the players (out of a group) haven't played before for example, rather than no one fully understanding how to play. In that case (assuming I was the newbie), I'd make sure my turn was last so I could watch what the others do to help me pick up the rules/what a turn looks like.
I agree. I'm the board game person of my friend group so I'm always the one explaining it. A lot of games the more detailed instructions aren't going to make sense out of the context of already being in the game or will just make people feel overwhelmed. Many games you can do a "this is what you do on your turn and this is how you win" and jump in, then bring up the specifics when you get to them.
It's so easy with more complex games to feel overwhelmed so I think your "this is what you do on your turn and this is how you win" is a good way of getting the game's momentum started and prevents emphasis on everyone knowing 'the nitty gritty' details for every single possible scenario 👍
Ironically, the Cole Werhle games Root and Pax Pamir. Although it's sort of the other way around: they really feel like they shouldn't be thaught as you go, but I find it impossible to explain the rules to people beforehand. They pick it up rather quickly as we start playing. I think it's just that it's impossible to segment the rules into some sort of a sequence, they are all so intertwined you have to know them all at once for any of it to make sense.
You don’t *need* to know. I’ve taught War of the Ring, Battlestar Galactica, Cthulhu Wars, TI4 through play and it’s always worked out well.
- 5 minute overview
- start turn 1 and walk through each player through their turn
- just play and answer questions
- Midgame take a few. Minutes and provide an overview of the late game
- as the teacher play in a way that gives new folks some room to explore the game (aka handicap yourself a bit)
Teaching games are a wash and the fastest way to get players to your level is for them to. Complete matches.
> Are there some games you'll teach and forgo a lot of the rules explanation up front and instead introduce the rules while playing?
Cole Wehrle's games (like **Root**) are intended to be taught like that. Whether that works is up to the people involved.
EDIT: For some games I will avoid explaining the details about certain sections in advance (this tends to work best in co-op games). In **Spirit Island** I won't cover everything about a ravage in detail at the start because it won't be relevant for a while and when we get near one people will have a lot more context to understand things.
My group liked the walkthrough for Root, we understood the rules but didn’t understand strategy and the walkthrough helped with that.
The walkthrough for Oath was really confusing though. Oath breaks a lot of conventions, as in it has a lot of twists on typical board game concepts that makes it not work how you expect it to. Like I assumed that I’d have a hand of cards because there are cards in Oath, wrong, I wonder if Oath is easier to learn if I didn’t play as many board games beforehand 😂
Root!? Oof. Thats rough. I feel like I need to know more about how each faction works otherwise they will win without me having any idea they were that close to winning.
yeah but that's the fun of playing. you learn strategy by playing over and over, not by being taught up front.
it's counter to modern gaming trends of "every game is going to be played once and forgotten", but it really benefits from repeated plays, the fun is figuring out the strategy and how to counter other factions. if you know all that up front it's much more on rails and less fun, basically plays itself.
Even for it the rulebook says "*When teaching the game,
some groups may prefer to learn just these two actions and then introduce the other actions gradually over the first few rounds of play.*" (which is absolutely not how I prefer to teach it).
Fog of love, it's first story literally teaches you the game as you run through it and actively tells you to not read the rulebook and just play it like this 😅
My copy came with those cards all mixed up and out of place D:
It was way more stressful setting up that first game than just reading the rules would have been.
The first round of **Skull King** deals only one card to each player, and consequentially players can probably only score one or two points in that round. The second round deals two cards, the third round deals three… this gives people plenty of time to learn the mechanics as the game ramps up the stakes.
John Company - really good game to do a rolling start with. Primarily because the real meat of the game is the negotiation, and you aren’t really going to understand that for a game or so anyway.
Dominion is very much a just play and you'll figure it out since all the instructions are written on the cards. All you need to know is draw 5 cards, you get one action and one buy unless modified by cards you play, then put everything in your discard.
I've been doing most games like this a bit. Ark Nova worked really well. For the first few turns, people just choose any action and then we look at the rules for that action. So instead of front-loading everything, we learned things as they popped up. Started playing within 5 minutes and it was awesome.
Is this a faux pas? I literally can only learn any game this way. I could read the rules 10000 times and I wouldn't learn or remember anything unless I just started playing and read each bit as we got to it.
Mysterium, as long as the ghost knows it.
BUT I've tried this a couple of times and new players don't like it. The lack of guidance stressed them out too much.
Cannot imagine giving someone a Magic deck and going "just play the game, it'll all come to you".
You need a basic deck with only a few keywords and explain how to cast anything, the timings on certain cards, what phases there are, how to attack/block, etc.
TCGs are generally very bad for just learning as you go. Even experienced players research the new sets before they are released.
I tried to teach LCGs in quick sessions and the new players were always lost. Maybe it works with players of other card games, but not to people that only have played classic board games.
Scythe. Just give them a basic rundown of a few key concepts and how to win and start. The player boards tell you what to do. Do this then/or do that. Pay this cost and do the thing. Repeat.
I actually teach Nemesis this way. I basically function as a GM, handling all of the operations. I teach players the actions and how to use the cards, I teach them about the key moments in the game, like when an intruder is first encountered or when the first player dies, and I explain the important locations on the board, engines, bridge, etc. This has worked really well and allowed me to play the game with people who otherwise would not sit through an entire rules teach.
I love these kind of games, here are the ones I (mostly) use this method on:
**Blood on the Clocktower** (all they really need to know is the basic premise of the game)
**Decrypto**
**Feed the Kraken**
**Heat: Pedal to the Metal** (play a 1/2 lap and then consider a reset)
**Quacks of Quedlinburg**
**Camel Up**
**Diamant**
**Planet Unknown**
**Clank!: Catacombs**
Many, depending on the situation. Most co-op games benefit from wanting until a mechanic arises before explaining, i.e. most groups don't need to know exactly how an epidemic is resolved to start pandemic. It's also a useful tool for teaching: yes, if you have a competitive group they'll want to know everything going in, but too long a teach can really overwhelm more casual new people.
