"Sprucing up “the talk”" Topic

Little Wars reminded me of the bane of convention war games that is "the talk." You know, the excruciating 30-45 minutes before turn one when the rules are explained.

This got me to thinking: could game masters borrow from video games and have you maneuver through something? Grab a unit, move it from here to here, now shoot the targets, etc. You could even have a bootcamp side table.

I participated in one of these called "School of the Soldier" at a MilleniumCon in 2008 (I think) in preparation for a monster SYW game using "La Batailles de l'Ancien Regime" (BAR) rules. That 'game' was run on Friday night before the all-day Saturday game.

I sure helped a lot.

Jim

This is a major reason that I am a fan of simple game systems. The simpler the better. Everything the players need to know should be on on QRS and the game intro discussion needs to be no more than five minutes. I am also a huge fan of game set up being no more than 10 minutes total from walking in until ready to greet the players.

In my convention games, I spend like 10 to 15 minutes tops to explain basic mechanics, the rest is learned while playing.

Convention game rule shouldt fit on 1 page (both sides) with large font size.

I'm with Wackmole. If you say "players must be familiar with Rule System X" and that leads to players who vaguely remember playing Rule System X once years ago at a different convention, so it's two pages or a boot camp.

Yep. You need to be moving figures in the first 15 minutes.

SYW game using "La Batailles de l'Ancien Regime" (BAR) rules

I wonder how many games use the judge's favorite rule set without regard to suitability for a multiplayer convention setting.

You might love Tractics but Bolt Action is probably a better (and even then not perfect) choice.

There are simple rule sets that I use for convention games and other more complex rule sets that I use for games with friends.

Also for a convention game I give each player a single sheet with their information. Any more is too much. All the writing on these sheets is in the largest type font that I can possibly use. I want the information to be easy to find and to avoid the need for players to be reaching for their glasses every few minutes. I just don't like those QRS that cram as much information on the front and back as possible.

Here is an example of one of my sheets that I give to players. I want the key stats to be as obvious as possible.

I typically plan on having people playing within 5 minutes. Needing detailed help for the next 10 minutes, needing a little help for the next 15 minutes and then playing by themselves with the odd rule clarification for the rest of the game.

Convention games need to be fast and fun.

Coming from the other end I play con games to see a game in action, I'm either planning on getting it or already own it but don't get a chance to play it much. When I sign up for a game I've already recently read the rules; maybe I'm the exception. I've run quick/easy games (not homebrew but published rules) but those are geared for younger gamers and they are written to be quick. Is there any way to have a game that's not "1-3 I win, 4-6 you win quick play" at a convention or is that something that's dead and gone? I lean towards games with some meat on them but am willing to do my work before playing.

For Little Wars, I offered preregistered players a copy of the rules in advance via email if they wanted to see them. As the rules amounted to only half a page, it wasn't that big of a deal if they didn't choose that option.
I try to keep explanation to no more than 5-8 minutes, with the assurance that "you'll understand everything after the first round" That said, unless your players are already adept with gaming system (Close Action or Battleground, for instance), it's best to stick with convention-friendly rules.
I use FUBAR for sci fi games, Sword & the Flame / Men Who Would Be King for colonials, and Fistful of Lead for Westerns. They're all pretty simple, with a focus on game play.
This year ran four games of 8-9 players each. Everybody seemed to know what they were doing pretty quick

I like that idea FearAndLoathing. One thing I have run into playing games where "well, let's just start and we'll figure it out" is sometimes the player makes some decision that if they knew how the rules worked a certain way they wouldn't have done that and now they're turned off to the game. Not necessarily a minor thing they did but something that is pretty obvious. Is that a scenario design or cracking a few eggs problem/fix?

One thing that I have been thinking about is having a smaller game the day before my large game, so that people can get to know the rules if they want to.
I would want the game to be connected, so the smaller game would be a recon type scenario that would have an impact upon the larger battle. I could then also give some of the prime commands in the larger game to people that I know understand the rules.

I don't want to only play simple or dumbed- down rules at cons . I want to play interesting rules I like and learn to play new systems. That doesn't mean I want to sit through a 30 minute explanation of the rules though. Learn by playing.

redbanner4145, I've taught and wargamed a long time. If you can explain it so that six or eight wargamers understand it well enough to play within 15-20 minutes, it's already either simple or dumbed down. Remember the briefer is doing the scenario too.

I've done the "just start playing and I'll tell you when you did something wrong" routine, and I've been deeply unimpressed. At the least, everyone has to have read the rules, and a cadre has to have some experience.

Since when is "simple" the opposite of "interesting" by the way?

Checkers is a good example.
We need pickle barrels at our cons.

Robert, I totally agree with you. A simple rule set does not necessarily mean a uninteresting game. In fact the speed of the game can add to the interest and the scenario can provide complexity.

Also the size of the game can be a major factor. I much prefer a simple rule set if I am hosting 12 players. Especially if I don't know if they have experience with the rules.

Conversely, later this year I am thinking about hosting a game at a convention with a more complex set of rules. However, I will limit both the number of troops and the maximum number of players will be 4. This game will be clearly identified in the events program as a teaching game.

As already stated, simple does not mean without
subtleties…

I've played many great sets of rules at conventions that are not simple one pagers or designed for conventions. For example: Check Your Six, Chain of Command, Fireball Forward, Battleground WWII, British Grenadier And many others. Lots of published rules can be played at cons and taught in just a few minutes.

I put on a game in CA and the table next to me had Fireball Forward. The guy spent about 45 minutes going over the rules. The players looked as if they were being tortured. At another convention the same game was going in 10 minutes. A lot depends on the GM.

I give at max a 10 minute overview of the game, go over the play aid and data card and a moving and shooting example, answer a few questions and then we start. I found that anymore than 10 minutes and their eyes start glazing over.

With my system if you can tell time, read at the 3rd grade level, roll a D6 and add/subtract 1-3 numbers you are good to go. There is very little to remember and anything a real commander can do in a battle so can the player. A single die roll will tell you how effective and quickly you will execute the order.

I also allow the player to take chances to be quicker but things can backfire on him. I leave it up to the player, not the dice.

I take advantage of the players natural use of the OODA Loop to determine the action eliminating the need for initiative, command points, orders phase, unit activation, etc. Personally, I don't like the dice telling me what I can do and when.

Better units and crews are quicker than poor units and crews. You need to flank or suppress the defender (friction) to slow his OODA Loop to Act before he does. You need to "seize" the initiative using real tactics from the manuals so your real knowledge is useful, it's not just a random die roll.

A realistic Fog of War is created because your opponent does not know how quick and efficient your units are.

The bottom line is players want to have fun, roll the dice and blow stuff up within a rule set that makes sense. More rules, abstractions and memorization can (but not always) take away from that.

Overall, I think the visuals are what is going to make the game fun and enjoyable as long as you have a sensible set of rules.

Wolfhag

For conventions I use Rapid Fire so pretty easy to begin with. I do a quick overview of the turn sequence highlighting just a few items. Play then proceeds. As each issue comes up I halt the action and we go through the procedure. For example the first time a tank fires on a tank. These are brief and players quickly catch on. I will say my games have an advantage as they are all run as battle problems with the active players on one side which speeds things up and makes it easy to answer rules questions openly without the players tipping their hat as to strategy or tactics. No need for "asides" to explain a rule or situation so as not to reveal a sides plans.

I start to lose interest very quickly if the rules explanation goes on more than 15 minutes.

My goal is to get all of the key elements of the game on one sheet of paper. We're usually off and running in 10 minutes or less.