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

In this post I am backtracking, a bit. While lying in my tent in the back garden (at 70+ you have to check you can do things in a safe environment) It occurred to me that our rules normally run 1 level up of command and 2 levels down, often quoted as an ideal situation. So we play, the larger force is typically a company task group. A company with some attached assets like artillery and or some recon vehicles but essentially company level. Our two levels down are notionally Platoon and section, but in some cases because of the potentially complex nature of the weapons available, particularly infantry, the section is often not really a key issue on the battlefield but the fire team, which can be Section sized of smaller if a different mix of weapons is required. Now typically we play one level up which is company to higher level assets typically larger concentrations of artillery but it can be other assets depending on the task in hand. So I have to recognise we meet that level of simplification in a normal evening game. On longer games we are closer to 2 levels up and 2 levels down. The next level up is about logistics, when does the company or elements get replaced as losses mount or they need to re-arm. Top level resources are deliberately limited so the ‘top level' has to work out where and when for resupply so as not to overreach and find themselves vulnerable to counter attack as company gets itself back to fighting fit with full ammunition loadouts.
Now I will admit that for other than very keen enthusiasts 2 up 2 down is not appealing, and certainly well beyond most beginners, but for the enthusiast it adds a real challenge.
The probably highlights a key parameter involved in simplification. If you are a weapons enthusiast then certain details are vital as over approximation is unacceptable and certainly no fun. If you are far more into just a game with nice figures this could seem (and often is) complicated. Your players take on the period is key to what detail is not over complication but vital parameters.
As for the Gods eye view, simply hiding a few elements in most cases eliminated this to a level, that is as much as we can take regarding brain loading and rules overload. Similarly better rules (DBM was my introduction) prevent a one for one response if the enemy does something unexpected. Now some may see that as over complication, others as a vital part of a decent set.

I suspect there is a Level 5 The really dedicated obsessives like me.

Just out of curiosity, how would you teach a total newbie who wants to know what this is all about? What level of complexity would you recommend for someone who calls a halftrack a tank, or a destroyer a battleship?
This is not an antagonistic question. Just curious.

John the OFM – To be honest I would pass them on to somebody more suited to there needs. At that level they are clearly more interested in the "game" aspect than the history.

I will admit that side has no interest for me so trying to teach somebody a topic you are not interested in does them a disservice. There are other folk in the club that could do that better than me. Similarly I would be equally unqualified to teach ancients or 40K or Rapid Fire.

The US convention type games do not exist in the UK, so a US requirement to teach anybody that just turns up is not one we have to deal with.

As a teacher you have to understand your own limitations.

In the event they were a nerd in disguise then I would start with a VERY simple scenario, probably even simpler than the one in my "simplification" thread.

sorry not sure why at least on my phone there are two font sizes it's not intentional.

Honest answer. 👍

We're unlikely to meet someone who hasn't played a game and who isn't familiar with the idea of beating an opponent.
The idea that different pieces have different attributes, powers etc should be hard to grasp or rolling dice, heck we're stuck with them because…

Teaching complex (as opposed to complicated but it still sort of applies)
Is to work from the Fundamentals, which can be taught by things people already know.
Goal
Intention
Obstacles
Actions.

What makes rules "complicated" will depend on what we think that means and what the noob thinks.

"Complicated" rules stem from the interface, the mechanics, traying to model things that would in actuality be out of tbe players (in their position) coʻntrol or influence.

My interst is in choices actions and how they interact. Not in consulting chartsbor memory to decided on how many 6s I need to get of how many d6 etc.

Now going back to how people would know basically about games then they understand dice or cards. The issue is that normal numeric dice don't help make a system less complicated in general.

Tesla car battery fires can't be extinguished. So … what do we do about it? Develop new solutions. Research into technology. Maybe basic research. Probably a few iterations of both.

Tesla car battery fires weren't extinguished because the tools that have been around for decades to extinguish that type of fire weren't availabe to firefighters in sufficient quantities at the locations where they were needed during an outlier wildfire event. So … what do we do about it? Completely different solutions. Even if those solutions involve R&D, it's not R&D into "how do we extinguish this type of fire?". It's R&D into how we make current solutions smaller, more affordable, more easily deployable or how to better inform firefighters of what gear they need when and where.

