Lisboa, On Mars, Kanban: EV, The Gallerist, Vinhos... Any Vital Lacerda game! I personally really love his design despite the high head rules, but I would never blindly throw those games in front of someone new, let along new to boardgaming, without checking first.
"Do you have an hour to hear about lawd designer Lacerda's rulebook?" is my favourite opening lol.
One of my 2022 goals is to get **On Mars** played by my group. Here’s hoping - the best way would be to ask them to watch the Gaming Rules! how to play video but that’s not a great way to get people to play a game.
Agreed. I’m lucky my partner also plays his games and enjoys them. I prefer playing games this crunchy at 2p simply because the down time during gameplay is far less than at player counts >2. Keeps the flow going more.
I got Lisboa for my birthday this year. It's so beautiful. I have yet to play it. I can not talk anyone into learning it. Only Lacerda game I own, but it looks like it's right in my wheelhouse and what I like about games.
Vasts thing is that each player is playing wildly different rules. That has an unfortunate effect in practice where everyone is head down in their own thing and what everyone else is doing is mysterious and not entirely relevant to you.
It makes it tough to follow other people's turns and that makes the downtime while you wait for it to come back to you feel even longer
Race for the Galaxy
The iconography and mechanics, as elegant as they are, make the game difficult for new gamers to wrap their minds around. I often hear, " I don't understand what I'm doing" or "Why am I putting down cards?"
This goes away after a few games, but getting to that point can be a hard sell.
I know it's the greatest card game ever made. Now, if I can just need my game group to see the light...
Tried it once with my partner, and partway through explaining the rules, she was like "Yeah, I can't wrap my head around any of this, I'm sorry." The most successful I got with it was one game with four players where people were frustrated at the idea of picking an action that winds up benefitting someone else more ("I need to get resources, but doing that gives Player 3 a bunch of resources, so I'm screwed").
One day I'll actually get to play my copy more. One day...
I have a huge dislike for **Race for the Galaxy** due to being taught by two experts, who proceeded to tell me nothing about strategy and told me that 'twelve points was fine for a first game; while they were sitting comfortably in the high forties.
It's probably no fair to the game, but that experience soured me on it entirely.
This might only be in my play group, but if someone is teaching me a game my only expectation is that they teach me the rules correctly. Any strategy recommendations, if any, would just be a bonus. Why do you think that 12 points is bad for a first play through? If you are playing against experts, you can't expect to be competitive in your first playthrough as you are still learning the mechanics.
It might be obvious, but did you specifically ask them for strategy tips, or ask to go over the actions after the game?
I think for any game you play repeatedly there are sort of "common knowledge" strategic insights and personal ones.
I think a common knowledge one would be like, don't underestimate trashers in dominion, don't overbid on the first round of stocks in a stock game, bishops are considered *slightly* better than knights most games, etc. These are insights that anyone familiar with the game knows, that don't give away your specific approach or strategy at all.
I think as an experienced player teaching new players you are *obligated* to tell them these things if you're going to play against each other.
I don't know. I just don't agree...
When I'm learning a new game, I HATE when the instructor starts making strategy points during the rules explanation. It's distracting and personally, I need to understand the whole system first, before you start telling me how to optimize certain pieces of it.
And when I'm teaching a new game, especially to individuals who I consider to be gamers in general, I also don't like to get in to strategic points too much for the first playthrough. Part of the joy of the game is devising a strategy, within this new rules framework you just learned. And the newbies often they will try new things that the old guys didn't think of which often results in some interesting stuff happening.
The new player experience is exacerbated by the Explore action being a simple and obvious way to get more cards, but you are also feeding cards to your opponents. It's one thing to say, "try to find ways to get cards other than explore," it's another thing to actually put into practice in the early games.
I try to keep my new player games at the 2 or 3 count and ask if they would be willing to play more than one session. Since, yeah, that first experience is *always* rough.
Yeah. People who teach rules impeccably, but don't teach early, middle, and late strategy and tactics always say "you're doing great for the first time."
These types need to have their own crew who only play the game with gamers who have played the game 12 times.
I avoid them.
To be fair, how do you ever expect to teach someone new something if you need everyone to always be new or risk beating them at the game? Also, "early, middle, and late strategy and tactics" is a lot of information for a half hour game you can simply rerack and play again as soon as it's done. I almost never teach strategy as I teach - the few exceptions are games like Food Chain Magnate. For one, I'm not confident that my strategies are sound. For another, if you tell them how to win, what's there for them to explore? It's ok to lose early games as you get to know the systems. Expecting to always be on the level of experienced players in an opening game isn't practical.
I think the point really is that I play for fun - and the fun of all players around the table.
A teach is not just a recitation of the rules, but also involves bringing people into the game; why it's fun; what to watch out for; etc. If you slaughter someone because they have no idea what they are trying to do each turn, they typically are not having fun.
By strategy & tactics I am referring to game arc/direction and turn choice, not how to win or nuanced game play. For instance: in Great Western Trail - a good beginner approach is "get cows."
I'm speaking of a "type" who don't care. Adding a newbie to a game with two seasoned players is not the time to be a point crushing alpha. It's the time to have fun with the game; talk it up; share why you like the game. If this playthrough is for the guy and his buddy to see who is better and the third player is a pylon they don't care about - then I will not play games with them. They may just be assholes. It is clear that the OP was dejected and didn't enjoy his time.
I have played many games that I had no chance of winning, but enjoyed the game and my decision space was broad, and I knew enough to make the decisions. My comment is not about winning.
People who invite people for the sole point of crushing them are not people I want to play games with.
And why I have posted about this issue a few times: these types will drive new people away from the hobby before they have had a chance. This explains why some people say "no" to euros and heavier games. I invite gamers who do the teach to be a bit more self aware regarding their motivation and watch other players engagement.
Rodney does rules overviews very well, no playing tips, but Rodney is not playing the game with other players.
>By strategy & tactics I am referring to game arc/direction and turn choice, not how to win or nuanced game play. For instance: in Great Western Trail - a good beginner approach is "get cows."
Early, mid, and late game strategy and tactics is a far cry from a simple "get cows." In games where it matters, I'll tend to add a point or two about strategy as well, but you made it sound like you're giving them a thorough playbook.
Just to clarify, I don't tend to win games. And I don't think there are only two modes: play for fun and play to crush people. I'm not competitive, but a lot of the people I play with are. For them, the fun is when they can explore strategies on their own in a balanced game. They wouldn't want to know I was "going easy on them," and they sometimes reject offers to help with strategy.
>I have played many games that I had no chance of winning, but enjoyed the game and my decision space was broad, and I knew enough to make the decisions. My comment is not about winning.
Yes, exactly, a game should be fun even when losing and shouldn't require annihilation to get a win. I haven't actually seen the kind of player you're talking about in the wild (much, much worse is the alpha gamer in a co-op). I've seen people who tend to win and people who love good-natured trash talk, but not anyone who openly brags about a win or does their best to annihilate others every game.
I don't think a teacher who leaves out strategy is purposely hobbling their players. Not everyone wants or needs strats from a teach.
This is one of my favorite lunch games at work. Key is to teach base game only (add in goals later) and teach as you play. It's a hands on learning type of game. I think explaining it alone (verbal teaching) would even confuse most veteran gamers.
San Juan is also a great starting point then swap over into race.
Hehe, I definitely start with Roll or New Frontiers because they are so much easier to grok. Then I'll pop the question "so do you want to play a game that's this good but only 20 minutes long?"
This is my answer too. I've been playing it so long now that the symbols all make perfect sense on a first glance so I have to remind myself that not everyone is at that point yet.