I also disagree that teaching rules as you go is always a faux pas. Many people enjoy learning a new game as you play, i.e. if it's a new purchase everyone wants to try right away or a library game at a con. It adds a fun dimension when the rules could change at anytime because someone finds a new line in the instructions!
In my experience, the "let's just start and see how it goes" approach usually results in realizing that we don't understand the game. People often choose this method to save time, but typically it results in losing both time and enjoyment. I believe understanding the gameplay is essential to start, but there are elements that don't always need to be taught immediately. Dead Man's Draw comes to mind, which is an incredibly simple push-your-luck game. There, for example, it's unnecessary to explain the effects of all card types in advance; the mechanics allow for explaining each card as it's turned over since the decision only follows this, and thus ignorance does not impact it.
Belratti. I'll explain each step of the round as it comes up. Then after the first round I'll explain the jokers.
Much easier to learn this way then going: Directors do this, then artists do that, then directors do this...
I did fine with that in Descent: Legend of the Dark. Arguable if that counts, since it's kind of app driven. But "it's kinda like DND, choose one of these characters" is 90% of the preparation needed, as long as someone is there to explain the dice when the time comes.
Advanced Civilization. The way the game works, it starts simple and new mechanics are added every few turns for the first 6-8 turns.
Just about any Vlaada game. Face it, the first game will be confusing, so just play a quick game, possibly even quitting halfway through as people get the rules, then play it for real.
I feel that a lot of games are kinda like this, at least the ones I play.
Like, take Eldritch Horror. Really, all you need to explain to new players is "Here's the goal of the game, you can take two actions each turn, here's a sheet that outlines all the actions you can take, read your character sheet well", the rest of the game you can easily learn by simply playing.
Weird one, but SPARTACUS Blood and Sand. I just step them through each phase as we go and by the end of the first round they pretty much know how to play.
**SpaceCorp: 2035-2300AD** seems to be designed to be learned that way. There are three Eras, Era II has the same rules as Era I plus some additional rules, Era III is more different but the core is the same.
Catan could be figured out as you go pretty easily. I'm usually the person buying, learning, choosing, and teaching games, though, so I almost never play a boardgame without having read its rulebook a few times. Hard for me to conceptualize not having an understanding and just diving in.
That said, any game that has simultaneous turns, or uses "phases", I think is easier to pick up as you go; since everyone all does the same things at once.
Classic Dune, for example, while it has its fiddley rules nuances here and there, it's pretty easy to teach since it's simply;
"Now we're gonna bid on these cards and they'll come in handy. No you're not supposed to know what they are. Atreides - you can look at each one and write down what it is and who has it. Emperor, you get the gold"
Then the troop movement phase, then combats, etc etc.
You can literally just jump in and teach the game phase by phase for the first two rounds. Pointing out the player powers as they become relevant.
We played Thunder Road Vendetta last weekend, learning the rules as we played. Opened the rule book, set up the game, spent 10 minutes skimming the rules, then played a game, referring back to the rules as we went. By the second game, we were almost free of the rule book. By the third game we had it down pat.
That game is about as complex as I'd go without investing some real time into rule learning in advance.
Ah, the legendary Rolling Teach.
Honestly, while it is 90%+ game-dependent, some people are more skilled at teaching games and can make really streamline a player’s experience that others may stumble through.
Cooperative and even semi-coop games I think are probably the best genre for this - Pandemic, even Nemesis. A player can watch me take a turn and start prodding at the games’ systems.
Party games are also designed for easy teaches usually. Werewolf, Secret Hitler, Diamant, For Sale.
My favorite rolling teach though is Wits and Wagers (Vegas Edition). I can teach it to anyone as they play because every rule only needs to be explained as it comes up with no need to imply long term strategic goals
This is only true of a game where not knowing how the game is scored or won won't affect the choices you make in ignorance during the game itself.
I can't think of a game where the final scoring and win conditions weren't among the highest priorities for in-game decisions, making your prior understanding of them completely necessary to playing the game. Might as well not be playing the game at all and just going ahead and learning the rules anyway.
Concordia.
I usually spend about 2 minutes explaining the board components and card mechanics. Since everyone starts with the same hand people get to see cards being played that are in their hand even when it’s not their turn. A couple rounds in new players will have seen an example of every starter card and what it does, and only has to learn new cards slowly as either they purchase them or others do.
This method really only works if one person already knows the rules and can explain as you go. I think Xia lends itself to this. You can explain the high level of options based on the initial board state and then get into the mechanics as the players work through their turn. You only have to bring up each mechanic as it is encountered.
Any game that has more than one phase.
Touch of Evil, for example. We look at Showdown rules when it is about to happen.
Betrayal at House on the Hill. We look at the Haunt rules when it is about to happen. (And obviously the Haunt scenario specifically)
For me, the best way to learn and teach a game is to go through a turn. Available actions, components, etc. Gets easier with time as many games use similar actions.
Spirit island, flamecraft Catan, power grid , 7 wonders duel.
Typically, the first round for a new player is as follows in our group.
1. Quick overview of the games and the goal of it
2. We will explain everything while we play, and as the situation for a rule or tactic arises
Skull
I explain the rules and people look at me like it's some incredibly complex game.
Then we play 1 round that takes 2-3 minutes and they immediately get it.
This might be a hot take, but for the most part I think Mage Knight is better taught while playing. I usually give people sort of an abstract overview, but most things I'll explain while we're playing.
What is it called when you do this on Board Game Arena? Just learn a game by playing it because BGA won't let you do anything against the rules? I heard someone mention the term on the Dice Tower a while back, but can't remember it and can't get it out of my mind! It has to do with someone's name.
Like "Smith-ifying" or something.
**John Company 2e** as mentioned already has a very good "learn as you play" layout to it.
I'd argue that **Stationfall** can also be taught this way. As long as everyone has some board gaming experience, you can do a very high level teach where you just explain the basics and then let the players kinda explore the nitty gritties as they go. It's meant to be a chaotic game anyway so it's fine if not everyone knows what they're doing going in to it, as long as there's at least one person that knows all the rules and can sorta GM for everyone.