Wargame complexity is a simple concept that can easily be evaluated relatively consistently from the rules alone. So … how do we handle that?

Wargame complexity is in the interplay between rules and players, with the major influences being player characteristics like many others have mentioned here: individual preferences, familiarity with the warfare subject (tactics, unit command, etc.), the intent (not content) of the rules, individual learning styles, their perception of why things happen in war. (And a few more) So … do we handle that the same way as the other school of thought?

The Fundamental Rule of Requirements Engineering: Solving the wrong problem doesn't solve anything.

Ahem. Teaching newbies "complex" rules. Today went better than I deserved, thank you for asking. Each player was given a shortened version of the rules covering only the troop & terrain types in play, with QRS, and a verbal explanation preceeded any play. Two of the players were 3's--experienced Napoleonic wargamers with no prior experience with any version of "Column, Line and Square." The other two were old CLSII players with a game or so of CLS3 experience, but no more. (Note that experience in another edition of rules is not an unmixed blessing.) One of each on each side. Got my players at 10:30, verbally briefed on rules and game conditions with troop movement starting by 11:00. By 1:00, I could leave the table and let the game proceed. We got in 10 turns by 4:00 with an hour out for lunch, which is almost unprecedented. I'd have called the game at nine turns, but everyone was having a good time.

Some of this will wear off, of course, if not repeated. But I think I could put any of those four players in a full-bore CLS3 game tomorrow, expecting a little choppiness because of the larger number of troop and terrain types.

I think I lucked into an almost ideal situation--possibly a literal answer to prayer--with a high ratio of veteran/newbie, not too many players but enough so that the umpire didn't have to play. All things to think about.

Note that experience in another edition of rules is not an unmixed blessing.

👍
As an old WRG Ancients tournament player, I can testify that truer words were never spoken.
At events lasting Friday and Saturday, we had Thursday Night Rules Seminar, with players comparing postmark dates in "Letters from Phil".
Not only did we have Edition 5, we had 5.2. Ask DBM players too, and they will reluctantly agree. DBM 2.4

1. New to miniature war-gaming.

The last thing you should be teaching someone new to war gaming is a complicated set of rules, they will likely be turned off.

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.

You are simply going to have to handhold them through a game. Its not fun and is actually a teaching exercise, not a game. The objective is to see if that player has enough interest in learning the rules, after which they can study the rules.

I am modestly more optimistic than pfmodel about 2's and 3's, but we may have different concepts of "complicated." My 3's seemed to be having fun--they all wanted another turn--but perhaps the rules didn't rate as complicated.

About 1's, he's quite right: first you learn simple rules, then (perhaps) you learn complicated ones. You might use actual mechanisms from a more complicated set, provided those mechanisms are simple.

Complication is partly perceived rather than totally absolute. Once you spend the man hours to learn DBM then you might think an 8 year old could understand them.

Complete beginners are likely to find complication where an experienced gamer recognises common mechanics.

I personally try and avoid complicated games. I'm more interested in the social interaction than wrangling wordage.

Adding complication is human nature especially when there's little or no reason not to.

I am modestly more optimistic than pfmodel about 2's and 3's, but we may have different concepts of "complicated." My 3's seemed to be having fun--they all wanted another turn--but perhaps the rules didn't rate as complicated.

The new gamers learning can have fun, but the teacher may not. After all if you are going to convince someone to learn complex rules, you better make certain they are having fun, even if you are not. However i think the future is simple rules.
I used to be a complex rules junkie, Corps Commander, Challenger and other similar rules were my bread and butter, but these days just I want a simple set of rules to teach new players. This is one reason why I have spent so much time converting simple and popular board games into a figure gaming format. These simple rules can be taught after 1 or 2 game turns to a new gamer. For serious gaming I will revert back to more complex rules, but even when you know a set of complex rules you need to keep on playing them to ensure you don't forget critical rules. I have had several DBMM/DBM games, to only later realise I had forgotten a critical rule, earlier in the game, which swung the game in a strange direction. On the other hand that could be because I am getting old.

We've all forgotten important rules.
And the flip side the rules lawyers who win by exploiting minutiae in the rules.

Complicated rules for me happen when we try to
Turn up the resolution too much.
Give tbe players too many hats to wear.

