"How do you handle teaching newbies “complicated” rules?" Topic

For the sake of discussion, I'll define several layers of "newbies":
1. New to miniature wargaming.
2. New to the period. Think familiar with Seven Years War, but never played WWII.
3. Newbie has played several different rules for American Revolution, but not this set.

Feel free to add more.

For 1, I would simplify greatly. One page chart, with movement, shooting ranges, and melee. Possibly a simplified morale. Steer clear of "shaking out skirmishers", keep formations confined to Line, etc. this is for 8 year olds, girlfriends pretending to be interested, etc.

For 2, they're already familiar with "basic military principles", so try to show how Hoplites differ from … tanks. That should not be difficult. 🙄

For 3, show the differences between "Grit and Gravel" and "Flaming Bayonets". Don't try the Optional Rules that Nobody Wants or Likes until after at least one game.

Always remember that in the American Civil War, everyone thought they were still fighting the Mexican War, when everyone in the Mexican War thought they were fighting Napoleonics. This was right up until the end. With every improvement in tactics, there were those who never got the memo, and often the innovators were either ignored or killed.

I don't play "complicated" rules.

Start with something small but meaningful

Set a scenario to expose the gamer to key mechanics and rules

Set up for fun and keep things moving

So you're saying the answer is, don't?

I personally do best watching a game with someone telling me what they are doing.
I have lent people the rules to read a week before the game, and run a very simple scenario with a couple of figures/units to show simple interactions.
Also, you can give the new player a tiny sub unit and the main player tells them how to use it after asking what the newby thinks is the best move.

+1 MajorB!

this is for 8 year olds, girlfriends pretending to be interested, etc.

Can't relate. At 9, my daughter won a MechWarrior tourney against ubergamers and greybeards.

Rules … meh. If you want to control complexity for newcomers (which everyone is in some sense), control the scenario. No matter how "complicated" the rules are, if the scenario is focused on a smaller set of interactions, you don't need to go over all the rules.

But, yeah, with MajorB and John Armatys.

+2 MajorB
I play Dan Mersey Blue Rules as by the end of the game a newbie player can follow the rules easily.

Good question and I can't formulate a proper answer.

BUT-Strip it to the bare bones… No Chrome! Just let them
learn the flow of the game. Move, shoot , melee. Basic dice uses. Everyone says "What do I need to roll?" If the game seems to work, the extras in the detailed game will be easy for the players to assimilate. In fact, they will ask you.

Maybe this is how they can sell supplements to the basic rules. Like popular music, it's all about the hook.

Just don't try to explain all the rules before starting play, that will never lodge in anyone's brain anyway.

Explain enough to start the first phase of the first turn. Explain enough to know phase by phase as the game proceeds. Explain finer nuances of choice just before it looks like that will be important to inform a pending decision.

Beat them with a stick when they get it wrong.

It's called "tough love" I believe.

Working on a #3 situation right now. The plan is a seriously stripped-down version of the rules--keeping all the basic mechanisms, but with drastic reductions in the number of troop and terrain types, a QRS as the back page of the rules, and a verbal briefing before start of play. Also a very straightforward scenario. Check back with me Sunday about how well it worked.

I think the same basic approach should work for #2, but the verbal briefing would have to lay more stress on troop types and sound tactics.

At a #1 level, I wouldn't shoot for complicated rules. I'd do a special 1-4 page set which at most might share mechanisms with a longer one, and walk the newbie through a complete but short game before I took off the training wheels. Once they were confident at the 4 page level, then you could discuss something longer, but by then they'd be #2's or #3's.

Limited die roll modifiers.

Back at Penn State, we were learning how to play Dungeons and Dragons. White box. Not advanced.
I had painted some knights and somehow I had obtained some of those slimy plastic gooey monsters. Oddly, these were the same guys that ended up in the illustrations. 🤷
One guy was stabbing the monsters with the knight, banging them together. I flipped out and threw him out of the game, even though I wasn't the GM.
He was a graduate student.
Definitely a newbie. A 20 year old kindergartner.

How do you teach anything complicated? Start small, break it into chunks and allow time for reflection and self learning.

Tbh that is starting to sound like a job and not a hobby though.