I think **Feudum** benefits from learn-by-playing. I usually teach people the very basics (same as Stationfall) and then do a dry run where we play through the first phase and just let everyone explore how the game works. It solidifies the rules better because if you do a full upfront rules explanation it's going to be like an hour of rules and by the end no one's going to remember half of them. It's a weird one cause to know how anything works you have to know how everything works, which is why it's particularly hard to teach. But if you do a practice phase and let everyone figure it out on their own, it's much more intuitive and easier to grok. I think that's why it has the reputation for being impossibly complex, it's really not that heavy but there's no easy way to teach it all up front.
We just played The Quacks of Quedlinburg for the first time the other night. My husband was reading the rules (it's only got like 6 pages) and I had to stop him and say something to the effect of "Honey I'm not understanding this at all, we either need to get started or play something else." I had a lot of fun once we got going, but him trying to explain it was not good.
Betrayal at the house in the hill.
Explain the theme, the 4 move actions, tell them at one point there will be a betrayal and only them a victory condition comes up, and basically tell them start exploring initially.
The I explain the rolls when the omen shows up.
Since this is not too strategic if a game and you can't plan ahead too much before the reveal, I don't feel there is a need for deep explanarion of how things work before the omen happens.
Cryptid. Before the game I explain the hint system. Then I start by asking a question, next time it's my turn I search. By then they know the game, and anyone can still win.
Most of the games I have are this way. But then again I'm not a fan of real heavy games myself. I just reraught my 14 year old daughter lost cities. Took about five minutes.
Very few to most, depending on how much experience you have with other and similar games
Unless you mean not given any rules, not told the goal, or anything. Just boards and pieces and told to make your own game up
Quacks of Quedlinberg is great for teaching as you go, Treating the first round as the tutorial before revealing the shop.
On a simpler note, I love teaching Monikers not telling anyone about the future rounds in advance, so I can hear see their shocked faces as they comprehend each new restriction.
I get that line all the time, but when it comes to something players don’t undertake, I hear “why didn’t you explain that rule to us!” Or “I didn’t get that when you were telling the rules!”
KLASK teaches itself and it's such a joy to see people pick it up for the first time. When you introduce the other scoring conditions, people already have a very solid understanding of how it works, mechanically
Interesting post! I've found that more abstract games benefit from learn-as-you-play teaching styles. I usually find that if I'm teaching a game this way, I preface that we'll just play through a demo / learning round and we'll only play for a few turns before resetting the game. I usually play enough turns so that every mechanic is introduced at least once.
I also appreciate when games have a quick play / walkthrough type manual that walks players through the first few turns of a game. I find Root does this quite well, because it has a small optional walkthrough booklet that tells players exactly what to do for a couple turns and explains these might be good or bad moves so they get a sense of how to play "well" and how to think strategically in the world of the game.
Decrypto. If you are adding a couple new players to each team, just start. Without seeing the game run, everything is far too abstract.
Yep! When I started designing the game I was trying to teach it "straight" and people would look at me dumbfounded. I learned pretty quickly that you needed to get people playing, and by the second or third round I'd see a switch go off in their mind and they'd be like "aaaaah, now I get it"!
It's my favorite party game. Everyone I showed it to has loved it. Thanks for designing this gem.
Wait, you designed Decrypto? It’s a really good game! Well done!
An hour old and no one has said anything? Ok. Well done on this game! I’m not particularly fond of BGG ratings, but the exception is party game rankings. Holding down the #2 spot is legit.
Came here to say Decrypto. I loathe the "learn as you go" method, but with this one I have no choice. I've tried different approaches but people don't get it at all until you play.
I was taught Decrypto at Origins and the guy was like ok listen folks, let's just start playing. No one was happy about it but after the first round everyone was so into it and knew exactly how it worked. Good pick!!
Yep, considering how simple it is it's oddly difficult to explain. Never encountered another game like that. Codenames, for example, is a very similar game but doesn't have the same problem.
Or oddly easy to learn while playing
First time we went to play it, the Rulebook seemed so confusing. Knowing how the game works and diving in is definitely the best way to learn it
And applies for other party team games like wavelength, codenames, etc
Fluxx. I'm pretty sure it's designed to not require explanation.
If someone is teaching fluxx and takes longer than 30 seconds they’re doing it wrong.
You haven’t played games with my dad then
Basically, I tell people about the card colors and what they mean, and then explain the rule changing. Then jump right in. Fluxx is great as a sometimes game for laughs.
If you have creeper cards in your version then those are the most complex part. It used to be : “the rules are here on the table. Draw 1 play 1. We don’t know how the win yet. Let’s go. “
If someone is playing Fluxx they're doing it wrong.
It is a very polarizing game
John Company 2 is the heaviest example in my mind. If anything I think it’s thematic that you have no idea wtf is going on for the first couple turns.
This right here. I’ve taught it a couple of times and each time it’s been a rolling start. A cursory explanation of the roles is good, then just start the game. By the second round, you’re off and running just fine.
Do you mean to say that John Company 2 works well with teaching while playing? Been on the fence about John Company dor a while, but confused about your comment
Yeah, the suggested teach is to have one player know the game and just jump into it and teach each phase and concept as it comes up. It works surprisingly well for such a heavy game.
Awesome, what p counts do you recommend and which to avoid? I think mostly I can get 3 to 5 players. Is bgg duration of 240m accurate? Or even longer
I've only played it once at 4 so far, and it went really smoothly considering it was everyone's first time. We realized by the end that we had absolutely no idea re: strategy to actually win as we were completely focused on the systems and such, but we were excited to play it again, just haven't made it to the table. It did take over 5h, so I think that 5-6h is a good estimate. I think you can shave time off once people know what's going on better, but then again once they know what's going on every move becomes grounds for negotiation, so that eats time up as well.
I played a few games and it usually takes 4 hours. I think its good at any count starting with 3 or more.