Don't recognise what's necessary and how to achive it.
We can produce accurate mechanics if we understand the subject and fold details into one process.

Also in system design. We can design mechanics that are simpler and intuitive. Then the interaction of choices produces a complex and engaging environment rather than a complicated system.

I've been put of multiple rules sets, ones that j know be cause of the bandwidth and processes needed to produce a single result.

That's me OPMMV

pfmodel I think there is a world of diffrence between those who want to play lots of periods at the same time, so want simple rules as they have many sets to remember and too litle time to engage with the improved representation of more targeted rules.
For those of us who play the same period for, literally decades at a time. For them more representative rules, slightlyy longer, but still not detailed, but enough to bring out a certain level of fidelity, not available in in over simplified rules is a must.

The aims and objectives are not the same between the two camps, both equally valid but diffrent.

I personally don't subscribe to the "Complex" term as I feel it is inaccurate. Rather some rules are "over simplified" more suited to the casual player of a period, rather than a fully devoted period enthusiast.

some rules are "over simplified" more suited to the casual player

Those are the rules with lots of details and steps. For a given warfare concept, the more stuff in the rules, the simpler the bits become.

Removing randomness is another good way to simplify rules that cover a specific topic.

So let's look at a new player who has never played a miniatures war game and what they bring to the table. What is his reality about war, and what are his expectations for a game?

He's most likely watched many war movies. That means he has at least the basic knowledge of the differences between tanks, wheeled vehicles, guns, ships, infantry, and planes. He's observed that the action and movement are simultaneous.

He may also have come to the wrong conclusion that hand grenades explode like a 500lb napalm bomb, that all gunfire is on automatic, and hardly needs to be reloaded. He may also have the wrong impression that infantry always advances into withering fire when ordered.

His observation in the movies is that the action is simultaneous, units are almost always active, and doing something. When they get shot at, they immediately react by shooting back or seeking cover and don't stand up in the open waiting to see what happens when the enemy is finished shooting.

He's seen units issue an order or assign an objective and move off to execute their order, and doesn't have to be continually reminded a dozen times throughout the movie what they are supposed to be doing (always some exceptions).

Also embedded in him, as it is in all humans, is the natural and intuitive way to react to make a decision, evaluate a situation, and determine what to do to find a solution or fix a problem. Let's call it the OODA Loop.

I think we can agree on most of the above, and I'm sure there are factors you could add. OK, now here is where I'm probably going to start stepping on people's toes.

The first item in instructing is to tell the player that the normal and intuitive way of doing things (his natural OODA Decision Loop) is now invalid. From that point on, you are complicating things because you are going to be injecting artificial and abstracted rules that he's probably never heard about, that only in the most imaginative way, do they simulate what he's seen in movies and maybe documentaries.

The first step in the instructions for the game is explaining IGYG and initiative determination. Now you have completely invalidated everything he brought to the table, he had right. He knows that enemies don't take turns shooting and moving and that they don't call a truce to meet in the middle of the battlefield to roll the dice to determine who will go first in the next turn.

Yes, I understand it is just a game and there is no right or wrong way to play it. I'm just making an observation and relating my own experience, and I'm sure many others have used WWII miniature rules. The point I'm trying to make is that when you start teaching the typical game rules to a new player, you are complicating and interfering with his natural and intuitive OODA Decision Loop process and what he perceives to be real (whether he is right or wrong).

My first experience with WWII miniatures was at a convention in CA. I was going to be part of a play test group for a game with a renowned war game designer running the game. Cool! The 28mm miniatures and terrain were first class, and I was really impressed.

A section of British infantry was crossing a clearing when a German MG42 opened up on them. The German player was told to roll eight dice. Now, being a former member of a Marine Rifle Squad in the early 1970s (much of our equipment and tactics were still WWII vintage) with responsibilities up to a Squad Leader, I politely asked, "Don't the British get to react by hitting the deck?" Which I thought was a logical question, to which the GM replied, "No, it's not their turn yet." So I took a deep breath and decided to go along with pretending for the sake of the game.

Five years later, I was putting on a game for the ACW Battle of the Crater at a convention. Previously, I had never played an ACW Civil War game in miniatures or a board game. I researched the battle to understand the historical objectives and tactics. I even made the real flags for each regiment and had their real commander names.

