"In defence (or attack) of "newbies"" Topic

Should players learn the game before playing, or should they be taught during an actual game. Is it deleterious to the enjoyment of veteran players to have to put up with the solecisms and blunders and novices which ruin the veterans game though it may give joy to the newbie?

Should? It's a hobby they can do as they please.

Besides, how do you learn the game before playing? In my experience only live game play really teaches you the nuances of a game/ruleset

INMSHO all games are chances to learn, and so called newbies are the future of the hobby.

Agreed with Paint it Pink…again.

Newbies are grist to the mill. One day they will grist some other poor . I learn, you learn, we learn.

Every newbie welcome. Lots of folks crying about the graying of the hobby. Well if you don't bring in someone who is new, then the hobby will change direction.

Weren't we all newbies at one time? How else is the hobby to grow without newbies?

We play intermittently, so just about every time we play we are newbies.

Why would you "attack" newbies?

Good grief Otto. Do you require that people take entrance exams or blood tests before they can play with your group?

Dear Winston Smith

You're spoiling for a fight.

You're not going to get one.

Only a person who doesn't know me would even consider voicing the opinion you did.

I'm not as intellectually decrepit as to be able to envision only my own point of view. When I put forward a topic for debate it doesn't necessarily mean I support it.

But I HAVE heard the above opinion expressed by gamers, just as I have heard that which disparages females in the game. Not by me or my group, but others.

How does someone learn a game without playing it?

Was not everyone a "Newbie" at some point?

When you have mixed newbies and veteran gamers at a session, tell them the first game is for acclimatising newbies and 'refreshing' the vets. IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A GAME. Ego's become constructive criticism and helpful observations.

Vets confuse rules, newbies forget them.

Also don't 'drone on and on' the rules, teach the newbie as they play-it sinks in better especially when they see consequences and benefits of their decisions. The vets will be anecdotal about their trials and tribulations-good food and drink enhances this.

Afterward, you put the foot down and everyone sharpens up for a decent game.

I've done this, it works.

this is meant to be a flame inhibiting post.

Learn by playing the game, not by reading the rulebook. The rulebook is only a manual for the game, not a goal to achieve by itself.

That being said, there are wargamers that are much better at teaching newbies the game, just as there are people who are born teachers and others who are not.

In my gaming group, the better wargamer teachers also happen to be teachers in their day job. Not a coincidence, IMO.

It's rare that I have the extra time to teach a game to a new player prior to the group's game, so that is done during my group's regular play. We aren't so serious that we can't take some extra time to bring a new player up to speed.

In our club sometimes the new chap wins against the old hands.

In defense of Otto, I understand what he's getting at here and one doesn't have to be a hardcore hyper competitive gamer to get his drift.

Even in a casual setting it's nice to play against opponents who know the rules well (especially if complex or at least having lots of rules) so you can focus purely on the game rather than teaching the rules. It's not that newbs would be unwelcome, it's that the veterans want a contest that will push them to their limits. There is entertainment value in a solid challenge.

That being said, I believe that if rules are well designed they will be transparent enough that one can play them well by learning them quickly, at least at a high level. Things like intricate turn sequences prevent this.

For example, in our Age of Madness game here's the core flow of play:

- play is igougo

- each unit has 2 action points (AP) and may be given a 3rd AP from your limited pool of AP which replenishes at the start of your turn

- each action costs 1 or 2 AP

- if you put a unit on Alert for a cost of 2 AP it can react during enemy's turn after an enemy unit completes an action

Using that simple approach you can use overwatch tactics, opfire, fire and maneuver tactics, understand the costs, limits, and opportunities of combining various actions, and there's no need to ever ask "which sub-phase are we in?". You pick a unit, spend its action points, and alert enemies can react to any given action by the unit.

So if you move into an alert enemy's LoS it can shoot you. And if you just move move move and don't go on alert then an enemy might take advantage by moving up and shooting you while you're joy riding around the battlefield. But if you're always stalking slowly forward on alert even with no enemy contact likely then you're wasting time (action points).

Even my wife quickly assimilated the time management aspect of the action point system since it's so transparent and obvious. And all die rolls work the same way: modify a base value and score 1 "pass" for each die that beats that value. The number of dice rolled and the meaning of the result varies by situation but is always intuitive (eg an MG rolls more dice than a rifle and each passing rally die removes a friction point).

But I also understand why some express surprise at Otto's comment since our rules are designed to support our favorite mode of play: the more the merrier and new players are always welcome since we like to play at the FLGS and convnetions. ut for that to work the game needs to be easy to understand.

Total newbie? Happily teach and run an intro game or two, or for the minis group in general. We all prefer different rules sets so on the job training is a requirement. Board wargames I expect an opportunity that has read the rules since most are available online