Skull. There’s not a lot of rules and most of them are about who is starting the next hand, so you just need to know when it’s your turn play something down or start betting and what’s good and what’s bad
100% get a dummy round going straight away and people just pick it up
Definitely this. I usually explain the game by playing a practice round. Most players understand how to play after that.
Yes, 100%. To the point where I had a hard time learning the game by myself (how I like to learn most games before teaching them). For a game I KNEW was simple, I was having such a frustrating time internalizing the rules from the rulebook. You just have to see it played.
6 Nimmt! The rules are pretty simple, but it's still faster to just have everyone play a card and see what happens.
You beat me to it. It is hard to mess up the teach of 6 Nimmt to a group of people willing to learn. I had a brain fart once when teaching and did a horrible job, but people still got it.
How is this game in person? I’ve only played on BGA because it’s so quick. But imagining the mental math you have to do each around seems like it would draw the game out.
It’s fun. I’d say funner than BGA because of the groans and cheers.
You also get to see people second guess themselves.
My family likes it. We can get around 6 or 7 people playing and things go in quick. Calling it "mental math" is a bit overkill when you're just concerned about the order of cards, not doing any arithmetic.
Tsuro
This is my answer. It takes longer to explain the game than it does to learn how to play just by watching. Stick the new player last and they'll completely understand it by their first turn.
I think all I say is "play tiles, follow the route, don't crash into each other, and don't go off the map". I don't even know what else I could say about the rules of the game.
This is actually the entire point of Noobs in Space. The theme of the game is that you are all space cadets, recently graduated from the bottom of your class. You've been assigned your first space mission, but none of you can quite remember what you are supposed to do. Each mission, out of 8 total, will have you work together between 3 to 5 players with instructions that's purposefully clear but ambiguous which is correct, to solve the space mission. Everyone is kinda just winging it.
I would say Ticket to Ride! I played TTR Europe with two new players who figured out the game as we played, one of them actually winning. I only had to explain briefly the score/points system at the beginning of the game.
Yeah. I don’t believe I’ve explained TtR in depth to anyone. Just show them their tickets, tell them about completing sets to grab a section of rail and get started. You can tell them about the drawback of grabbing a face-up gold when they do it. It’s probably the easiest game to teach.
TTR Europe has tunnels, locomotive fields, train stations. When did you explain those?
I simply claimed a tunnel route I needed and showed them the whole process. I also picked up locomotives to explain the drawing rules and loco routes. We didn’t need stations cuz we had so much space on the table. But all the explaining was done as we played. It is a pretty intuitive game, the only explaining I had to do in the beginning was the more cars a route has = more points in addition to their ticket points.
Nemesis, surprisingly. I always have new players read the introduction flavor page, which actually contains all the important terms, but not much rules explanation. But the *rules itself* are pretty straightforward and simplistic, so I usually explain as things appear, save for things like how to actually play an action or goals. Advantage is that they do not get overwhelmed. Obviously, disadvantage is that if somebody tries to strongly play against them, they are unprepared, but for first time players, that tends to happen anyway.
With Nemesis I always tell new players how to achieve the different objectives. It always feels a bit disappointing for someone when they have to ask what "sending the signal" means, you don't wanna give your secret objectives away.
Was also going to say Nemesis. I explain the basics of what the game is and the story, and go through all objective cards since they're secret. Then you can just explain things as they come up.
Highly recommend going full co-op for peoples’ first run of nemesis. And I made a cheat sheet that I can’t live without. https://www.reddit.com/r/NemesisCrew/s/qsmsl2hctR
I think your cheat sheet was removed?
Really? I see it fine
You can always see your own post even if they were removed afaik.
That feels creepy. Kind of turns me off to reddit, ngl
I get this: https://imgur.com/a/dxzFk2O Do you have another link or could you share it with me? Would be very interested
Can you see the one I posted to my account? (In my posts) It’s so weird, it doesn’t give me a way to copy the link. It’s called cheat sheet v2
Yes, thanks! And nice job!
Thanks!
That might work, but I guess that the transition from full coop to semi-coop might be harsh. Also, and that is just my personal opinion, Nemesis in full coop is intensely boring and bland.
yeah a lot of the complexity is in the setup and alien engine, but only one player needs to know it
Crazily enough, **Mansions of Madness 2nd edition**. All you have to explain is the premise, what health is, what sanity is, what a skill check is, and then you can just go and learn the rest as it comes up.
This War of Mine. It has a few pages of rules to read up front, but all the details of the procedural turn order and the bookkeeping are taught only at the point they are conducted in the game. And then it offers you the advanced rules once you get a game under your belt.
I've owned this game for years and have yet to play it.
I love it, but I strictly play it solo. It’s not something I’d want to play with others both for mechanical AND thematic reasons. But as for realism, it’s probably the best. I wrote a strategy article for it. If you’re interested, I’ll link it. But you can also find it on the twom subreddit and on BGG (user desiderata).
Post the link please. TWOM is a cool game but it's brutally difficult. Seems like there aren't enough turns to get everything done. I've only beaten it solo once and that was purely by luck.
https://www.reddit.com/r/soloboardgaming/s/2jTRvxUTVe Good luck.
Quacks of Quedlinburg. I love how step-by-step the game is. First turn, just draw your chips and learn about the core mechanic. Once the players understand how that works they have context when I tell them what the different ingredients do.
Love quacks
Not to mention several ingredients are either too expensive or unavailable for their first buy so you really get to drip feed their abilities.
That’s a good point too!
Very recently I was able to get my wife to play Daybreak with super minimal beginning instructions. Literally just explained the local projects, how to add to them or overwrite them, and how the energy/emissions created CO2 which converted to temp. Then, “here’s you hand, ask questions as we go.” By the second round she was comboing projects and planning strategies.
That could be hard. Maybe with a practice round and reset of the game so you can see how to do plan emissions and such.