I used one-minute turns. A moving regiment would put a movement marker in front of the formation, showing they were going to move 100 to 300 yards during the one-minute turn. Regiments not under fire could move up to 300 yards per turn. Under fire 200 yards. A player could choose to move 100 yards and reload.

The movement markers were the distance the unit would be moving. So the 300 yard marker was 3x the length of the 100 yard marker. Each marker had six incremental markers equally spaced along the marker showing the distance move in 10 seconds. When measuring the range, we measured to the increment that matched to game turn in seconds. Nothing complicated.

Veteran units' muskets fired two rounds per minute, and the other units one round per minute.

Cannons fired two rounds per minute if not under fire and one round per minute under fire.

The game's moving, shooting, and order actions were synchronized within the one-minute turn in a very playable and intuitive way. There were no traditional IGYG rules were used. There were no rules to read. The players determined their units' movement and shooting. There were a few actions he needed to record.

If a player put his Regimental Commander at the front of the formation, he had a chance of motivating them to move 300 yards while under fire, but he could become a casualty for exposing himself. Leading from the rear, he was safe, but the order changes were delayed until the next one-minute turn.

Shooting and moving were synchronized without any additional rules. There were no initiative rules needed. Players were focused on the best tactic to use and whether risking their commanders was worth taking a chance. If under fire, they could use cautious movement of 100 yards rather than 200 yards to decrease casualties. I had a chart for the gunfire results.

At one point, the Confederate players saw that the Union would assault in just over one minute. They reloaded and held fire until the Union assault was at point-blank range and poured a devastating volley into them.

As the GM, I announced the turns in 20-second increments where the musket volleys and cannon fire took place. At the end of a one-minute turn, all Regiments with a movement marker were moved the distance shown on the marker and were again placed in front of their formation, unless they halted.

The game turns moved quickly and smoothly, with players focusing on the action and tactics and not the typical rules. The same game designer I encountered with his WWII game was a player in this game too. After the game he complimented me on the game system and how smooth and realistic it was.

Now, you may say that they were playing a simulation and not a game. OK, so what? Computer simulations, like tank video games, are easy to play because the player performs actions just as they would on a real battlefield. I'm not stating that they are historically accurate because we all know they aren't. However, the graphics are great, and the gameplay is simple, resulting in immediate gratification. You can use a game that has more details and complexity and put more time into it to get a better historical result or perspective, resulting in delayed gratification. The choice is yours.

Simple one-page rules can also result in immediate gratification by eliminating the complexity of more detailed and historically accurate rule sets. It's a tradeoff.

I like my system because it aligns with how players are used to performing actions, and movement is perceived to be simultaneous. You get historic rates of fire and do not need the additional complexity of opportunity fire rules.

If the concept works for ACW, it should work for any period of history using large formations. I've used it for WWI and modern AFV combat, resulting in historic engagement times and rates of fire, and infantry with man-to-man 28mm or fire team/sections. I've also used it for ship-to-ship combat from WWI to modern naval warfare. It works because the players' natural OODA Decision Loop can be recreated without a lot of complexity, and it is pertinent at any level or period of combat. I think I can get it to work for air combat too.

My into for a game is no more than 10 minutes that includes a sample of moving, shooting and tactics. Each player has a data card for their unit that tells them the historical tactics and risk-reward tactical decisions and how to use them.

In my experience, complexity comes from abstracted and artificial rules that generate more rules and exceptions, piling on more complexity as you try to include more detail.

With that being said, my observation in the miniatures world is that the different methods and variations of IGYG, card activations, etc., generate the type of gameplay that most players prefer. After all, it's just a game, and there are an infinite number of ways to design or customize a game.

Wolfhag

He's most likely watched many war movies. That means he has at least the basic knowledge of the differences between tanks, wheeled vehicles, guns, ships, infantry, and planes. He's observed that the action and movement are simultaneous.

Not sure this is a good start. I grew up in my pre-teen and teens reading Books on Tanks and Books on WW2 and to a much lesser extent war movies, and in the UK in war movies action was often a bit short and certainly even at that age the tanks were clearly not German on the German side so no help to those interested in the real world. The myth of the "Hollywood" 6 shooter extended to WW2 films. Few in the UK took them as even a pretense of history, ripping yarns yes, but that was it.

So that really undermines much of the text that follows.

