Oh, man. I love teaching Age of Steam, and have probably done it 20 times. We always just used a house rule where newbies could take extra loans during the turn during the first two turns (though we still encouraged them to do the up-front calculation right from the start, just to get used to it and see how badly off they were). Given those minor training wheels, I never saw a new player go bankrupt, even when playing stupidly brutal setups like Northern California with 4 players.
The only game I can think of where new players are a show stopper for me is Avalon Hill’s Titan. Won’t teach it, won’t even play unless everyone has played at least 10 times before. It’s just so pointless and tedious unless everyone has a decent understanding of the systems and is proficient at the basic mechanical aspects like reading the map. Of course this means that I never get to play it with anyone. It would be great to get the old university Titan gang back together for a game or two, but that’s just not going to happen. Still, better to keep those memories intact than have yet another disappointing newbie game.
Let me just interject here that I hate this way of thinking. A guy who went by the BGG name Alexfrog (and as far as I’m concerned popularized this sort of thing) was involved with my regular game group during PR’s heyday. Nice guy, but mostly hated playing with him. If you think you’ve figured out ‘optimal’ play for a game, and that a newbie that doesn’t grok that is ‘ruining the game’, you can fuck right off.
I’m basically in the same boat as @Nesrie here. A new player wants to play, we are happy to invite them in, give them tips if they ask for it, and play the damn game. It might not be the perfect example of play, but perhaps we learn a new strategy outside of our groupthink, perhaps not. Hopefully we’ve gained a new member for the group by treating them with respect.
I don’t know how I made myself out to be such an asshole player. I’m happy to teach a new player any of these games if they ask. As I said, they’re among my favorite games, and getting new players to play them is fantastic! I think new players should know that these type of games take a few plays to be fun so I caution people who want to check them out. Some games are better with first time players then others. There’s tons of games out there and you should be prioritizing the games that fit your gaming situation. I would absolutely not recommend Puerto Rico to someone who’s constantly playing with new players. The evolving group meta is the best part of that game.
I don’t know how to convince you I’m not that type of player other than to adamantly state that I’m not. I don’t lecture about optimal play or throw a fit when this happens in a game, and I’m happy to teach new players these games (assuming they understand that the first play or two might not be fun), I just happen to think different games work better with different groups.
However, Puerto Rico the game is explicitly a bad design for these types of gaming situations. Its best parts show when the same group of people are learning and timing off of each others past games and experiences. If we need to have an off-game to get someone into the groove, I’m happy to do so, but I’d warn that player it will take a few plays to blossom, and if they’d rather jump into something that’s fun right away, maybe something like Blood Rage or Nations would be a better experience.
I actually do too (and similarly allow loans at any point for the first few turns). I tend to fear it’s a negative experience for new players, so I usually suggest it while cautioning that the game feels like it hates you for your first play or two. But I’ve had much more positive new player experiences than bad ones with it.
All that said, I’m still not sure I want to teach anyone Race for the Galaxy. It’s the only game I dislike playing with new players so much the other person would have to be adamant to get me to teach it. And now that Roll for the Galaxy is out, there’s not much reason to. That game is much easier to teach, learn, and have fun with new players. Plus, if you know Roll, than learning Race is pretty easy!
It’s not that the newbie is “ruining” the game, whatever that means. The problem is that the player to his left can take advantage of the newbie and use it to get ahead of his other opponents. Which is not particularly fair to the expert players who are not to the newbie’s left. Even if you are willing to play with that asymmetry, it can lead to awkward moments during or after the game (“Hey buddy, welcome to our game group! Now sit here to my right.” or “Yeah, I came in second but I would’ve won if I had been sitting over there!”)
This is an issue that occurs only in certain games, and Puerto Rico is the classic example.
I guess my group isn’t as cutthroat as all that. As far as I know, no one has ever tried to manipulate a newb in that way. Like I said, we all play to win, even in serious games we’ve played a million times (Scepter of Zavandor, Power Grid, etc), but no one would think of taking advantage like that. Occasionally someone tries the “you really shouldn’t go after me because…” BS, but that gets called out and shut down pretty quick. ;)
The thing is that in Puerto Rico, you wouldn’t have to actively manipulate a newbie to your right. The game is structured in a way that everyone tries to stop the person on their left. Newbies can’t do this effectively, so that player’s expansion is simply unchecked. Even if you aren’t trying to be cutthroat at all, you will benefit from inaction.
Really, the only thing you can do is say “Hey buddy, you don’t wanna do that move cause it will really help me!” Now imagine you are the guy at the table who constantly decides whether or not to say that. Or worse, the other players all decide they need to speak up in order to help the newbie keep you in check. Neither sounds like much fun at all.
Zavandor and Power Grid are different, it’s random who the newbie will inadvertently benefit at any point.
I certainly can’t speak for others, but I don’t think you’re an asshole player just by what you wrote here. I just don’t think we should have games that are considered off-limits to new players. How welcoming does that even sound? Puerto Rico was maybe the 2nd or 3rd Euro game I ever owned, as a kid, gifted to me by my sister and we taught ourselves how to play. It was either that or try and go down to the local game shop which sounded about as welcoming as Dice Tower’s No Newbie list.