Roberts suggestions for the various audiences are sensible though. #3 is a very different audience to someone who has never played a game before

I gave up complicated rules for Lent …in 1980

I think there is another type issue is this a one off game or are you dealing with keen enthusiast who want to learn r about the period.
Certainly the scenario is key, better simple scenario with all relevant rules than a big game where you then have to unlearn lots as the rules were too approximate.
Not sure what complicated means chess is VERY simple rules but complicated strategy, so is it simple or complicated?

Define "relevant rules".
In scenario 1, I'm trying to entertain someone who may or may not be a potential recruit.
In scenario 3, I may want to demonstrate why my rules are better than what they're currently playing. Are my "relevant rules" relevant to them?

OFM,
Some real-life tactics and historic maneuvers can be complicated to understand. Even if the concept is simple, some game mechanics are overly complicated.

As UshCha stated, strategy can be complicated, but if a player understands the basics, they should be able to figure it out.

What complicates games, in my opinion, are the unhistorical but necessary rules for parsing the action in a typical IGYG game. Rules such as random initiative, unit activation rolls, command points, pips, command interrupts, etc, interfere with a player's natural cycle of action.

How can you, as a player, exercise historical control over your units when the game rules and mechanics tell you what to do, when, and how often?

If you are going to strip the game down to its lowest common historical denominator, there are just 3 factors to consider: issuing an order, moving and shooting.

Every new person who plays a game brings with them their natural and intuitive cycle of action to observe a situation, consider what actions to take, decide on a course of action or tactic, and act on it or get someone else to act on it (issue an order).

If you design a game system that allows them to do what's natural, you strip away much of the complication. You won't need all of the rules and mechanics that tell a player what he can do, when, and how often. There are easy ways to do it.

Wolfhag

There are three different ways for someone to learn something: reading, listening or a video. Probably the most difficult is reading a new ruleset by yourself without any other aids.

You can use the "Read Aloud" function in MS Word and PDF documents. Having a sexy female AI voice is better than a recording of an old stuttering guy.

The third way is watching a video that gives detailed examples and a narrative.

This is all fine, but what if you need clarification in the middle of a game, and it's going to be time-consuming to look up rules or watch a lengthy video?

My solution is to use a QR code that you can bring up any time mid-game using your cell phone. Ideally, the video should be no more than 30-45 seconds and explain the mechanics, rules and exceptions for the part of the game you are in, like moving, shooting, etc.

Here is a comprehensive rule explanation of the Commander Tactics in my AFV game:

Use your QR code scanner to bring up the video. I tested it on the site and it works for me. Hopefully, it works with the scanner you have. It has an example of the "Read Aloud" function with the AI voice and me stopping the voice to give details.

I'm implementing a QR code on my unit data cards to cover the main actions like Action Timing, movement, shooting, and Situational Awareness. In the rulebook there will be a detailed video for the more important aspects of the game.

If you are afraid of getting a virus, here is a download link to the video: link

Wolfhag

How do you teach complex rules to a newbie?…

Start with a "newbie" who is a fan of the period, or tolerate their interest level, namely their lack of interest in learning the complex period rules.

I played WW I naval games, WW II naval and land games, along with Napoleonics, with a group of friends. They are all amateur historians, knowing which month and year, each new gun was equipped on every tank, in every nation, along with what each gun was capable of… They referred to themselves as, "Rivet Counters." I am not a rivet counter, nor am I an amateur historian -- I play games to roll dice, to have fun socializing, to learn new things about the historical periods being gamed. Complex rules do not interest me much.

In a Siekrieg game, a fellow player spent 10 minutes crunching trigonometry equations for a torpedo shot at an enemy vessel -- 10 minutes, on the clock! His chance To Hit?… Seven Percent (07%) -- he rolled an 82!

He enjoyed that, immensely. I hate trigonometry, and I have no use for it since I completed the class, in college, 41 years ago. I play games, I do not play "simulations."

I played historical games with my group of gamer friends, for around 10 years. Now, I only play the games I enjoy: Army Men using my own self-published rules; and Fantasy battles, mass and skirmish. Cheers!

I want complication, except for land war after 1900, but end up more often with simpler rules.