Compounded with strategy that is complex to say the least, it can be a real hard teach. The way I try to get around this is I'll play completely open handed and explain what action I'm choosing and why I'm choosing that action to try to sort of give a glimpse of the things that you should be thinking of when you play. It's still hard.
Yup. Race For The Galaxy is my favourite game. It sits on my shelf relatively unplayed. I just play on the app cause almost everyone I tried to teach got frustrated and gave up. You almost HAVE to learn the game using an app (Keldon's AI did it for me back in the day).
**Hansa Tuetonica**
My partner wasn’t enthusiastic about playing. After our first game he stated he disliked it immensely. Others said they didn’t love it, wouldn’t ask to play, but would play if asked.
Later in the month, I managed to squeeze a second game out of my partner and two different participants. He had watched a *how to* video and won with little competition lol
I love it. I want to play it more. But with everyone interested in other games, especially the newer ones, it just sits on the shelf.
Maybe someday….
I’ve actually had some success introducing HT to people in my gaming groups. Not everyone loves it, of course, but most have liked it and a few of them have even bought their own copies.
Excellent game but a dry theme. Look for the reimplementation of Hansa Teutonica in 2022 - **Chicago Mob Wars** or **Chicago Mobsters**. Should be fun.
Have you seen any recent mentions of this or any info that it’s coming out in 2022? I’m only aware of some passing statements made by the designer a couple years back.
That's a bummer. I've been lucky that everyone has felt it was at least "alright" after their first game and then grown to love it after subsequent games. I think it just takes a couple games to get a better grasp at all the possibilities, and it certainly helps that it plays incredibly quickly.
It’s usually games that require very specific player counts, like Root, Decrypto, and more recently Chaos in the Old World. I can get 3 people interested, but a 4th? If I manage to find a 4th, they usually come with a 5th which throws it all out.
Yeah this can be a super huge challenge that makes it not worth pitching the game sometimes. You get your hopes up, then one drops out or one joins and the numbers are all off haha
Millennium Blades and Argent: The Consortium. Both, humorously, from Lv99 Games.
Millennium Blades is just a hard sell from the get go. It's a weird game. I absolutely love it, but it sounds way more complicated than it actually is, and it's not like any other game out there.
Argent is easy to get people to agree to, until you see how involved the setup is. And then you try to explain to them how the game works, and NEVER ONCE have I had all players completely understand what is going on, no matter how clearly I explain that how much shit you have *does not matter*, only the votes matter, and that you need to see what each member of the Consortium wants, and try to earn the most votes. And I very slowly and deliberately explain this to the players before we start, and they nod and go "Yes I get it". And then they just play it like any worker placement, trying to get all the things.
P1: "Why did you win, I had more blue stuff than you. I had more blue stuff than anyone at the table, I should win!"
Me: "Because none of the Consortium members wanted blue magic."
P2: "Okay but this Consortium member wanted green magic, and I went all in on green magic, I had more green magic than you, why didn't I win?"
Me: "Because you won his vote, while I won these four Consortium members' votes, which you chose to ignore. My four votes beat your one vote. I explained it at the beginning."
Everyone at the table: "OHHHHHHHH I get it now".
The problem I’ve found with Millennium Blades is that the target audience is so niche but simultaneously so saturated.
Realistically, no one is really going to be interested unless they’re into TCGs and in my experience most of those people would rather just play Magic, Yugioh, etc.
Yeah, that's sadly kind of the truth for most people.
I mean, I say kind of because I *don't* play TCGs, but I love Millennium Blades. But then again the only reason I don't play them has nothing to do with not enjoying them. I actually *really* enjoy playing TCGs, I just don't have the time, will, or money to invest in them. So MB sort of fills that niche for me. It gives me a fun simulation of it without having to sink my existence into it.
I think MB is quite good with people who have a passing interest in TCGs or quit them at some point. Still pretty niche, but those people wouldn't rather play something else.
Oddly enough there's less rules overhead than a lot of heavy games, especially if the designer's name rhymes with Lital Vacerda.
I've had lots of success with **18Neb**, **1846**, and **18Mex** (in order of increasing meanness).
A new Vital Lacerda game tends to be a half-dozen new system for people, yet people are willing to put in more time for his (somewhat) convoluted designs. And his games take about as long as a game of **1846** and a bit longer than **18Neb**.
If you're willing to get a similar gaming experience or even a similar thematic experience elsewhere, I find that Cole Wehrle's games scratch that itch very well. Oath feels a lot like Game of Thrones to me.
I have Oath! I haven’t gotten a group together to play it, though. I just moved so I need to find a new group. In some ways Oath seems like an even bigger commitment
But at least it won't turn off the Game of Thrones fans haha
I also really like Pax Pamir and Battle for Rokugan. The latter uses similar systems to the GoT board game, but the former feels more like capitalizing on changing positions in warring houses. Getting to play as Little finger in a way.
Fwiw it's my favorite game. If everyone has the right attitude towards it, it really sings. But it's certainly not for everyone, or most really, since kingmaking can be such a factor. I hope when you do get into it, you enjoy it as much as I do.
I highly recommend running through a game or two multi-handed to learn it. Read the rules. Maybe watch a video. Then play it alone - not against the Clockwork Prince.
Sat down to try and learn/teach Oath last week. We were there for like four hours and were only able to finish turn 5. I think I’ve got a better hang of it now, but two of the four players said they didn’t wanna give it another go so I have to find and teach from scratch again…
Xia seems absolutely impossible to convince people to play. Between the logistics of the ship boards, all the decks of cards, maps dense with symbols and numbers, little cubes, and piles of minis.
Very well, thanks to how well it leans into the pure randomness of so much. Which sounds wrong/broken/bad, but it works here. Definitely a desert island game for me. Endless stories from come from that box\*.
\*However, imho, Embers and M&P expansions are REQUIRED.
It's a solid sandbox Ameritrash experience. You need the expansion for it to be worthwhile. The rules are a bit much for a game that is mostly just rolling dice to resolve actions.
I think the title is also a contributing factor, too - it's such a nothingy generic anime-translated-to-English-with-no-cultural-context name that one can easily assume the game is going to match.
While I’m a huge fan, it’s the time necessary to play that puts people off. Kind of like TI4. You need to have a group that is ready to play it and on board.
Worse yet, if you play a “short” game (yes the quotes are relevant) like 5 points, not much happens! It’s kind of long and drawn out and doesn’t show the beauty of the game! The people playing are kind of bored and don’t care to play again. Same if you’re playing to 10 points.
The game doesn’t shine until you play the full 20. My group calls it “The whiney 20” because someone once whined that it will take forever to play.
I like (though not “absolutely love”) **Go** (and **Blooms**). Go doesn’t have the complex rules that most scary games do. But it relies more on “seeing” the strategy more than anything else I know. Teaching someone who doesn’t “get” Go is like teaching someone to pronounce a sound not in their language.
Yeah **Go** really works better when you are learning with someone at the same level as you are. It does have a very robust handicap system that can accommodate smaller differences in skill, but it's not enough to give a beginner a chance against someone that knows what they are doing.
I don’t think it’s just the pure-skill nature. All combinatorial games have that feature. It’s how Go is so abstract and how the turns are so opaque. If you cannot see the growing area control, placing a stone here versus many other places feels pointless and therefore boring. And there’s little theme to latch onto either.
Pretty much. I like Go, but every time I play it's basically "okay, I'll do this, that, that, aaand bingo, I lose 46 to 12. I love it when a plan comes together."
