|
|
|
|
Greg J. Schloesser: Old Gamers Tales
We’ve all heard such bits of advice as:
“An apple a day keeps the doctor away.�
“It is bad luck to open an umbrella indoors.�
“It is bad luck to break a mirror.�
“If you blow out all of the candles on your first puff, you will get your wish.�
There are literally hundreds – if not thousands – of such sayings, which are commonly known as “old wives tales�. Some of them may have a grain of truth hidden somewhere deep in the past, but most likely arose from some illogical connection made by a superstitious individual. Still, the sayings persist to this day, and even have their adherents.
Our hobby of board gaming is not immune to such sayings. Some of these may, indeed, bear merit, while others are more dubious. I’ll focus on one of the most popular here:
“The game plays quicker with experience.�
This seems to be the common response whenever someone complains that a game has taken too long to play to completion. Someone – and sometimes a publisher – inevitably chimes-in that the game will play quicker with experience. At face value, this seems like a logical statement. Players experienced with a particular game will likely spend less time discussing or referring to the rules, and will gain a better understanding of the mechanisms and strategies involved. That just has to save some time.
There are some problems, however, with this blanket statement. Most of the time, my repeat playings of a game will involve one or more players who are new to the game. This means they have not yet learned the game’s rules, strategies and nuances. Thus, they will take a bit longer on their turns than the experienced players, greatly mitigating any savings in time provided by the experienced players. It is truly rare when I sit down to a game where every player is thoroughly experienced with it.
Further, experience with a game can have the opposite effect. I will grant that in many games, repeated play by the same group of players will result in a shorter playing time. Often, however, the opposite could occur if these players take time to explore various strategies and probe the depths of a game.
Another question I pose is “How much time is actually saved?� While the experience of some individuals will likely vary, I have found that repeated experience with a particular game doesn’t shave-off much time at all. My games of El Grande still take 2 hours or so, which is about the same that it took the very first time I played. The same can be said for the vast majority of games I have played multiple times. There certainly are exceptions, but for the most part, this holds true.
The final point I must state is possibly more isolated to my own experience. I simply do not play a particular game enough times in rapid succession to become an expert. Thus, I really don’t experience a significant reduction in playing time due to proficiency.
As a result of my personal experiences, I am often quite dubious whenever someone offers the “it will play quicker with experience� defense. Nearly a dozen years of experience has taught me otherwise.
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!|
I think that oftentimes the quote is used to really mean: “The game plays *better* with experience.” The first play of a game can often seem longer and somewhat painful as rules are clarified, critical mistakes are unknowingly made, and various potential moves are discussed aloud by the newcomers to the game (or by the folks helping out the newcomers). My first games of relatively long games like E&T, Age of Steam, and Caylus were fairly long drawn out games, without me really having a sense for what was going on in those games until halfway through (or in the case of E&T, after) the game. Taking Caylus as an example, the first dozen or so games were almost always played with someone new to the game, and took close to 3 hours, yet they were very enjoyable. Playing Caylus now is a little faster (still usually 2 hours), but that’s not really the issue...it’s better than it was the first time. Tempus had the opposite effect: the 2nd play of the game convinced me that this just wasn’t my kind of game, even though it went faster (and I won...hee hee). On a related note, the whole idea that length is bad is a curious issue. I tend to shy away from games that have a stated time of more than 2 hours, in part because if I really don’t like the game early on, I’m committed to a lot of time to continue playing it. But other than that, I usually spend 4-5 hours at minimum at a gaming session, so should it matter that all of that time is one game if I’m enjoying myself? I stopped tracking my games played on BGG for several months, thinking that I was giving myself some sort of artificial pressure to play more games, but that didn’t change my gaming preferences at all (and I spent an awful lot of time trying to recreate my games played list when I realized that, yuck). Given the choice of learning a new game, everything else being equal, I will always pick the shorter game. Posted by Ted Alspach on Aug 20, 2006 at 12:31 PM | #
|
|
I played two games yesterday, Canalmania and Tempus that are both running about two hours, about a half-hour longer than I’d like. I think, in time, Canalmania will speed up as people learn the map and the routes, I think Tempus will slow down as players start realizing all their options, so it really depends on the type of game (and players, of course). Posted by Ward Batty on Aug 20, 2006 at 01:13 PM | #
|
|
A very good point, but I often include the rules explanation in the time it takes to play a game. After everyone knows how to play, you save 5 to 30 minutes right there. This usually makes sense to me as we have a limited time to play a game and I need to find a game that will fit within that timeframe - rather than the more nebulous measurement of how much time people are willing to put forth on a particular game. I shy away from anything longer than 2 hours since most of my gaming sessions are weeknights and thus cap out at about 3 hours (typically 7-10pm Mondays). I know that anything longer than a 2 hour game will just be very hard to bring to the table. All that said, I still like some longer games, just don’t get to play them much. Posted by Matt J. Carlson on Aug 20, 2006 at 01:17 PM | #
|
|
Look before you leap, he who hesitates is lost. Both true, but not at the same time. Likewise this and its opposite. I did recently play in an about 30 minute game of Puerto Rico. From shrinkwrap. Experience certainly helped there. Posted by Christopher Dearlove on Aug 20, 2006 at 03:04 PM | #
|
|
Not playing with a new person to the game is an experience that doesn’t occur for me often. Many of our group (and me chief among them) love trying new games. When we do play a game without going through the rules, it can lead to completely different feelings about a game. For example, I’d written off Power Grid as a game that I enjoy, but last week, someone wanted to try it. Four of us sat down and we had to clarify the trigger points for the phases, but otherwise we jumped in and played. It’s not in my top ten, but I do enjoy the game. As far as playing faster with experienced, I am a believer in this adage. Looking up stuff in the rules seems quick, but if you do it once a round, it adds up. I understand your point that players may think longer about strategies once they have a handle on the mechanics. However, the groups with whom I play tend to at least try to exercise strategy even when playing for the first time as opposed to “let’s just move here and see what happens.” (I move stuff or try different actions just to see what happens, but many of my group won’t. Posted by Scott Russell on Aug 21, 2006 at 11:36 AM | #
|
Next entry: Valerie Putman: Snoopy Dance worthy games!
Previous entry: New Version of Jenseits von Theben Coming from Queen

































