That’s an interesting question Eric.  I am usually in the position of teaching games myself, often games I have played a mountain-load of times, in many of the games I teach in this way I am beaten.  What does this say about those games...well, I never really try and hammer a player in the first game they play - I don’t think it is fair to expect them to make equivilant value assessments in a game until they have experienced it somewhat for themselves.  During teaching games I try and explain why I am making the choices I am, and what other choices I could have made and why I didn’t make them, I don’t do this every round for every choice though - I do usually want the other player to enjoy themselves!  I also try and help them with any questions they have on their turn - even if the answers to them are going to be detrimental to my performance in-game.

Hmm - having said all that about the teaching of games, what do I think of games where a player can win despite a defecit of experience...well, obviously some games (more abstract style games) are particularly harsh on players unfamiliar with how the game works and viable strategies.  Other games range from being easier to read (or having more limited choices) and thus allowng new players to quickly form a basis from which they can judge accurately, which choices are better and which worse.  Or games that have a high instance of luck. 

Usually games have a mix of the two - accessibility and luck.  Truly in answer to the question, it will depend on the game - a high luck game where choices make little impact isn’t going to please me, but an accessible game with some luck isn’t something I will despise.

In truth, whether a newbie wins a game isn’t going to influence my liking or disliking of the game, what will affect my liking of a game is whether I think the game contained so much luck that despite the choices of ANY players - the randomness selected the winner.

Yspahan is game I’ve lost quite a few times to new players, do I think it is a bad game because of it?  No - there are meaningful choices to be made, and while there is some luck in the game it is also accessible to new players - and value assessments can be made early enough for new players to start thinking competitively and not fall so far behind they will be crushed.

In the end it comes back to the old: ‘It depends on the game’...and really, it does!

Cheers.

Giles.

Interesting question Eric.  Here are a few more follow up questions to consider.

1.  Does a someone teaching the game to a first time player or players “take it easy” on the the new players and not take full advantage of their knowledge and experience with a game and making the experience for new players better by giving them a chance or at least a close game.

I have to admit that there are occasions where I probably do this.  Maybe you take your turns faster to help keep the pace of the game moving.  Maybe you don’t look at your next move quite as thoughtfully in order to provide your new opponent(s) a fighting chance.

2.  Can some basic familiarity with the game cause you to out think yourself against new players?  I have noticed when teaching a new game that I’m experienced with and others I will tend to think I know what I’m doing and have just enough knowledge regarding strategy and tactics to be dangerous.

If I’m comfortable with the rules and mechanics after my first play so when I teach the game the 2nd or 3rd time around, I’m a little too smart for my own good and try a strategy or move that seems like it should work and give me a huge edge, but doesn’t.  Meanwhile the new players are all playing in a straightforward and obvious manner and passing me by as I “get cute” and I lose.

I think the major issue with new games/players are the ones that are only balanced when players are playing within the boundaries of “acceptable play”.

Many auction games fall into this category.  Letting players win bids far too cheaply or (in the case where players pay each other for auctions) far too costly can unbalance a game.

However, there is plenty of room for learning from new players trying things out… Twice now I have considered new players “out of their mind” for bidding as high as they do in the first round of Medici, and then they go on to jump out to a solid early lead in the game because of it… Clearly I have room to learn how to evaluate Medici bids.

I’m the guy Eric played.
Thanks for the Ron Paul plug!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
I wasn’t that experienced.  I had played the version solo twice, and then twice with my son, who had such a random approach that it was hard for me to strategize.  It’s definitely a game of outguessing your opponent.  And up until playing with Eric, the game had not really clicked with me. I.e. I couldn’t see specific strategies.  Eric’s run up the coast to burn me out of fuel before dashing in got me excited about the game, since I could start to see how strategies could be constructed that I hadn’t thought about before. 

Eric shouldn’t feel bad.  Despite my experience, he outplayed me plain and simple.

I tend to give lots of advice to newbies when I am teaching a game, so I am not surprised when I am beat by newbies.  Although if the stetement is made when the game is played without “coaching,” it may have some legitimacy.

Although, I recall my first game of Princes of FLorence against some experienced players and if I’d reversed order on two actions, I’d have won.  That left me thinking that there could be something wrong with the game.  Fortunately, I’ve played since and had my butt handed to me by superior players.  That restored my belief that it’s a meaty game. :)

Another take is that if you have played the game several times, but always with the same group, it’s quite possible that a newbie could fix on an approach that hadn’t been tried before, because of group-think.  Fortunately, my normal groups usually include someone trying alternate (or crazy) strategies on principle.