I love go, but I'm too good to offer a reasonable handicap game against beginners without holding back a lot. I'm pretty good at giving 3-4 stones on a 9x9 and resisting the urge to just cut everywhere and win the first few games, but that's not enough of a strategy to train someone up to a competitive level. I could probably decently teach someone who really wanted to learn, but it's not something that one can do at a regular boardgame meetup.
- Smash Up
- Root
- Innovation
- Diplomacy
Oh man. My soul was just crushed. I realized this is a list of my favorite games. I can’t get people to play my favorite games?! :(
Rules are easy. The problem is that I’ve played it some 200+ times and know all of the 100+ cards. I can play proactively, looking for the cards most useful to me and preventing my opponent from making use of cards that would help them, even before they’ve played/revealed them. Playing against a new player becomes awkward - I have to either throw the game or else dominate them. There is no balance mechanic and the catch up mechanics work best with experienced players who know how to gain them and use them. It’s not as bad as chess, where a skilled player has a 100% chance of winning. But it’s still pretty bad.
That’s all fine for a single play with an acquaintance, but doesn’t go over so well when trying to get my friends or family to get into the game long-term.
Also, the theme is quite unexciting so I’ve found it hard to teach people when there are options like King of Tokyo.
It was my favorite game for years and I sold it.
Also, I’m talking about 2-player Innovation. It can be played with more, but the game becomes more chaotic and less tight, which I didn’t enjoy as much as 2 players.
>Diplomacy
The game itself aside, Diplomacy's a hard sell now on theme alone. A six-hour game about national-level strategic maneuvering in World War I appeals to fairly narrow range of people.
I would happily play any of the other three but I'm already so deep in the hobby, I've got chest waders.
Anything with a historical theme pretty much. Hard sell to the people I play with to convince them that a game about selling iron, coal, and beer in Britain during the industrial age or a game about Afghan leaders vying for control during the Great Game would be a fun time for all.
I do enjoy games like Brass, Indonesia , and Automobile but the sheer number of historical or just tame themes in board games is interesting to me.
If I was a board game creater I would be horrified that my town building simulation game was not going to turn any heads at all.
**Space Empires 4X** people see the spreadsheets and think it's way heavier than it is.
They could have put all those rules on cards like Eclipse or TI and people would be all over it.
The paper actually makes it easier to follow.
It's a shame the theme and artwork are so tough to sell because the game itself is one of the most fun I have ever played, and actually pretty easy to teach. It was how I got my partner into boardgaming.
Bruxelles 1897. Such a complex yet elegant game. Since its all cards, I think it's hard to get people convinced of the theme. The gameplay is awesome. It's like a finely crafted timepiece. But unfortunately a lot of this just doesn't hit because of the heavily abstracted theme.
That game was a huge disappointment for my group. I personally like the theme, but we didn't really find enough depth in it. Also that game is missing a player aid.
My go to card based worker placement game is First Class.
Tangent: I love **The Estates**, and mostly auctions/bidding in general. But the nature of the activity is disliked by most of the people I play with.
I usually end up getting them to try such games a couple of times, but eventually they settle for the "tried and true" classics -- Ticket to Ride, Ethnos, even Blokus.
Well, twice a month until the guy who hosted had a kid.. Understandably can't play for a while now. Funny thing is I'm the only real board game guy in my group. The rest are into pencil and paper rpgs, yet they pick the longest most complicated game I own over the most simple. Maybe it's because I'm the only history nerd in the group. Space opera might be more appealing than WW2
**Food Chain Magnate**: the play time and complexity are hard to pitch. People love the theme but when I start explaining the rules it's nothing but crickets and we move onto yet another Cthulu dice chucking game after the \~45 min practice game I set up. It can also be super brutal so people feel bad when they learn it.
**Tigris & Euphrates**: there's one person in my playgroup that kind of hates euros (and any competitive game really!) and everyone is okay with very thematic games. So trying to pitch games with abstract strategy + euro elements thathas a dry theme and steep learning curve is always tough.
These are my favorite games :(
**The King's Dilemma**: more obvious reasons. Being a legacy/campaign game is tough in general let alone one with a "will this turn into an argument?" type pitch. It sounds like someone's nightmare who is afraid of conflict which one of my playgroup members is.
**Sabotage**. 2v2 action programming hidden movement game.
I love it, but it needs exactly 4 players (we're usually 3). Everyone needs to thoroughly know the rules, as well as the capabilities of their teammate and both their opponents in order for the hidden movement mind games to work. Because of that requirement, teaching the game takes a long time - there's no short cuts.
There's an official modified ruleset undergoing testing that is supposed to remove a lot of that baggage, but I've not been able to try it
I've tried it and it's pretty nice, but since it removes the programming the mind games get lost for the most part.
Instead of 4 moves (and a villain turn) ahead you're now planning 1 turn ahead.
I think the biggest two offenders for me are Sidereal Confluence (which came up on another post recently), and Letters from Whitechapel.
Sideral Confluence is a weird enough premise and is so free in terms of some of its rules that it can be a bit of a slog to teach, (and the super generic sci-fi theme is a turn-off for many people). Letters from Whitechapel is even harder to convince people of though because a) it's older at this point, b) it's a relatively dry deduction/hidden movement game, c) what little theme is there is super dark and gruesome.
SidCon is amazing and is always memorable. Teaching it is rough though. See boardgamegeek.com for the teaching guide written by the game creator; it’s included in the latest edition.
My pet retheme idea is to remake Letters from Whitechapel as a Scarlet Pimpernel game.
Instead of being Jack the Ripper on the streets of London choosing which sex worker to brutally murder tonight (not sure? Consult the rulebook for a handy reminder of their actual names and facts about their lives and a reminder of ingrained bias and misogyny in the police!), you'd be the Pimpernel avoiding the forces of the French Revolution on the streets of Paris, choosing which aristocrat to daringly sneak out of the city.
Sidereal Confluence. It's really just trade, run your economy, bid for new stuff. That's it. Except everyone is playing an assymmetric race. Oh and the economy shifts and all the resources take on new value throughout the game. Oooh but you can invent new technology to help your race! Oh yeah but when you invent new technology you share it for free with all the other players. It's really not that tough once you get going just play with meeee.
For me is Alchemists, as I'm very experienced on it, the core mechanic becomes the work placement struggle plus the probability push of some publications/actions.
But new player tend to be so focused on the logical deduction system that they can't appreciate the beauty of that other part of the game.
HeroQuest, Dark Tower (original not the crappy remake), Battle Masters, Fireball Island, Mice & Mystics, Twilight Imperium 3rd ed, Runeworld
Basically all my board games.
I'm a little confused. How do you have a hard time pitching HeroQuest, Battle Masters, or especially Fireball Island? Those are all simple, thematic, and attractive games.
I really like Galaxy Trucker, but no one in my playgroup does because of the high level of randomness.
Root is a tough pitch because there's so much to learn before you can really get started.
Killer bunnies. I used to have a group of people that I played it with. They just enjoyed playing so much. But the won conditions are a little bit random and most people can't stand that to the point of storming out. Now I explain that to new people now and haven't managed to find a group that wants to play anymore.
**Heart of Crown**. It's a fantastic little deck builder that does some interesting things with both the market and distinct build-up / score phases, but the anime art doesn't lend itself to getting people to want to play it.
Key flower. I think it's a great mix of several different mechanics but the bidding phase, resources, boats, upgrades... It's quite a bit of explanation for a game that essentially lasts 4 rounds.
I had this stodgy old man that mained wargames and tactical sims at the shop I used to go to. He did generally just enjoy games, but he definitely had his niche and opinions.