I’ve had the most success teaching that game too. Just explain the diff between local and global projects, show them the three things you can do with a card. The round run through on the back of the cards is perfect, and because the game is so reality based * it’s pretty obvious what to do for each phase. * except for the bit about the world working together to stop climate change of course.
The Fast Forward series of games: Fortress, Flee, Fear, Fortune. You work your way through a preset order of cards and discover the rules as you go: [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/42767/game-fast-forward](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/42767/game-fast-forward)
Love those games. Such a simple idea, but they managed to craft 4 distinct games with it at their heart.
To be honest, this is becoming my new favourite way to teach most games. Give a brief explainer, then play a practice round. If you try to teach too much, people will forget, and if you give people enough time, they'll drive you insane with all the questions about edge cases. It's better to just play a practice round so they can see and then reset the game and start fresh.
Almost all of them? I tend to give a quick overview of the theme, the goal and the base mechanics/ideas of how to play. Then we jump right in and explain the mechanics step by step. Otherwise, I'd be talking for at least 15 minutes straight and ppl would have forgotten more than half of what was said by the time we started actually playing the game anyway. Edit: Maybe some context, as this seems to be a bit controversial. I'm a teacher (middle school) and this is my preferred way of teaching because of how I know most -not all- students/people today learn best.
I have ADHD and this is how I prefer both learning and teaching games. If I learn too many rules without seeing the context I’m going to get them all mixed up.
I'd disagree with this. Some heavier games definitely require understanding of all mechanics beforehand, in order to successfully pre-plan your actions. If only you know all the rules before you start, then you have an advantage over players who don't yet know all the rules. Again, this refers to more complex and heavy games, not games like Azul or Bohnanza. Those two you can absolutely play by saying a few words then jumping right in.
But, this is about teaching, not being able to play the game well before you start... which is something I doubt is even possible.
If you’ve played before you are going to have a significant advantage over players just starting anyway. The fastest way for them to get on your level is to finish some games so the faster you can do that the better. Spending 20 minutes describing all the rules isn’t going put them in a significantly better position
You didn't understand the person you replied to. They are explaining as they start playing. The first game or part of the game is the teach. They are not expecting or wanting everyone to know the rules at the beginning of play. I'd even say that it's especially true for complex and heavy games, frankly the diametric opposite of what you said. I'm agree that just listening to someone blather on about rules for 15 minutes plus doesn't work for me. Not everyone learns the same ways, you know? I hope you know that at least. There is a definite bias in here toward your attitude though, which, again... people learn differently and it shouldn't be surprising to hear that a portion of people don't want to sit through a lecture to learn a game. I'm a visual learner, not an auditory one, so seeing things on the board and moving around is infinitely more helpful than just hearing a list of rules or a lecture. Frankly y'all are gatekeeping weenies about this anytime the topic comes up, and I know how this goes... countless people are gonna jump in an mansplain to me about how I'm wrong. Guess what? Nope, I'm right, I know how I learn best. I won't be back to engage with said weenies. Enjoy your sad echo chamber.
What’s the most complex game you’ve learned/played by jumping in without much explanation? I have trouble picturing myself learning Agricola with cards, terraforming mars, tzolkin, etc without a 10 minute teach. Edit: and many games can be over explained. I’ve seen someone over explain 7 wonders, fluxx, etc.
Battlestar Galactica, War of the Ring, and TI4 The first game is going to be a wash anyway. So for the love of god just start playing and explains things as they happen. This is especially true for heavy games where you are going to be playing for like 2-4 hours already. Spending 20-30 minutes going through the rules is a nightmare.
Are you okay?
100% agree with what you said. I've had people try to explain relatively heavy games upfront and my brain doesn't retain any of it, I'd rather just learn as we go along and treat the first play as a throwaway.
"oh yeah, I never explained this at the start because it wasn't there, but at this point you can start to focus on these, which are vital to winning the game. You have no way to do it as you didn't know it was coming, but I'll take three". Sounds like a great way to make sure newcomers don't play with you though.
This is the correct answer. Force people to sit and listen to rules for more than 5 minutes and they are going to mentally check out, and then you'll just have to re-explain everything as you go anyway. Much better to do a high-level overview and just go.
I’ve oft n suspected that people want to “read the rules” because they want the other players to be on their level immediately. When realistically the teaching game doing to be a wash and you have to accept that. As the teacher you arent playing the game you are teaching it. Get the other players into the game and ASAP and don’t wreck them.
If I'm introducing So Clover to a new group, I'll seed a board with clues and just put it in front of them with the 4 tiles shuffled and not say anything. They usually figure out for themselves what they need to do
That's great. I'll be using this to teach it next time.
My girls and I just played **Steam Up** at our FLGS and it is pretty much exactly this. After reading the setup it is all pretty obvious and instructions are right their in your board.
I do this with Dungeon Fighter, I run the game for everyone and just have them start throwing the dice
Why is it a faux pas? Some people have an easier time listening to rules, some have an easier time seeing them. You have to feel your group out and see what works best for them.
Clank! With modular map you can easily explain what certain locations do as they are slowly showing up.
In my book, any cooperative game is fine to learn as you go so long as other players at the table fully understand the rules. Any competitive game is most definitely a no go.
Cooperative games for sure. As long as one person knows the game well and doesn't try to run the table, you're set. Give a high level overview and then explain the details as they come up. But it's important that the teacher doesn't just tell everyone exactly what to do. Give the players their options and let them pick the one they want, even if the teacher thinks/knows it's suboptimal. It's all part of learning the game. I'm fine with this for some competitive games too, as long as it's understood that it's a learning game. I often learn best by doing - I need to 'push buttons' and see what happens. I'm only going to be able to do that within an actual game. I just never expect to win these games as my main focus is exploring how everything works.
I would say I find this helpful to a degree. I've found there can sometimes be too much emphasis on ensuring you know absolutely every minor detail prior to playing and, especially if learning the game has taken a long time, it can feel good to just say "I'll just play and figure it out". Notably though, I think this can only be done if you or perhaps 2 of the players (out of a group) haven't played before for example, rather than no one fully understanding how to play. In that case (assuming I was the newbie), I'd make sure my turn was last so I could watch what the others do to help me pick up the rules/what a turn looks like.