Teaching anything is tough but all the suggestions here are good.

We used simple home grown rules. In 2 separate games, Ancient and WW2, one player who was an Army officer showed a complete lack of basic military knowledge.
I don't think the rules lack of complexity made the slightest difference; sometimes you have to admit defeat……

Define "relevant rules".

Again, this goes to scenario.

If you're playing a scenario that doesn't have snipers, the rules about snipers are irrlevant.

If you're playing a scenario that only uses two of the seventeen types of cannon in the game, the rules and stats of the other cannons are not relevant.

And so on.

These concerns also arise in the convention game, where you don't know in advance the levels of the players (although there are very unlikely to be any from Layer 1).

I don't have anything to add to the ideas above, most of which I've used in preparing convention games.

I too agree with Major B.

Don't do complicated rules any more.

Stick to con rules.
A single two sided cheat sheet.
Let them know what the game objects are and send the 2nd lieutenants forward.

Unlikely to play if not having fun. Over complexity sucks the fun out of almost everything.

Thre are clearly two schoold of thought, proably ireconcileable.

One wants over simple approximations, not requireing too much thought and time to chat and have food in an evening. Kind of like Dominoes with figures.

Then there is the crowd to whome over simple approximate rules are zero fun. They want games that demands the players full attention, no time to chat, more like playing a sport where you go yo play not chat. This is not about the size of the rule book but the tacktics and strategy that needs to be mastered.

There may be some folk that span the schools but I suspect they are few. I certainly dont span both.

I wonder why anyone would want to play complicated rules!🤔🙂🤫🫣

Of course, what do we mean by complicated,

There are complicated situations wete .modelling

Then there are complicated mechanisms to apply those situations.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

When we design rules we incorporate those elements we think are important, however given how we are often immersed in the period we designing for we want to incorporate all the features we are interested in and differentiate between slight differences. Sure we can include these things if it floats our boats bur does that help a noob get in to the hobby.

My questions may be…
Why am I teaching a noob complicated rules?

Why am I playing complicated rules?

One wants over simple approximations, not requireing too much thought and time to chat and have food in an evening. Kind of like Dominoes with figures.

You just can't avoid insults, can you? "Not requiring too much thought"?

Interesting that no one has asked the question 'how does this person learn'; different people need teaching different ways. There are two parts to learning, understanding and retention [memory], the latter comes from a combination of simplification and repetition, there it is almost axiomatic that you cannot teach complicated rules quickly.

Thre are clearly two schoold of thought

You missed the school of thought where people believe that additional detail and granularity in a wargame, even when accurate (to some personal, non-empircal standard), necessarily add realism and depth instead of just detail and granularity.

And the one where people believe that the number and detail of inputs to a decision necessarily drive the complexity of the decision.

Also, schools of thought where people understand how wargames work and believe neither of the above two things.

If you want to study how systems react with each other you can't model them as one system as there are no parameters on which to judge the interaction. If you model rifles and Machine gun as a mixed system it misses that they are use in different ways. Now there is always the issue that what one school wants to study is different to that of another, which is the point there are different objectives.

And the one where people believe that the number and detail of inputs to a decision necessarily drive the complexity of the decision.

Somewhat bizarre statement. The decision is more complex if you have to sight a machine gun separate to a rifle group. Modeling it as one is daft in that context, one could be a base of fire wile the other an assault group. A single entity cannot be in two places at once (unless at the Quantum level). Again it depends on what you want/need to model.

You just can't avoid insults, can you? "Not requiring too much thought"?

John the OFM, Even for you that's a strange comment. I play Dominoes with food in a relatively undemanding way (not too much thought) EVERY WEEK, alas in my current recovering state I have played more Dominoes than wargames.

While I'dont play wargames with the same approach as I play Dominoes. I find it a reasonable expectation that others could play a wargame like I play Dominoes, especially if the painting aspect was a key part of the hobby as it allows for dissuasions on the art work. Its not for me but that is immaterial to the argument.

It's the "not requiring too much thought" insult that you throw out so glibly.
You seem to be saying that gamers who do not embrace your hairy chested, he-man, bare knuckles "simulations" are stupid and inferior.