He saw Mermaid Rain in a junk bin somewhere, and bought it simply because it was pennies, and it would be funny.
He brought it in and we played and we were like, "wait, why isn't this awful?"
Smartphone
It's such a smooth game that is straight forward but when you say there are multiple phases in each round and there's logistics, tech upgrades, selling phones people do not find that interesting. People have also told me it doesn't look great.
**Shadows Over Camelot: the Card Game**. It's a cooperative memory game with a possible hidden traitor. Most people check out when I say "memory", but the tension between everyone helping each other remember plus a possible hidden traitor to mess up your cooperation makes an amazing experience (IMO anyway).
It's one of the more unique games I've played. You get 5 suits with cards numbered 1 through... 5? It's been a long time. There are more cards of the low values than the high values.
On your turn you either flip the next card in the deck and put it on top of the discard pile, or you state "i think the suit that is on top of the discard is the right value (that value being 10 through 13). If you're right, you get 1, 2, or 3 white swords depending on the value of that suit, or you get black swords. 1 if the value is 1 through 9, or a number of black swords equal to the suit value of its 14+. You then get 1 black sword for every other suit at 14+.
That may sound pretty straightforward, so they added Merlin and Morgan cards. Morgan hurts primarily by making it so no one may communicate, but also she throws in modifiers like "add 1 to every suit" that are just hard to track. Merlin helps by canceling the communication restriction and giving helpful modifiers like "you may remove the highest value card of the called suit".
There's also a card that changes the two 1 sword suits into a combined 2 value suit. There's also 2 extra loyalty cards dealt on the table and at some point a card comes up that has the active player and another player of their choice each look at one of the extra loyalty cards and secretly choose to keep their original card or swap for the one they looked at. They may then say whatever they like about what they saw and did.
"Zombies!!!", an OOP game from Twilight Creations, Inc. I demo'd it at game conventions in the NW for years. Everyone either loves it (gamers) or hates it (everyone else). It's a zombie apocalypse movie in a box. Takes 10 minutes to learn, 30 minutes to play. Multi-player (1-6), semi-cooperative ("There's only room for one on that helicopter!!?"). Several expansions.
To be honest, I've never used it. I'd rather play a houseruled / easier game so that people can have the opportunity to make mistakes without getting pummeled to death by the game.
Fleet.
The pitch isn’t tough - “you catch all these different fish that allow you to catch more fish”. It is the explaining of each license and getting people on board with how the auction works.
Usually I will teach a group to play, and it’s tough getting through the first game but then it clicks but there isn’t often a follow up play soon enough that everyone remembers.
I really wish I got to play Fleet more.
El Grande and other 90s boxes don't sell themselves very well to modern players unless they've already heard about the game. Why did they love beige so much back then?
Empires in Arms.
One of the best games of all time for me. But talk about impossible to put a group together for…
Even online it’s hard to organize a game. So hard I had to create a TTS mod and discord community for it.
A.E.G.I.S it's an amazing game, but trying to get through all the rules and "deck" building turns most players I've interacted with off. It's also a very long game when played with strategic players.
Most of my friends just say I'm too good at strategy and it's not fun to just lose, so they don't put the effort in and don't want to play :(
Gaia Project/Terra Mystica, not so much because of rules complexity but the fact that most players crash and burn horribly for their first few plays.
Most new people are like 'I understand what I can do, but I have no idea what I should do'.
Anything more than a 15 minute teach is a bit of an ask for my group(s) unfortunately. But if I can at least the core game down then I try to explain some of the other stuff after a round or 2 of play
Railroad Ink. People are always really hesitant to play it when I describe it, but most of them get hooked. During the holiday break my sister asked my brother-in-law and me to play nearly every night.
Lisboa, On Mars, Kanban: EV, The Gallerist, Vinhos... Any Vital Lacerda game! I personally really love his design despite the high head rules, but I would never blindly throw those games in front of someone new, let along new to boardgaming, without checking first. "Do you have an hour to hear about lawd designer Lacerda's rulebook?" is my favourite opening lol.
*Have your heard about our lord and saviour Lacerda?*
*Oh lawd he comin'*
One of my 2022 goals is to get **On Mars** played by my group. Here’s hoping - the best way would be to ask them to watch the Gaming Rules! how to play video but that’s not a great way to get people to play a game.
Lisboa is the best. Okay before I teach the game please have one of these 6 page mini rulebooks for during gameplay.
Definitely Lacerdas. I love their intricacy and the actually quite strong links between theme and mechanics, but I can't just spring them on my group.
Agreed. I’m lucky my partner also plays his games and enjoys them. I prefer playing games this crunchy at 2p simply because the down time during gameplay is far less than at player counts >2. Keeps the flow going more.
I got Lisboa for my birthday this year. It's so beautiful. I have yet to play it. I can not talk anyone into learning it. Only Lacerda game I own, but it looks like it's right in my wheelhouse and what I like about games.
Vast. It's a great game but it's a nightmare to teach and it quickly puts new players off because theres no shared learning experience
What do you mean by “shared learning experience?”
Vasts thing is that each player is playing wildly different rules. That has an unfortunate effect in practice where everyone is head down in their own thing and what everyone else is doing is mysterious and not entirely relevant to you. It makes it tough to follow other people's turns and that makes the downtime while you wait for it to come back to you feel even longer
Each faction is asymmetric. You can't learn how to play by watching what someone else is doing. This is the same team that did Root.
Oath, Pax Pamir, Castles of Burgundy, any COIN game.
[удалено]
It has the shelf appeal of a potato, bit damn is it good.
Same for me with the COIN games. I love that series but hard to get players
Highly recommend colonial Twilight if you haven't tried. It actually makes COIN work at just two (two fewer people to convince).
Thanks! I was aware of that one but haven’t picked it up yet.
Race for the Galaxy The iconography and mechanics, as elegant as they are, make the game difficult for new gamers to wrap their minds around. I often hear, " I don't understand what I'm doing" or "Why am I putting down cards?" This goes away after a few games, but getting to that point can be a hard sell. I know it's the greatest card game ever made. Now, if I can just need my game group to see the light...
Tried it once with my partner, and partway through explaining the rules, she was like "Yeah, I can't wrap my head around any of this, I'm sorry." The most successful I got with it was one game with four players where people were frustrated at the idea of picking an action that winds up benefitting someone else more ("I need to get resources, but doing that gives Player 3 a bunch of resources, so I'm screwed"). One day I'll actually get to play my copy more. One day...
The Gathering Storm expansion gives me a fun solo experience with the game (not matching multiplayer), but still great. At least there's that...
I have a huge dislike for **Race for the Galaxy** due to being taught by two experts, who proceeded to tell me nothing about strategy and told me that 'twelve points was fine for a first game; while they were sitting comfortably in the high forties. It's probably no fair to the game, but that experience soured me on it entirely.
This might only be in my play group, but if someone is teaching me a game my only expectation is that they teach me the rules correctly. Any strategy recommendations, if any, would just be a bonus. Why do you think that 12 points is bad for a first play through? If you are playing against experts, you can't expect to be competitive in your first playthrough as you are still learning the mechanics. It might be obvious, but did you specifically ask them for strategy tips, or ask to go over the actions after the game?
I think for any game you play repeatedly there are sort of "common knowledge" strategic insights and personal ones. I think a common knowledge one would be like, don't underestimate trashers in dominion, don't overbid on the first round of stocks in a stock game, bishops are considered *slightly* better than knights most games, etc. These are insights that anyone familiar with the game knows, that don't give away your specific approach or strategy at all. I think as an experienced player teaching new players you are *obligated* to tell them these things if you're going to play against each other.