While I have no issue with playing however you want I certainly think other mechanisms have their merits and in my experience beginners do not struggle to comprehend the systems.

Yet again I look at real world simulations, many use a time step to control there analysis, particularly when covering extended period. Hell in our campaigns we often negociate longer time intervals when neither side wants to do anything significant for a period of hours.

In my experience, complexity comes from abstracted and artificial rules that generate more rules and exceptions, piling on more complexity as you try to include more detail.

That is just bad rules, artificial rules are a nightmare and should be avoided. Hell in rules is the complex chants that go on when deciding whether an element should do things. They often get an implausible answer.

I think there is a world of difference between those who want to play lots of periods at the same time, so want simple rules as they have many sets to remember and too litle time to engage with the improved representation of more targeted rules.

This is very true, when i game with similar experienced players on a regular basis i wanted more detail and complexity. Unfortunately my old gaming comrades are passing away or have poor health, which does make me rather sad. These days i am mainly interested in getting new players. Different methods but similar objectives – i just wanted to see figures on a playing area and have a game which i enjoy.

Usha the diplkmat strikes again! 😉

"So that really undermines much of the text that follows"

Wolfhag is a Yank so his experiences may differ from yours as a "Brit"

Of course experiences differ I'm a brit grew up in the 70s and my initial experience was indeed ww2 movies, as well as play with my 1/35 airfix dad had painted for me and we played with little wars style. Reading came later.
I think you should appreciate that your own experience is valid to you and can't always be extrapolated from. Your experience, interests and approach is pretty niche, even amoung gamers.
Nothing wrong with that but accept it. 😉🤷

"That is just bad rules, artificial rules are a nightmare and should be avoided"

Yes no. It can be more than a bad iteration of a concept. The concept can be bad… or at best not suitable for what kne is trying to achive.
If one is wanting to use the OODA cycle… there's no way to make that fit with a IGYG appraoch.

All rules are abstract and artifical. The distinction is in how we apply it.

Those abstractions and artifical elements should IMO help represent the things we want to model. That also makes for quicker and more intuitive play.

This issues is too often we see rules that make them to fit in with the expectations and conciets of what and how "games" function.

Yes almost everyone understands game concepts but if that dominates other factors, it's problem, for me.

I think what we are all searching for is detail without complexity. Unfortunately, more detail normally involves more rules and dice roll modifiers.

Everyone brings their own experiences, expectations, and prejudices, which is how we select what rules we'll play or design. A newbie normally has very low ones. A simple IGYG game where the GM tells him what to do should work. It is also an easy way to have a game at a convention with players who have a wide variety of experience. Normally, it's the monos and terrain setup that determines which game to play.

If one is wanting to use the OODA cycle… there's no way to make that fit with a IGYG approach.

Absolutely. I tried and failed.

When designing IGYG type games, you end up needing special rules and receptions, especially to model opportunity fire realistically. A Time Competitive game using ODDA Loop Action Timing to execute orders does not.

In many games, a die roll is used to see if you have a chance to execute an action. Theoretically, that can abstractly simulate timing, where it can take 1-3 turns to execute an action. However, anomalies can occur because of poor die rolling. Example: A unit activates on a 1-4, but 5 times in a row, the player rolls a 5 or 6. You can make up a variety of reasons as to why it happened.

In an OODA Loop Time Competitive system, a player chooses an action or order to issue. He then rolls a D6 on hs unit data card to see how long it will take to execute. So you can do whatever you want, but it will take some time to execute. There are fewer artificial and abstracted rules and exceptions. Firing at moving targets works smoothly without additional rules and exceptions, too. With fewer rules and exceptions, it is easier to teach.

Wolfhag

I draw a distinction between complex and complicated.

Many simple situations, games etc can be complex, in the sense of a variety of choices, interactions and outcomes.

As you say too often "detail" leads to complicated systems to mimic them.

Beating my old drum, but that's because the defaultnis to use established ideas of how games work or how they need to operate.

Ans again as you say as once one assumption is made, IGYG, results randomised by numeric dice etc. Abstractions that then require more and more abstractions to operate in that frame work.

We're, as you say, playing and designing tbe games we want.
The thing is, those stepping outside the convention know what we're not wanting to do and what we're trying get away from.
🙂