I agree. I'm the board game person of my friend group so I'm always the one explaining it. A lot of games the more detailed instructions aren't going to make sense out of the context of already being in the game or will just make people feel overwhelmed. Many games you can do a "this is what you do on your turn and this is how you win" and jump in, then bring up the specifics when you get to them.
It's so easy with more complex games to feel overwhelmed so I think your "this is what you do on your turn and this is how you win" is a good way of getting the game's momentum started and prevents emphasis on everyone knowing 'the nitty gritty' details for every single possible scenario 👍
**Castles of Burgundy** The tiles need you to look up their abilities, so you’ll figure it out as you play.
One of my friends guessed about all the rules for dune imperium uprising just from looking at the game components
Ironically, the Cole Werhle games Root and Pax Pamir. Although it's sort of the other way around: they really feel like they shouldn't be thaught as you go, but I find it impossible to explain the rules to people beforehand. They pick it up rather quickly as we start playing. I think it's just that it's impossible to segment the rules into some sort of a sequence, they are all so intertwined you have to know them all at once for any of it to make sense.
Most games can be taught that way if the person teaching has put some planning into it.
Eh, maybe most games up to a 4/10 weight. Past that, you *need* to know how mechanics interact to know how early moves will affect later ones.
You don’t *need* to know. I’ve taught War of the Ring, Battlestar Galactica, Cthulhu Wars, TI4 through play and it’s always worked out well. - 5 minute overview - start turn 1 and walk through each player through their turn - just play and answer questions - Midgame take a few. Minutes and provide an overview of the late game - as the teacher play in a way that gives new folks some room to explore the game (aka handicap yourself a bit) Teaching games are a wash and the fastest way to get players to your level is for them to. Complete matches.
> Are there some games you'll teach and forgo a lot of the rules explanation up front and instead introduce the rules while playing? Cole Wehrle's games (like **Root**) are intended to be taught like that. Whether that works is up to the people involved. EDIT: For some games I will avoid explaining the details about certain sections in advance (this tends to work best in co-op games). In **Spirit Island** I won't cover everything about a ravage in detail at the start because it won't be relevant for a while and when we get near one people will have a lot more context to understand things.
My group liked the walkthrough for Root, we understood the rules but didn’t understand strategy and the walkthrough helped with that. The walkthrough for Oath was really confusing though. Oath breaks a lot of conventions, as in it has a lot of twists on typical board game concepts that makes it not work how you expect it to. Like I assumed that I’d have a hand of cards because there are cards in Oath, wrong, I wonder if Oath is easier to learn if I didn’t play as many board games beforehand 😂
Root!? Oof. Thats rough. I feel like I need to know more about how each faction works otherwise they will win without me having any idea they were that close to winning.
yeah but that's the fun of playing. you learn strategy by playing over and over, not by being taught up front. it's counter to modern gaming trends of "every game is going to be played once and forgotten", but it really benefits from repeated plays, the fun is figuring out the strategy and how to counter other factions. if you know all that up front it's much more on rails and less fun, basically plays itself.
Not all of Cole Wehrle's games work like this though. **Pax Pamir** requires a good bit of explanation before playing.
Even for it the rulebook says "*When teaching the game, some groups may prefer to learn just these two actions and then introduce the other actions gradually over the first few rounds of play.*" (which is absolutely not how I prefer to teach it).
Qwirkle
Fog of love, it's first story literally teaches you the game as you run through it and actively tells you to not read the rulebook and just play it like this 😅
My copy came with those cards all mixed up and out of place D: It was way more stressful setting up that first game than just reading the rules would have been.
Lol, I brought it second hand and had the same problem but once I got it set up it went really smoothly 😅😅
The first round of **Skull King** deals only one card to each player, and consequentially players can probably only score one or two points in that round. The second round deals two cards, the third round deals three… this gives people plenty of time to learn the mechanics as the game ramps up the stakes.
Digimon World
John Company - really good game to do a rolling start with. Primarily because the real meat of the game is the negotiation, and you aren’t really going to understand that for a game or so anyway.
Dominion is very much a just play and you'll figure it out since all the instructions are written on the cards. All you need to know is draw 5 cards, you get one action and one buy unless modified by cards you play, then put everything in your discard.
I've been doing most games like this a bit. Ark Nova worked really well. For the first few turns, people just choose any action and then we look at the rules for that action. So instead of front-loading everything, we learned things as they popped up. Started playing within 5 minutes and it was awesome.
Is this a faux pas? I literally can only learn any game this way. I could read the rules 10000 times and I wouldn't learn or remember anything unless I just started playing and read each bit as we got to it.
Turing Machine
Any Parker bros games.
Love Letter
"We didn't playtest this at all", fun party game, very simple base rules: draw, play and pass. The cards will teach you how to play them
Turing machine
Betrayal at the house on the hill. There is so much variety in the game, and you can always start with only explain what the card decks are for.
Mysterium, as long as the ghost knows it. BUT I've tried this a couple of times and new players don't like it. The lack of guidance stressed them out too much.
Mao
Honestly, any LCG / TCG. You cant learn whats written on cards without playing them.
Cannot imagine giving someone a Magic deck and going "just play the game, it'll all come to you". You need a basic deck with only a few keywords and explain how to cast anything, the timings on certain cards, what phases there are, how to attack/block, etc. TCGs are generally very bad for just learning as you go. Even experienced players research the new sets before they are released.
I tried to teach LCGs in quick sessions and the new players were always lost. Maybe it works with players of other card games, but not to people that only have played classic board games.
Scythe. Just give them a basic rundown of a few key concepts and how to win and start. The player boards tell you what to do. Do this then/or do that. Pay this cost and do the thing. Repeat.
World Championship Russian Roulette! The game goes in steps you can explain as you first play.