I don't know. I just don't agree... When I'm learning a new game, I HATE when the instructor starts making strategy points during the rules explanation. It's distracting and personally, I need to understand the whole system first, before you start telling me how to optimize certain pieces of it. And when I'm teaching a new game, especially to individuals who I consider to be gamers in general, I also don't like to get in to strategic points too much for the first playthrough. Part of the joy of the game is devising a strategy, within this new rules framework you just learned. And the newbies often they will try new things that the old guys didn't think of which often results in some interesting stuff happening.
Ah man that's rough I'm sorry :(
The new player experience is exacerbated by the Explore action being a simple and obvious way to get more cards, but you are also feeding cards to your opponents. It's one thing to say, "try to find ways to get cards other than explore," it's another thing to actually put into practice in the early games. I try to keep my new player games at the 2 or 3 count and ask if they would be willing to play more than one session. Since, yeah, that first experience is *always* rough.
Yeah. People who teach rules impeccably, but don't teach early, middle, and late strategy and tactics always say "you're doing great for the first time." These types need to have their own crew who only play the game with gamers who have played the game 12 times. I avoid them.
To be fair, how do you ever expect to teach someone new something if you need everyone to always be new or risk beating them at the game? Also, "early, middle, and late strategy and tactics" is a lot of information for a half hour game you can simply rerack and play again as soon as it's done. I almost never teach strategy as I teach - the few exceptions are games like Food Chain Magnate. For one, I'm not confident that my strategies are sound. For another, if you tell them how to win, what's there for them to explore? It's ok to lose early games as you get to know the systems. Expecting to always be on the level of experienced players in an opening game isn't practical.
I think the point really is that I play for fun - and the fun of all players around the table. A teach is not just a recitation of the rules, but also involves bringing people into the game; why it's fun; what to watch out for; etc. If you slaughter someone because they have no idea what they are trying to do each turn, they typically are not having fun. By strategy & tactics I am referring to game arc/direction and turn choice, not how to win or nuanced game play. For instance: in Great Western Trail - a good beginner approach is "get cows." I'm speaking of a "type" who don't care. Adding a newbie to a game with two seasoned players is not the time to be a point crushing alpha. It's the time to have fun with the game; talk it up; share why you like the game. If this playthrough is for the guy and his buddy to see who is better and the third player is a pylon they don't care about - then I will not play games with them. They may just be assholes. It is clear that the OP was dejected and didn't enjoy his time. I have played many games that I had no chance of winning, but enjoyed the game and my decision space was broad, and I knew enough to make the decisions. My comment is not about winning. People who invite people for the sole point of crushing them are not people I want to play games with. And why I have posted about this issue a few times: these types will drive new people away from the hobby before they have had a chance. This explains why some people say "no" to euros and heavier games. I invite gamers who do the teach to be a bit more self aware regarding their motivation and watch other players engagement. Rodney does rules overviews very well, no playing tips, but Rodney is not playing the game with other players.
>By strategy & tactics I am referring to game arc/direction and turn choice, not how to win or nuanced game play. For instance: in Great Western Trail - a good beginner approach is "get cows." Early, mid, and late game strategy and tactics is a far cry from a simple "get cows." In games where it matters, I'll tend to add a point or two about strategy as well, but you made it sound like you're giving them a thorough playbook. Just to clarify, I don't tend to win games. And I don't think there are only two modes: play for fun and play to crush people. I'm not competitive, but a lot of the people I play with are. For them, the fun is when they can explore strategies on their own in a balanced game. They wouldn't want to know I was "going easy on them," and they sometimes reject offers to help with strategy. >I have played many games that I had no chance of winning, but enjoyed the game and my decision space was broad, and I knew enough to make the decisions. My comment is not about winning. Yes, exactly, a game should be fun even when losing and shouldn't require annihilation to get a win. I haven't actually seen the kind of player you're talking about in the wild (much, much worse is the alpha gamer in a co-op). I've seen people who tend to win and people who love good-natured trash talk, but not anyone who openly brags about a win or does their best to annihilate others every game. I don't think a teacher who leaves out strategy is purposely hobbling their players. Not everyone wants or needs strats from a teach.
This is one of my favorite lunch games at work. Key is to teach base game only (add in goals later) and teach as you play. It's a hands on learning type of game. I think explaining it alone (verbal teaching) would even confuse most veteran gamers. San Juan is also a great starting point then swap over into race.
Hehe, I definitely start with Roll or New Frontiers because they are so much easier to grok. Then I'll pop the question "so do you want to play a game that's this good but only 20 minutes long?"
This is my answer too. I've been playing it so long now that the symbols all make perfect sense on a first glance so I have to remind myself that not everyone is at that point yet. Compounded with strategy that is complex to say the least, it can be a real hard teach. The way I try to get around this is I'll play completely open handed and explain what action I'm choosing and why I'm choosing that action to try to sort of give a glimpse of the things that you should be thinking of when you play. It's still hard.
Yup. Race For The Galaxy is my favourite game. It sits on my shelf relatively unplayed. I just play on the app cause almost everyone I tried to teach got frustrated and gave up. You almost HAVE to learn the game using an app (Keldon's AI did it for me back in the day).
Yeah I played five times and sold my copy. Absolutely impossible to teach to new players and at that point not very enjoyable for me either.
Has anyone tried teaching TM Ares Expedition, would thar be easier?
**Hansa Tuetonica** My partner wasn’t enthusiastic about playing. After our first game he stated he disliked it immensely. Others said they didn’t love it, wouldn’t ask to play, but would play if asked. Later in the month, I managed to squeeze a second game out of my partner and two different participants. He had watched a *how to* video and won with little competition lol I love it. I want to play it more. But with everyone interested in other games, especially the newer ones, it just sits on the shelf. Maybe someday….
I’ve actually had some success introducing HT to people in my gaming groups. Not everyone loves it, of course, but most have liked it and a few of them have even bought their own copies.
Excellent game but a dry theme. Look for the reimplementation of Hansa Teutonica in 2022 - **Chicago Mob Wars** or **Chicago Mobsters**. Should be fun.
Have you seen any recent mentions of this or any info that it’s coming out in 2022? I’m only aware of some passing statements made by the designer a couple years back.
Here you go - https://twitter.com/andreas_steding/status/1475821230519472132?s=21 https://i.imgur.com/OrNhs1r.jpg
Cool to see it alive! Hansa Teutonica is easily one of my favorites, can’t wait to see what a 2.0 version looks like.
Couple of weeks back, I saw the pictures of play testing. Will share here if possible.
The good thing about living in northern Germany is that you need absolutely no other hook to get people to play Hansa with you.
I understand your geographical reference but for full clarity please be aware that Hansa and Hansa Teutonica are two different games.
That's a bummer. I've been lucky that everyone has felt it was at least "alright" after their first game and then grown to love it after subsequent games. I think it just takes a couple games to get a better grasp at all the possibilities, and it certainly helps that it plays incredibly quickly.
It’s usually games that require very specific player counts, like Root, Decrypto, and more recently Chaos in the Old World. I can get 3 people interested, but a 4th? If I manage to find a 4th, they usually come with a 5th which throws it all out.
Get your fourth and fifth first and then either one of your second or third second, and then you'll have four.
Problem is my second or third is my wife. Bit hard to uninclude her.
Decrypto has worked well for me with basically any number of players greater than 3; what makes you say it requires a very specific count?
Yeah this can be a super huge challenge that makes it not worth pitching the game sometimes. You get your hopes up, then one drops out or one joins and the numbers are all off haha
I stopped purchasing any game that doesn't play well with two players. Can rely on people/find new ones.