Experience shouldn’t be the only factor that differentiates winners from losers.  A game could tap into a particular skill set (like seeing spatial relationship patterns or calculating the long term value of a commodity) that the newer player excels at.  There are some games that we “get” from the beginning and there are some games that we never wrap our brains around.

I’ve heard several times how game teachers (including myself) tend to lose more frequently than usual when teaching newbies.  I think there are a few possible reasons for this:

1) The teacher assumes the newbies won’t see certain strategies / options and does not put as much effort into charting a path to victory as usual,

2) The newbies, being newbies, play the game differently than the ‘accepted’ way the teacher is expecting; the teacher’s strategy, based on a no-longer-existing metagame goes down to defeat, or

3) The newbies possibly subconsciously) preferentially target the teacher with their actions instead of other players because they assume the teacher (who has played before) is the greater threat.

If any of the above are true, then the contention “I won playing against experienced players, ergo the game sucks” holds no water.

Plus, Valerie’s comment above is well worth considering.  Sometimes, a person just groks a game right out of the chute and bypasses the newbie flailing about that I seem to make a habit of.  In a case like that, you can’t possibly blame the game for the end result.

pk

Just because you are experienced playing a particular game doesn’t mean you are going to play well.

//I am living proof of that.

Patrick,

I’d add that as a game teacher I often devote a fair amount of mental attention to what the players are doing, whether there are particular rules they may have forgotten, thinking about how I could clarify something that is apparently confusing them.  I also tend to take moves more quickly than I would ‘normally’ because it is a learning game and I want to complete the experience.  I’d add these as two more legitimate reasons that a new player may beat an experienced one at a game.

Brian;

Good points.  I think we’ve established that teaching games is an uphill battle when it comes to winning! :)

pk

I cannot count how many 1st times I have lost a game. I usually do. I also tend to lose when someone else is having their first play.

All that being said, the chaos a group of players who are new to a game, or even just one new player, introduces to a game tends to make it truly a learning game for all, and there is no basis for how easy a game is to win or lose based on just one play.

I’m certain there are exceptions to the rule, but they are rare.

I’m going to throw my hat in the ring and chalk this situation up to cognitive interferance.  The splainer is not only playing the game, but also teaching the game and ingaging in “meta-splaining” (thinking about and evaluating how well he is teaching the game), as well as trying to judge whether the new player is enjoying his or her self.  These are a lot of things to consider while playing and may well impair the splainer’s normal performance.

OK, most hear seem to _not_ consider it a problem to win their first time, for various legitimate reasons, so I’ll speak up on the other side (agreeing with the person who commented on Brass), even if I’m late to the discussion.

For certain types of games - primarily low-luck, high-complexity games - I consider it a very bad sign if I win the first time I play, and I’ll be less likely to play the game again if this happens.

Caveats:

* If I’m playing against other people new to the game, I’m happy to overlook it.

* If the experienced players are giving me lots of advice, I’m more open to overlooking it.

* If the other players are experienced but not particularly strong players, I’m open to overlooking it.

Why does it bother me?  There are a number of possible issues which may be hiding behind such an occurance:

* It may mean there’s more luck than generally believed.

* It may mean that there’s a clear path in the game.

* It may mean there’s more chaos in the game than generally believed.

I feel that for such games, I should lose the first time out.  Ideally, I want to still be learning about a game the 10th, 100th, and 1000th time I play it - and a game I win the first time out is less likely to be such a game.

Joe Huber wrote: “For certain types of games - primarily low-luck, high-complexity games - I consider it a very bad sign if I win the first time I play, and I’ll be less likely to play the game again if this happens.”

Joe, can you give examples of games where this has occurred? And have you revisited those games since your initial victory? Just curious what might have resulted in follow-up games.

I just realized that I merged different subjects in this piece: (1) a single teacher losing to new players and (2) a single new player winning against experienced players. Most people commented on the former situation (as did I), while the quote about Brass and Joe’s comment fall in the latter group. Sorry for the confusion!

Joe also wrote: “I feel that for such games, I should lose the first time out.”

While I agree with this to some degree, I wouldn’t necesarily be surprised to win and I wouldn’t consider the game deficient because of it. As Valerie mentioned, some people understand certain types of games better than others; another factor is that experienced players might go easy on the new player assuming that he’s less of a threat. Now that would never be the case with Joe, so we’ll have to look for other answers here!

Eric