Why do you shrink back in horror, like Dracula being shown the Cross, when confronted with well painted armies?
I just came up from my basement where I was flocking the bases of nicely painted 33rd Foot and Queen's Rangers.
Well painted AWI figures have the British cuffs, collars and lapels in distinct regimental colors. Is it up to your "simulation" requirements to be able to differentiate between the veteran hard fighting 4th Foot and the 3rdFoot which just got off the boat?

UshCha, I am surprised that you don't get along with John the OFM better, given your common penchant to make up things and assert them as fact.

So, I would be happy to comment on your assertion about a "mixed system" if you would tell someone what it is. It is certainly not a part of the lexicon of UK MOD, US National Academies, SIGSIM, GU Wargaming Society, NATO ACT, The NATO Modelling & Simulation Centre of Excellence, UAS MOD
FaviconCIMIC COE, CIMIC-COE, Defence Research and Development Canada, SAGE Journals, AMSO, MCMSMO, DMCO, NAVMSMO, CSIAC, DOD ADL, NZMOD, MITRE, CNA, IDA SISO, ACM, or SCS.

This idea of yours also doesn't align with the concept of System of Systems (SOS) Modeling the basis of federated model, in which a rifle and machine gun are part of the same model. I'm fascenated to learn what this thing is.

A single entity cannot be in two places at once (unless at the Quantum level).

Also, if you want to talk about quantum states, I recommend you learn what they are first. Again, no idea what this entity you are talking about is, but in quantum theory particles aren't in two places at once. Some suggested reading:

riffiths, David J. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. Pearson, 2004.

Feynman, Richard P., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3 (Chapter 1 especially).

Zeilinger, Anton. "A Foundational Principle for Quantum Mechanics." Foundations of Physics, vol. 29, no. 4, 1999, pp. 631–643. DOI:10.1023/A:1018820410908

Zurek, W. H. "Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical." Physics Today 44, 36 (1991).

Schlosshauer, M. "Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics." Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005).

The decision is more complex if you have to sight a machine gun separate to a rifle group.

So, no idea what this sentence means.

I played WW I naval games, WW II naval and land games, along with Napoleonics, with a group of friends. They are all amateur historians, knowing which month and year, each new gun was equipped on every tank, in every nation, along with what each gun was capable of… They referred to themselves as "Rivet Counters." I am not a rivet counter, nor am I an amateur historian -- I play games to roll dice, to have fun socializing, to learn new things about the historical periods being gamed. Complex rules do not interest me much.

In a Siekrieg game, a fellow player spent 10 minutes crunching trigonometry equations for a torpedo shot at an enemy vessel -- 10 minutes, on the clock! His chance To Hit?… Seven Percent (07%) -- he rolled an 82!

The Seekrieg guys are somewhat like a cult. I've seen a few of their games at cons. I walked into a room with 10 guys sitting around a table. Two were doing some calculations, and the others looked comatose while waiting for a result.

Then they came out with a computer play aid which, if anything, slowed down the game. After they got the result, the guy next to me mumbled, "That could never happen." Some players said, "That's the price you must pay for realism." Fine, not me.

It's pretty clear to me that the vast majority of gamers on TMP are looking for a socially simple way to push the models around and get acceptable results with the excellent visuals generating the realism and believability. That's what appears to be relevant to them. Why should anyone have a problem with that?

So in that respect, more details, rules, and mechanics, even if historical, just complicate and detract from the overall experience. Why should I care what other people like?

I collect mostly pre-painted figures, so I'm not a modeler/painter. I do consider myself an amateur historian, mostly interested in WWI and modern weapons and tactics performance, not camo patterns or appropriate paint colors for specific periods of a war.

I spent some time in the infantry so I can claim some first hand experience of how things work. I'm not an overly social or gregarious person. I'll play miniatures or a board game.

"Not requiring too much thought"

I'll expand on that. I've seen it many times at conventions because they use simple IGYG rules. Players are conversing socially, and the GM interrupts a player, telling him it's his turn to shoot. He observes the situation, asks what he needs to roll, rolls the dice for the result, and then goes back to enjoying the social interaction. There is not much to think about. If that's what players like, there is no point in criticizing them. Most players judge the game's enjoyment based on the quality of the minis and terrain, and not the rules. Great terrain makes for an enjoyable game, no matter what the rules are. That's an observation, not a criticism.