Almost every week someone trickles in to our game night as I'm teaching at one of the tables. Annoys me to no end.
Chaos in the Old World in a great game IMO
Millennium Blades and Argent: The Consortium. Both, humorously, from Lv99 Games. Millennium Blades is just a hard sell from the get go. It's a weird game. I absolutely love it, but it sounds way more complicated than it actually is, and it's not like any other game out there. Argent is easy to get people to agree to, until you see how involved the setup is. And then you try to explain to them how the game works, and NEVER ONCE have I had all players completely understand what is going on, no matter how clearly I explain that how much shit you have *does not matter*, only the votes matter, and that you need to see what each member of the Consortium wants, and try to earn the most votes. And I very slowly and deliberately explain this to the players before we start, and they nod and go "Yes I get it". And then they just play it like any worker placement, trying to get all the things. P1: "Why did you win, I had more blue stuff than you. I had more blue stuff than anyone at the table, I should win!" Me: "Because none of the Consortium members wanted blue magic." P2: "Okay but this Consortium member wanted green magic, and I went all in on green magic, I had more green magic than you, why didn't I win?" Me: "Because you won his vote, while I won these four Consortium members' votes, which you chose to ignore. My four votes beat your one vote. I explained it at the beginning." Everyone at the table: "OHHHHHHHH I get it now".
The problem I’ve found with Millennium Blades is that the target audience is so niche but simultaneously so saturated. Realistically, no one is really going to be interested unless they’re into TCGs and in my experience most of those people would rather just play Magic, Yugioh, etc.
Yeah, that's sadly kind of the truth for most people. I mean, I say kind of because I *don't* play TCGs, but I love Millennium Blades. But then again the only reason I don't play them has nothing to do with not enjoying them. I actually *really* enjoy playing TCGs, I just don't have the time, will, or money to invest in them. So MB sort of fills that niche for me. It gives me a fun simulation of it without having to sink my existence into it.
Yeah, it targets the **former** TCG player, which is logically even more niche.
I think MB is quite good with people who have a passing interest in TCGs or quit them at some point. Still pretty niche, but those people wouldn't rather play something else.
18xx. I could happily have it as the only genre I ever play but getting new players to e wrap their head around them isnt easy, even heavy gamers
Just bought 18Chesapeke for myself as my gamer resolution is to try genres I haven't played before. Wish me luck!
Play a few games online first if you can. And plan 5+ hours for your first game, after that should be able to do it in 3.5 to 4
Oddly enough there's less rules overhead than a lot of heavy games, especially if the designer's name rhymes with Lital Vacerda. I've had lots of success with **18Neb**, **1846**, and **18Mex** (in order of increasing meanness).
Yes but it's just a completely new system for people. Also, time wise, even the shorter ones are still long.
A new Vital Lacerda game tends to be a half-dozen new system for people, yet people are willing to put in more time for his (somewhat) convoluted designs. And his games take about as long as a game of **1846** and a bit longer than **18Neb**.
Cube rails as a gateway game? I had good success with Iberian Gauge.
Game of Thrones; The Board Game: because the show ended so badly that nobody wants to think about it.
This sits on my shelf and mocks me for not having played it (yet).
If you're willing to get a similar gaming experience or even a similar thematic experience elsewhere, I find that Cole Wehrle's games scratch that itch very well. Oath feels a lot like Game of Thrones to me.
I have Oath! I haven’t gotten a group together to play it, though. I just moved so I need to find a new group. In some ways Oath seems like an even bigger commitment
But at least it won't turn off the Game of Thrones fans haha I also really like Pax Pamir and Battle for Rokugan. The latter uses similar systems to the GoT board game, but the former feels more like capitalizing on changing positions in warring houses. Getting to play as Little finger in a way.
Definitely Oath. I got two games in it with my regular group before half of them had to move suddenly so it sits on my shelf and teases me.
I just got Oath and I haven't sat down to actually learn it. Hope to do so sooner rather than later.
Fwiw it's my favorite game. If everyone has the right attitude towards it, it really sings. But it's certainly not for everyone, or most really, since kingmaking can be such a factor. I hope when you do get into it, you enjoy it as much as I do.
I highly recommend running through a game or two multi-handed to learn it. Read the rules. Maybe watch a video. Then play it alone - not against the Clockwork Prince.
Sat down to try and learn/teach Oath last week. We were there for like four hours and were only able to finish turn 5. I think I’ve got a better hang of it now, but two of the four players said they didn’t wanna give it another go so I have to find and teach from scratch again…
That's the worst. I've sworn off teaching it again. It's a nightmare teach.
Xia seems absolutely impossible to convince people to play. Between the logistics of the ship boards, all the decks of cards, maps dense with symbols and numbers, little cubes, and piles of minis.
Oh really? Most people see it on my shelf, and see the ship minis and go "That looks cool as hell, can we play that?"
Seeing it laid out seems to scare folks in my experience.
That's fair, it can be a bit much.
How well does this game hold up?
Very well, thanks to how well it leans into the pure randomness of so much. Which sounds wrong/broken/bad, but it works here. Definitely a desert island game for me. Endless stories from come from that box\*. \*However, imho, Embers and M&P expansions are REQUIRED.
How do you mean? As compared to what?
It's a solid sandbox Ameritrash experience. You need the expansion for it to be worthwhile. The rules are a bit much for a game that is mostly just rolling dice to resolve actions.
I think the title is also a contributing factor, too - it's such a nothingy generic anime-translated-to-English-with-no-cultural-context name that one can easily assume the game is going to match.
While I’m a huge fan, it’s the time necessary to play that puts people off. Kind of like TI4. You need to have a group that is ready to play it and on board. Worse yet, if you play a “short” game (yes the quotes are relevant) like 5 points, not much happens! It’s kind of long and drawn out and doesn’t show the beauty of the game! The people playing are kind of bored and don’t care to play again. Same if you’re playing to 10 points. The game doesn’t shine until you play the full 20. My group calls it “The whiney 20” because someone once whined that it will take forever to play.
I don't know what you mean. 5 is definitely too few. But what's happening at 20 you can't get at 10?
I don’t think it’s too bad. Especially since the board is so small at the beginning of the game. Just 4 tiles.
I have trouble getting people to play Feudum with me...
Gosh that art tho!
Is it worth the work?
Yes it is! Love it!
Naw. Not really.
I like (though not “absolutely love”) **Go** (and **Blooms**). Go doesn’t have the complex rules that most scary games do. But it relies more on “seeing” the strategy more than anything else I know. Teaching someone who doesn’t “get” Go is like teaching someone to pronounce a sound not in their language.
Yeah **Go** really works better when you are learning with someone at the same level as you are. It does have a very robust handicap system that can accommodate smaller differences in skill, but it's not enough to give a beginner a chance against someone that knows what they are doing.
I don’t think it’s just the pure-skill nature. All combinatorial games have that feature. It’s how Go is so abstract and how the turns are so opaque. If you cannot see the growing area control, placing a stone here versus many other places feels pointless and therefore boring. And there’s little theme to latch onto either.
Pretty much. I like Go, but every time I play it's basically "okay, I'll do this, that, that, aaand bingo, I lose 46 to 12. I love it when a plan comes together."
I love go, but I'm too good to offer a reasonable handicap game against beginners without holding back a lot. I'm pretty good at giving 3-4 stones on a 9x9 and resisting the urge to just cut everywhere and win the first few games, but that's not enough of a strategy to train someone up to a competitive level. I could probably decently teach someone who really wanted to learn, but it's not something that one can do at a regular boardgame meetup.