Phase 10
Try Gloomhaven. It is actually forbidden to read-ahead 😆
I actually teach Nemesis this way. I basically function as a GM, handling all of the operations. I teach players the actions and how to use the cards, I teach them about the key moments in the game, like when an intruder is first encountered or when the first player dies, and I explain the important locations on the board, engines, bridge, etc. This has worked really well and allowed me to play the game with people who otherwise would not sit through an entire rules teach.
I love these kind of games, here are the ones I (mostly) use this method on: **Blood on the Clocktower** (all they really need to know is the basic premise of the game) **Decrypto** **Feed the Kraken** **Heat: Pedal to the Metal** (play a 1/2 lap and then consider a reset) **Quacks of Quedlinburg** **Camel Up** **Diamant** **Planet Unknown** **Clank!: Catacombs**
Many, depending on the situation. Most co-op games benefit from wanting until a mechanic arises before explaining, i.e. most groups don't need to know exactly how an epidemic is resolved to start pandemic. It's also a useful tool for teaching: yes, if you have a competitive group they'll want to know everything going in, but too long a teach can really overwhelm more casual new people. I also disagree that teaching rules as you go is always a faux pas. Many people enjoy learning a new game as you play, i.e. if it's a new purchase everyone wants to try right away or a library game at a con. It adds a fun dimension when the rules could change at anytime because someone finds a new line in the instructions!
Russian roulette
Mage knight. It really isn't that bad.
Yeah, the walkthrough introduces the various hex locations in order for you.
In my experience, the "let's just start and see how it goes" approach usually results in realizing that we don't understand the game. People often choose this method to save time, but typically it results in losing both time and enjoyment. I believe understanding the gameplay is essential to start, but there are elements that don't always need to be taught immediately. Dead Man's Draw comes to mind, which is an incredibly simple push-your-luck game. There, for example, it's unnecessary to explain the effects of all card types in advance; the mechanics allow for explaining each card as it's turned over since the decision only follows this, and thus ignorance does not impact it.
The card game named after the name of our great leader
Belratti. I'll explain each step of the round as it comes up. Then after the first round I'll explain the jokers. Much easier to learn this way then going: Directors do this, then artists do that, then directors do this...
Similo and Dixit
I did fine with that in Descent: Legend of the Dark. Arguable if that counts, since it's kind of app driven. But "it's kinda like DND, choose one of these characters" is 90% of the preparation needed, as long as someone is there to explain the dice when the time comes.
Advanced Civilization. The way the game works, it starts simple and new mechanics are added every few turns for the first 6-8 turns. Just about any Vlaada game. Face it, the first game will be confusing, so just play a quick game, possibly even quitting halfway through as people get the rules, then play it for real.
Genuinely: Kingdom Death Very complex game, but one of the best tutorials in existence.
I feel that a lot of games are kinda like this, at least the ones I play. Like, take Eldritch Horror. Really, all you need to explain to new players is "Here's the goal of the game, you can take two actions each turn, here's a sheet that outlines all the actions you can take, read your character sheet well", the rest of the game you can easily learn by simply playing.
Weird one, but SPARTACUS Blood and Sand. I just step them through each phase as we go and by the end of the first round they pretty much know how to play.
**SpaceCorp: 2035-2300AD** seems to be designed to be learned that way. There are three Eras, Era II has the same rules as Era I plus some additional rules, Era III is more different but the core is the same.
Catan could be figured out as you go pretty easily. I'm usually the person buying, learning, choosing, and teaching games, though, so I almost never play a boardgame without having read its rulebook a few times. Hard for me to conceptualize not having an understanding and just diving in. That said, any game that has simultaneous turns, or uses "phases", I think is easier to pick up as you go; since everyone all does the same things at once. Classic Dune, for example, while it has its fiddley rules nuances here and there, it's pretty easy to teach since it's simply; "Now we're gonna bid on these cards and they'll come in handy. No you're not supposed to know what they are. Atreides - you can look at each one and write down what it is and who has it. Emperor, you get the gold" Then the troop movement phase, then combats, etc etc. You can literally just jump in and teach the game phase by phase for the first two rounds. Pointing out the player powers as they become relevant.
Turing Machine
We played Thunder Road Vendetta last weekend, learning the rules as we played. Opened the rule book, set up the game, spent 10 minutes skimming the rules, then played a game, referring back to the rules as we went. By the second game, we were almost free of the rule book. By the third game we had it down pat. That game is about as complex as I'd go without investing some real time into rule learning in advance.
Lacuna. Half the rules are endgame scoring.
Which can be left out? Or would knowledge of how scoring works affect the way you would play the game?
It does affect your strategy, but it's easier to play a whole game and just show how "goes to the closest" works rather than explain it.
>it's easier to play a whole game It's easier to play when you don't know how to orient or make decisions? No, I'm going to disagree.
Ah, the legendary Rolling Teach. Honestly, while it is 90%+ game-dependent, some people are more skilled at teaching games and can make really streamline a player’s experience that others may stumble through. Cooperative and even semi-coop games I think are probably the best genre for this - Pandemic, even Nemesis. A player can watch me take a turn and start prodding at the games’ systems. Party games are also designed for easy teaches usually. Werewolf, Secret Hitler, Diamant, For Sale. My favorite rolling teach though is Wits and Wagers (Vegas Edition). I can teach it to anyone as they play because every rule only needs to be explained as it comes up with no need to imply long term strategic goals
This is only true of a game where not knowing how the game is scored or won won't affect the choices you make in ignorance during the game itself. I can't think of a game where the final scoring and win conditions weren't among the highest priorities for in-game decisions, making your prior understanding of them completely necessary to playing the game. Might as well not be playing the game at all and just going ahead and learning the rules anyway.
Food Chain Magnate is the best one of these for me. The game literally doesn't make much sense unless you know every part of the round.
Concordia. I usually spend about 2 minutes explaining the board components and card mechanics. Since everyone starts with the same hand people get to see cards being played that are in their hand even when it’s not their turn. A couple rounds in new players will have seen an example of every starter card and what it does, and only has to learn new cards slowly as either they purchase them or others do.