So I guess you could call me more of a sim guy because historically accurate rules make the game for me more than the visual setup. However, the games claiming to be a sim have either unnecessary complications or unhistorical game mechanics. That's why I did my own using the real manuals as a basis. Just like the video the QR code links to.

Wolfhag

UshCha, I am surprised that you don't get along with John the OFM better, given your common penchant to make up things and assert them as fact.

Oh. It's you again. The dude calling me a liar. 👍
Carry on.

I've always loved how wargaming brings people together. 🤔😃🤷🙂

If you want to study how systems react with each other you can't model them as one system as there are no parameters on which to judge the interaction.

G6 clearly. But that's not a complexity issue.

If you model rifles and Machine gun as a mixed system it misses that they are use in different ways.

G6 that depends on the resolution we're working at. If you're refering to how those things during a platoon attack,
How much time do I want to spend on that in a Bn sized game?

Now there is always the issue that what one school wants to study is different to that of another, which is the point there are different objectives.

G6 which is why IMO one should focus on fundamentals when designing rules, that then allow them to reflect different doctrinal approaches through play rather than in rules mechanisms.

For me complicated rules are off putting, to use and to teach and learn.

The difficulty isn't for noobs getting how to play/fight actions. It's the rules. But for me the rules should be simple enough to facilitate their intentions, but many mecbcnis suffer from the creep caused by abstractions. One abstraction demands another and so on.

Simplicity and complexity as opposed to complicated. Rules to often complicated. Where as the fun is in tbe complexity is in tbe decisions we make and their interactions, simple rules.dont preclude complex choices and interactions.

Oh. It's you again. The dude calling me a liar.

Oh. It's you again. Complaining that I call you out when you say things that are false.

Feel free to start a thread quoting the things you've made up that I have called you on and then actually post a reply to the counter argument instead of wandering of into other fabricated statements, logical fallacies, and non-sequitor distractors. Or you could actually reply in the threads.

he rules should be simple enough to facilitate their intentions

what one school wants to study is different to that of another

This is the crux of what people should be discussing when they talk about complexity (especially without using a standard defintion of complexity). Sgt Slag illustrates this beautifully:

a fellow player spent 10 minutes crunching trigonometry equations for a torpedo shot

The issue with a game is not whether crunching trig is complex or not. Per Gamesman6, for some people the effort is too much, others too little, and some (hopefully) just right. It depends on where their interest lies.

I have an age of sail set of pirate ship battles rules called "Advance and Transfer". The crux of it is using maneuvering board (trigonometry, but done with pencil, straightedge, triangle, and polar coordinate paper vice equations) to calculate ship movement. I like doing moboard. It think its fun.

As far as I know only one other US Naval Officer ever liked doing it too. Everybody else hated it and complained about it. I know a few other people who thought it was cool. For some it was the novelty of solving trig using a graphical method instead of equations (thank M. Descartes). So I don't break it out much. That is not about the complexity of the system. Its about preference within the context of interest.

At Disney After Dark there is a big video game building. Inside is a pirate game – giant wall sized screens wrap around a roughly 6'x12' deck area (on hydraulic gimbles) with a coxswain's flat (steering wheel) and six cannons around the outside. I played this with a team of other military types – analysts, most of whom were prior active duty. I drove. A prior artillery master sargent took command of the guns. The rest of the guys shot.

Apparently we did well, because after a while the teenager in charge of the games knocked on the door and politely asked if we could wrap it up and free up the game (there were other cells there). It was fun because each of us was focusing on the part of the broader game that we liked. The artillery commander and I went back and forth about maneuvers and cover areas. The gunners did shooting and called out targets. It would not have been fun for me shooting and spotting. Or at lest not as much fun. It was a mix of fun and objectively excellent performance.

All these points come back to scenario design. Chasing characteristics of an endeavour without a framing statement is chasing your tail.