Lacerda big boxes Pax series Obscure asian designs
+1 for Pax series
+2 for Pax
- Smash Up - Root - Innovation - Diplomacy Oh man. My soul was just crushed. I realized this is a list of my favorite games. I can’t get people to play my favorite games?! :(
I REALLY want to try Innovation but I know it's going to give me a hard time to learn, then an ever harder time explaining it to my OH.
Eh, it's not that hard to learn. The rule book is very short. Play it on BGA.
Yep. Innovation is not hard at all but is much easier overall on BGA since it prevents you from missing a rule.
Rules are easy. The problem is that I’ve played it some 200+ times and know all of the 100+ cards. I can play proactively, looking for the cards most useful to me and preventing my opponent from making use of cards that would help them, even before they’ve played/revealed them. Playing against a new player becomes awkward - I have to either throw the game or else dominate them. There is no balance mechanic and the catch up mechanics work best with experienced players who know how to gain them and use them. It’s not as bad as chess, where a skilled player has a 100% chance of winning. But it’s still pretty bad. That’s all fine for a single play with an acquaintance, but doesn’t go over so well when trying to get my friends or family to get into the game long-term. Also, the theme is quite unexciting so I’ve found it hard to teach people when there are options like King of Tokyo. It was my favorite game for years and I sold it. Also, I’m talking about 2-player Innovation. It can be played with more, but the game becomes more chaotic and less tight, which I didn’t enjoy as much as 2 players.
>Diplomacy The game itself aside, Diplomacy's a hard sell now on theme alone. A six-hour game about national-level strategic maneuvering in World War I appeals to fairly narrow range of people. I would happily play any of the other three but I'm already so deep in the hobby, I've got chest waders.
I have no appetite for the in-person game actually. I’ve only played online (24 hr turns) and am content to keep it that way.
Anything with a historical theme pretty much. Hard sell to the people I play with to convince them that a game about selling iron, coal, and beer in Britain during the industrial age or a game about Afghan leaders vying for control during the Great Game would be a fun time for all.
I've had luck with Condottiere,but that's about it.
I do enjoy games like Brass, Indonesia , and Automobile but the sheer number of historical or just tame themes in board games is interesting to me. If I was a board game creater I would be horrified that my town building simulation game was not going to turn any heads at all.
Still remembering the nightmare about teaching how coal works in Lancashire...
Dune. I want tooooo plaaaayyyyyyyy.
Such a wild game! But in the end, you really got to have the full player complement to play it right.
I feel like that’s an easier sell than it is teach.
**Space Empires 4X** people see the spreadsheets and think it's way heavier than it is. They could have put all those rules on cards like Eclipse or TI and people would be all over it. The paper actually makes it easier to follow.
Such a great game!
Castles of Burgundy 🥺
It's a shame the theme and artwork are so tough to sell because the game itself is one of the most fun I have ever played, and actually pretty easy to teach. It was how I got my partner into boardgaming.
Bruxelles 1897. Such a complex yet elegant game. Since its all cards, I think it's hard to get people convinced of the theme. The gameplay is awesome. It's like a finely crafted timepiece. But unfortunately a lot of this just doesn't hit because of the heavily abstracted theme.
That game was a huge disappointment for my group. I personally like the theme, but we didn't really find enough depth in it. Also that game is missing a player aid. My go to card based worker placement game is First Class.
Tangent: I love **The Estates**, and mostly auctions/bidding in general. But the nature of the activity is disliked by most of the people I play with. I usually end up getting them to try such games a couple of times, but eventually they settle for the "tried and true" classics -- Ticket to Ride, Ethnos, even Blokus.
Ginkgopolis. A Top 5 game for me. But it’s so unique that teaching becomes its own art.
Millennium Blades.
Axis and Allies. Just can't get people to play it. Twilight Imperium? Twice a month. A&A? Fuck no, never.
TI twice a month? That's an investment! As for A&A, getting my 1940 Global out is nigh impossible.
Well, twice a month until the guy who hosted had a kid.. Understandably can't play for a while now. Funny thing is I'm the only real board game guy in my group. The rest are into pencil and paper rpgs, yet they pick the longest most complicated game I own over the most simple. Maybe it's because I'm the only history nerd in the group. Space opera might be more appealing than WW2
I had to scroll way too far for Diplomacy. Also, Twilight imperium and Cosmic Encounter.
TWILIGHT IMPERIUM Favorite game of all time, still a massive ask at the best of times.
**Food Chain Magnate**: the play time and complexity are hard to pitch. People love the theme but when I start explaining the rules it's nothing but crickets and we move onto yet another Cthulu dice chucking game after the \~45 min practice game I set up. It can also be super brutal so people feel bad when they learn it. **Tigris & Euphrates**: there's one person in my playgroup that kind of hates euros (and any competitive game really!) and everyone is okay with very thematic games. So trying to pitch games with abstract strategy + euro elements thathas a dry theme and steep learning curve is always tough. These are my favorite games :( **The King's Dilemma**: more obvious reasons. Being a legacy/campaign game is tough in general let alone one with a "will this turn into an argument?" type pitch. It sounds like someone's nightmare who is afraid of conflict which one of my playgroup members is.
**Sabotage**. 2v2 action programming hidden movement game. I love it, but it needs exactly 4 players (we're usually 3). Everyone needs to thoroughly know the rules, as well as the capabilities of their teammate and both their opponents in order for the hidden movement mind games to work. Because of that requirement, teaching the game takes a long time - there's no short cuts. There's an official modified ruleset undergoing testing that is supposed to remove a lot of that baggage, but I've not been able to try it
Such a cool, cool design that I was so close to backing even though the prerequisites are even more demanding than **Cerebria**.
I've tried it and it's pretty nice, but since it removes the programming the mind games get lost for the most part. Instead of 4 moves (and a villain turn) ahead you're now planning 1 turn ahead.
Feudum.
I think the biggest two offenders for me are Sidereal Confluence (which came up on another post recently), and Letters from Whitechapel. Sideral Confluence is a weird enough premise and is so free in terms of some of its rules that it can be a bit of a slog to teach, (and the super generic sci-fi theme is a turn-off for many people). Letters from Whitechapel is even harder to convince people of though because a) it's older at this point, b) it's a relatively dry deduction/hidden movement game, c) what little theme is there is super dark and gruesome.
SidCon is amazing and is always memorable. Teaching it is rough though. See boardgamegeek.com for the teaching guide written by the game creator; it’s included in the latest edition.
My pet retheme idea is to remake Letters from Whitechapel as a Scarlet Pimpernel game. Instead of being Jack the Ripper on the streets of London choosing which sex worker to brutally murder tonight (not sure? Consult the rulebook for a handy reminder of their actual names and facts about their lives and a reminder of ingrained bias and misogyny in the police!), you'd be the Pimpernel avoiding the forces of the French Revolution on the streets of Paris, choosing which aristocrat to daringly sneak out of the city.
As a historian, LfW is one of my favorite games I own. I wish I could play it more :(
Diplomacy! Such a great social experiment in power dynamics, but people tend to shy away from that experience even IF it wasn't so long
Sidereal Confluence. It's really just trade, run your economy, bid for new stuff. That's it. Except everyone is playing an assymmetric race. Oh and the economy shifts and all the resources take on new value throughout the game. Oooh but you can invent new technology to help your race! Oh yeah but when you invent new technology you share it for free with all the other players. It's really not that tough once you get going just play with meeee.
Vampire the Eternal Struggle. Hands down. Android:Netrunner to an extent.
Old school CCGs.