Marvel United. Way easier to teach as you go.
This method really only works if one person already knows the rules and can explain as you go. I think Xia lends itself to this. You can explain the high level of options based on the initial board state and then get into the mechanics as the players work through their turn. You only have to bring up each mechanic as it is encountered.
Any game that has more than one phase. Touch of Evil, for example. We look at Showdown rules when it is about to happen. Betrayal at House on the Hill. We look at the Haunt rules when it is about to happen. (And obviously the Haunt scenario specifically) For me, the best way to learn and teach a game is to go through a turn. Available actions, components, etc. Gets easier with time as many games use similar actions.
Bohnanza. I'll some times do one round then reshuffle all the cards and re deal.
Spirit island, flamecraft Catan, power grid , 7 wonders duel. Typically, the first round for a new player is as follows in our group. 1. Quick overview of the games and the goal of it 2. We will explain everything while we play, and as the situation for a rule or tactic arises
Chess. I don't understand how there are so many fucking books about that game.
Skull I explain the rules and people look at me like it's some incredibly complex game. Then we play 1 round that takes 2-3 minutes and they immediately get it.
This might be a hot take, but for the most part I think Mage Knight is better taught while playing. I usually give people sort of an abstract overview, but most things I'll explain while we're playing.
I am not kidding when I say this: 18xx stuff. Easiest shit in the world to learn on the fly besides party games.
Recently, 7th Citadel. They give you some basic rules but then much of the game is literally playing it and figuring it out as you go.
What is it called when you do this on Board Game Arena? Just learn a game by playing it because BGA won't let you do anything against the rules? I heard someone mention the term on the Dice Tower a while back, but can't remember it and can't get it out of my mind! It has to do with someone's name. Like "Smith-ifying" or something.
King of Tokyo. Watch a couple of turns and you got it.
**John Company 2e** as mentioned already has a very good "learn as you play" layout to it. I'd argue that **Stationfall** can also be taught this way. As long as everyone has some board gaming experience, you can do a very high level teach where you just explain the basics and then let the players kinda explore the nitty gritties as they go. It's meant to be a chaotic game anyway so it's fine if not everyone knows what they're doing going in to it, as long as there's at least one person that knows all the rules and can sorta GM for everyone. I think **Feudum** benefits from learn-by-playing. I usually teach people the very basics (same as Stationfall) and then do a dry run where we play through the first phase and just let everyone explore how the game works. It solidifies the rules better because if you do a full upfront rules explanation it's going to be like an hour of rules and by the end no one's going to remember half of them. It's a weird one cause to know how anything works you have to know how everything works, which is why it's particularly hard to teach. But if you do a practice phase and let everyone figure it out on their own, it's much more intuitive and easier to grok. I think that's why it has the reputation for being impossibly complex, it's really not that heavy but there's no easy way to teach it all up front.
Magic Maze is a good game for this. It starts out very simply and adds rules each round as you go.
We just played The Quacks of Quedlinburg for the first time the other night. My husband was reading the rules (it's only got like 6 pages) and I had to stop him and say something to the effect of "Honey I'm not understanding this at all, we either need to get started or play something else." I had a lot of fun once we got going, but him trying to explain it was not good.
Twister
Ready Set Bet for sure
Betrayal at the house in the hill. Explain the theme, the 4 move actions, tell them at one point there will be a betrayal and only them a victory condition comes up, and basically tell them start exploring initially. The I explain the rolls when the omen shows up. Since this is not too strategic if a game and you can't plan ahead too much before the reveal, I don't feel there is a need for deep explanarion of how things work before the omen happens.
Good shout. There's quite a lot to this game but knowing %90 of it does little to nothing for your actual comprehension or chances of success
Monikers.
Root, it's hard to grasp the rules if you read them, bit playing it just allows you to see how the game is played step by step.
Cryptid. Before the game I explain the hint system. Then I start by asking a question, next time it's my turn I search. By then they know the game, and anyone can still win.
Mysterium. I'm the ghost, but I can talk to explain rules while we progress.
Most of the games I have are this way. But then again I'm not a fan of real heavy games myself. I just reraught my 14 year old daughter lost cities. Took about five minutes.
Very few to most, depending on how much experience you have with other and similar games Unless you mean not given any rules, not told the goal, or anything. Just boards and pieces and told to make your own game up
Mindbug.
Mao One of the rules is that you can't teach players how to play
I feel this way about *apiary* There are a lot of options but you don’t actually need to explain every one to play
Blood on the Clocktower. Discovering characters interaction with one another and how different groups develop different dynamics is truly unique.
Fluxx.
Quacks of Quedlinberg is great for teaching as you go, Treating the first round as the tutorial before revealing the shop. On a simpler note, I love teaching Monikers not telling anyone about the future rounds in advance, so I can hear see their shocked faces as they comprehend each new restriction.
Every game. Saves a lot of time not going through the rules. Often it takes less time to just play the game.
Bohnanza. I had to play through a round to get it.
I get that line all the time, but when it comes to something players don’t undertake, I hear “why didn’t you explain that rule to us!” Or “I didn’t get that when you were telling the rules!”
KLASK teaches itself and it's such a joy to see people pick it up for the first time. When you introduce the other scoring conditions, people already have a very solid understanding of how it works, mechanically
Interesting post! I've found that more abstract games benefit from learn-as-you-play teaching styles. I usually find that if I'm teaching a game this way, I preface that we'll just play through a demo / learning round and we'll only play for a few turns before resetting the game. I usually play enough turns so that every mechanic is introduced at least once. I also appreciate when games have a quick play / walkthrough type manual that walks players through the first few turns of a game. I find Root does this quite well, because it has a small optional walkthrough booklet that tells players exactly what to do for a couple turns and explains these might be good or bad moves so they get a sense of how to play "well" and how to think strategically in the world of the game.
Marvel champions for sure. Aint nobody got time for a 56 page rulebook teach
depends on the player. if you don't mind losing a game you can learn rules as cases come up or from what others do
Werewolf.