And much complication, as opposed to complexity, stems from how we adhere to elements that are seen as part of "what a wargame is".
Numeric dice tend to require a process of translation, thag often makes for a more complicated system as they aren't good at lending themselves to a simpler system.
The other complication is that approach demands a mental translation for the players as they translate what they want do into the system, and once they've strained through that, then have to conceptually translate it back in time the RL actions.

You missed the school of thought where people believe that additional detail and granularity in a wargame, even when accurate (to some personal, non-empircal standard), necessarily add realism and depth instead of just detail and granularity. …

I agree.

Feel free to start a thread quoting the things you've made up that I have called you on and then actually post a reply to the counter argument instead of wandering of into other fabricated statements, logical fallacies, and non-sequitor distractors. Or you could actually reply in the threads.

That ain't how it works, Bubba.
You're accusing ME of lying. So it's up to you to start a thread.
Be sure to title it "Here's where the OFM is lying!"

Oh, and I see from the above that you seem to be embracing logical fallacies!
Aside from that, getting a date wrong, disagreeing with what is commonly believed, etc are not "lying". Neither are hijacking and tangents.
I DEMAND that your thread accusations include a specific example of where I willingly and knowingly lied.
Put up or … (I do realize that telling someone to "Shut up!" is a violation of TMP protocol and rules, so I won't say it.
So, if you are going to accuse me of lying, speak now or forever hold your piece.

I have pointed out where you provided falsehoods, for example:

Yeah, just the same guy churning out Teslas that burn and can't be extinguished,

Oh, and shutting down any agencies investigating him.

TMP link

I don't remember in which threads you said "Games Workshop forces you to use thier figures." And then the ensuing tripe that you can only play at GW sponsored events, then most player can only, then the weedly "many", for all three of which you lack any data.

Aside from that, getting a date wrong, disagreeing with what is commonly believed, etc are not "lying".

So, by your logic, you should be able to quote and link to where I did those things.

Those are lies? Your definition is quite flexible.
Your logic is also quite flexible the way you twisted, with visible glee, what I said about GW requiring their figures to be used in games they sponsor. They do, you know.

I'm done with this subject in this thread. You hereby have my permission to babble on incoherently about my "lies", but I can't be bothered to reply.
You accused me above with hijacking threads, but you do a pretty good job of it yourself. (Your words were "non sequitur distractors", or some nonsense like that, but I'm assuming you mean "hijacking".)

So, carry on. Age quod agis.

You've been shown the falsehoods your proffer, and you shrug it off and run away.

So you believe it is true that Tesla battery fires can't be extinguished?

GW requiring their figures to be used in games they sponsor. They do, you know.

I do know that. You began with falsehoods like:

Yet they DO REQUIRE their acolytes to use the approved miniatures, and pay the approved price. Find the lie here.

So you changed your story from being an absolute statement about being forced. And then pretend like that was what you always said.

Then you fabricated this to bolster your backing away:

This carries over to games "in the privacy of their own home".

Again, nobody is forced to play any way in thier own home. I don't actually know any WH players who follow tourney rules in their own home. But I don't assert my experience is data:

MANY, but not all 40K players don't get to play anywhere except the few tournaments or game stores in their area.

And when you were asked to provide any justification for that statement, you ran away again.

And since you made me dig up that stuff by making up other stuff, I found this gem of falsehood too:

By the way, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here, since it's a private forum

The notion of "complicated" has followed the steady downgrade of abilities and education over the past 25 years.
plus, at least in "Europe" the lost connection with thing military and especially history, compared to past generations, till maybe 1990. When the vocabulary is limited and the reference vocabulary is near inexistent, you might not know where to start from. A bit like when geeks try explaining me deeper computer stuff, like Croatian explained in Cantonese, or my wife asking what is the difference between a company and a battalion, or how many men in a platoon (because of a film).

To show a person in my Level 1 what a wargame is, they don't really need to know how the width of a tank's tracks affects its ability to move across wet sandy grasslands. All a total newbie needs to know, to understand her boyfriend's hobby, is that a tank can move 12".
At Level 3, a Flames of War player should be reminded that an open hatch matters. In a minor way, in FoW, it does, but is minor chrome.
At Level 3, an Age of Reason player needs to be told that a Hessian regiment will move slower. He might argue, but should have it explained. He might not agree.

Thank you for bringing this back on track.