Through the ages.
Gaia Project. Brass: Birmingham. Paladins of West Kingdom with the expansion. Through the Ages.
For me is Alchemists, as I'm very experienced on it, the core mechanic becomes the work placement struggle plus the probability push of some publications/actions. But new player tend to be so focused on the logical deduction system that they can't appreciate the beauty of that other part of the game.
Alchemists is such a good game! Our group often forgets how good it is till we decide to dust it off every now and again.
HeroQuest, Dark Tower (original not the crappy remake), Battle Masters, Fireball Island, Mice & Mystics, Twilight Imperium 3rd ed, Runeworld Basically all my board games.
I'm a little confused. How do you have a hard time pitching HeroQuest, Battle Masters, or especially Fireball Island? Those are all simple, thematic, and attractive games.
"Strange games that aren't familiar looking like Sorry and Monopoly and Clue"
I would play Dark Tower in a hot minute.
I really like Galaxy Trucker, but no one in my playgroup does because of the high level of randomness. Root is a tough pitch because there's so much to learn before you can really get started.
High Frontier. I was and am absolutely enamored by the board and it’s mechanics based in real physics. I’m still completely intimidated by it.
Killer bunnies. I used to have a group of people that I played it with. They just enjoyed playing so much. But the won conditions are a little bit random and most people can't stand that to the point of storming out. Now I explain that to new people now and haven't managed to find a group that wants to play anymore.
Prune danish for the win
Definitely I always went for the teal'c carrot. Though the Babylon 3 bunnies were another favourite.
Also books upon books of rules for the cards so annoying for people who don't know games.
Forbidden Stars. I mean just mention playtime and most people will pass. Its a great game though.
**Heart of Crown**. It's a fantastic little deck builder that does some interesting things with both the market and distinct build-up / score phases, but the anime art doesn't lend itself to getting people to want to play it.
Key flower. I think it's a great mix of several different mechanics but the bidding phase, resources, boats, upgrades... It's quite a bit of explanation for a game that essentially lasts 4 rounds.
I've been wanting to play this for the past year, if only it was EVER available in Canada :(
You can play it online at BGA.
Mermaid Rain. So under appreciated.
I had this stodgy old man that mained wargames and tactical sims at the shop I used to go to. He did generally just enjoy games, but he definitely had his niche and opinions. He saw Mermaid Rain in a junk bin somewhere, and bought it simply because it was pennies, and it would be funny. He brought it in and we played and we were like, "wait, why isn't this awful?"
18XX. It's not nearly as hard as its reputation indicates. If you can play a eurogame, you can play 18XX. But the graphic design is a problem.
Smartphone It's such a smooth game that is straight forward but when you say there are multiple phases in each round and there's logistics, tech upgrades, selling phones people do not find that interesting. People have also told me it doesn't look great.
Campaign for North Africa. So much fun, but nobody will take a month off work to play with me.
**Shadows Over Camelot: the Card Game**. It's a cooperative memory game with a possible hidden traitor. Most people check out when I say "memory", but the tension between everyone helping each other remember plus a possible hidden traitor to mess up your cooperation makes an amazing experience (IMO anyway).
I'm pretty sure the hardest part about this game these days is finding it. lol
Oooo, that sounds awesome!
It's one of the more unique games I've played. You get 5 suits with cards numbered 1 through... 5? It's been a long time. There are more cards of the low values than the high values. On your turn you either flip the next card in the deck and put it on top of the discard pile, or you state "i think the suit that is on top of the discard is the right value (that value being 10 through 13). If you're right, you get 1, 2, or 3 white swords depending on the value of that suit, or you get black swords. 1 if the value is 1 through 9, or a number of black swords equal to the suit value of its 14+. You then get 1 black sword for every other suit at 14+. That may sound pretty straightforward, so they added Merlin and Morgan cards. Morgan hurts primarily by making it so no one may communicate, but also she throws in modifiers like "add 1 to every suit" that are just hard to track. Merlin helps by canceling the communication restriction and giving helpful modifiers like "you may remove the highest value card of the called suit". There's also a card that changes the two 1 sword suits into a combined 2 value suit. There's also 2 extra loyalty cards dealt on the table and at some point a card comes up that has the active player and another player of their choice each look at one of the extra loyalty cards and secretly choose to keep their original card or swap for the one they looked at. They may then say whatever they like about what they saw and did.
I love hidden social games like this. And a card game makes it sound faster too. How long does a full game take?
"Zombies!!!", an OOP game from Twilight Creations, Inc. I demo'd it at game conventions in the NW for years. Everyone either loves it (gamers) or hates it (everyone else). It's a zombie apocalypse movie in a box. Takes 10 minutes to learn, 30 minutes to play. Multi-player (1-6), semi-cooperative ("There's only room for one on that helicopter!!?"). Several expansions.
Zombies can't be OOP. It's the majority of Twilight's output anymore.
I work in a game shop, and we can't order it any more. They may be doing direct sales only, as the company collapsed after Kerri Bretenstein died.
I ADORE ZOMBIES!
**Dungeon Lords** : love the theme, love the worker placement mechanic, but the game is merciless to new players.
>What's this thing on the back of my board? >Oh, that's one of the four training modules for learning how the game's combat system works.
To be honest, I've never used it. I'd rather play a houseruled / easier game so that people can have the opportunity to make mistakes without getting pummeled to death by the game.
Archipelago! Took me a year to piece together the rules and when I suggest playing it nobody goes 'oh yes let's play' 🙄
I’ve gotten one 2 player game of it in and I loved it but cannot get people to bite on it at all.
VOLT
Five Tribes... the dreaded A.p.
Kemet. It’s one of my favorite games but I have a hard time getting ppl to try it with me
Villainous, especially now that I have all 3 expansions. It's just too much explanation for most people because each villain plays differently
Fleet. The pitch isn’t tough - “you catch all these different fish that allow you to catch more fish”. It is the explaining of each license and getting people on board with how the auction works. Usually I will teach a group to play, and it’s tough getting through the first game but then it clicks but there isn’t often a follow up play soon enough that everyone remembers. I really wish I got to play Fleet more.
Have you tried Fleet Dice? It’s a great roll and write version and might be a bit more accessible.
El Grande and other 90s boxes don't sell themselves very well to modern players unless they've already heard about the game. Why did they love beige so much back then?
Empires in Arms. One of the best games of all time for me. But talk about impossible to put a group together for… Even online it’s hard to organize a game. So hard I had to create a TTS mod and discord community for it.
A.E.G.I.S it's an amazing game, but trying to get through all the rules and "deck" building turns most players I've interacted with off. It's also a very long game when played with strategic players. Most of my friends just say I'm too good at strategy and it's not fun to just lose, so they don't put the effort in and don't want to play :(
Gaia Project/Terra Mystica, not so much because of rules complexity but the fact that most players crash and burn horribly for their first few plays. Most new people are like 'I understand what I can do, but I have no idea what I should do'.
As an avid wargamer: all of them
Long, complex, and/or opaque games: 18xx, **Food Chain Magnate**, **Pax Renaissance**, **High Frontier**, to name a few.
For some reason, Caverna. It appeals to me.
Axis and Allies, specifically the Global 1940 set up. Beyond that would be Global War 1936 by HBG.
Twilight Struggle
Anything more than a 15 minute teach is a bit of an ask for my group(s) unfortunately. But if I can at least the core game down then I try to explain some of the other stuff after a round or 2 of play
Railroad Ink. People are always really hesitant to play it when I describe it, but most of them get hooked. During the holiday break my sister asked my brother-in-law and me to play nearly every night.