Yeah our goal is the same every game night, everyone should have fun. There are a lot of games that can turn sour if you have one player that approaches it in a certain way, and by that I don’t mean the new person who is figuring out… it’s usually an experienced player.
But surely if you have a choice of games, there are some you would prefer to play more than others when newbies are present? I think that was the spirit behind making that list.
Let me throw out another example: Chess. Chess is fine when evenly matched people play. But I would never suggest a match between two players with moderate differences in skill, because the better player would inevitably win. I mean, if the better chess player were interested in coaching the newbie, then it might be a valuable experience. But if they just wanted to play a game, then chess would be a waste of time compared to almost any other game.
I don’t. I honestly don’t. What we play is completely based on what everyone’s interest is at the moment. We’re mostly in our 30s-40s now. Most have had experiences with basic boardgames in the past, the rest get exposure right here for the past 3 years. One of them seems oddly scarred by Settlers actually so that one rarely comes out, but the general theme is…it’s what we want to do that night, what we’re in the mood for and if there is a new player, everyone helps teach them. It’s that simple.
If it’s a more complicated game, I have about 3-4 I might invite for a we’re going to play and learn this new game. Sometimes they pleasantly surprise me and show up with a new game they bought and say hey, can we try this tonight, and we’re usually like… sure. That’s not say I don’t have a few harder core members in the group. I do. I love it when they show up with a new Kickstarter or something I haven’t seen before. The annual game exchange party also distributes games out to everyone. I like sharing my hobby.
If someone doesn’t like board or card games at all, I am just convinced they haven’t played the right one yet or they played with the wrong people. The great aunts and uncles in my family, it’s Pinochle or Trivia Pursuit. I introduced Planet Hollywood years ago which was a favorite because guess what else they all do, watch movies and TV. I knew my audience, and it had nothing to do with skill.
Not that they are entirely related, but my gaming group is almost 100% IT. We’re not afraid to read rules and figure out mechanics. They just don’t like doing it on their own because they’re convinced if they do it wrong something horrible will happen and the wrong person wins. I tell them, if we get the rules wrong the first time… we’ll do better the second time.
Yup. Pretty much all of that, even d down to the last- I’m probably the only guy I my group not in IT (I’m a chef). But what we want to play, or who we invite, never had anything to do with whether or not there’s a new person involved. The Tuesday night group is in the gaming space at a local shop, and often there’s a new person around. If we’re starting a game, any game, and they seem interested, we invite them in. It helps that many Euro games have relatively simple rules, and little (or no) text on cards, though the strategy might be deep. Helps with leaning.
A co-op CCG does sound like an insane concept. The only reason the CCG treadmill works is the competitive environment. You need to have the latest, rarest, and most expensive cards since your opponents might have them too. For a co-op, that drive to spend arbitrary amounts of money just isn’t there, destroying the business model.
(But a co-op LCG does indeed sound totally reasonable).
Ignore your first paragraph because it doesn’t even apply. Everyone has the same cards if they bought the same sets. The progression is simply in new encounter quests that gets harder and harder. It is more or less rather a cold war arms race with the player cards versus the encounter cards. And I would argue it avoids the biggest problem with most co-op games where-in one person is running the game. Mostly because in multiple it is optimal for each player to specialize in different areas, so you have to depend on your teammates since your deck simply cannot do everything.
In solo play it is a totally different game in terms of deck construction. You want to make a deck that can rule them all. But in multiplier that same deck is usually less useful.
The first paragraph was the entire point, ignoring it totally doesn’t sound very constructive. Just to be clear: I don’t know anything about this game, don’t care about it, and wasn’t talking about it. I was just answering the question you posed of “how is this even a criticism?”. Being incredulous about the idea of a “co-op CCG” actually seems pretty reasonable. That is true even if some game is actually a LCG.
Is everyone playing supposed to buy his own set or sets? You don’t just play with one collection, like with the Arkham Horror or Warhammer Quest card games?
Personally, I don’t equate playing solitaire with playing a single character. I know games co-op games like Sentinels of the Multiverse, Eldritch Horror, Warhammer Quest, and so on are supposedly tuned to allow solitaire play as if you’d only ever want to play one character. But that sacrifices too much of what I enjoy in those games. Would I have to buy multiple sets of the Lord of the Rings LCG to play multiple characters?
Millennium Blades, a game that’s about CCG but isn’t itself a CCG, has co-op/solitaire with the recent add-on. It’s terrible. The co-op/solitaire, not Millennium Blades itself. Millennium Blades itself it kinda cool.
I said that because it doesn’t apply to the LOTR LCG at all. It is not competitive. There is no treadmill. There is no treasure hunt for the rarest and most expensive cards. AKA Ignore everything in your first paragraph because it is irrelevant. It misses the point entirely. Sorry not sorry. From Hell’s heart, etc.
Nope, you play with one set, or collection of sets. The base game supports 2 players out of the box. Die hard deck builders may buy multiple sets to get more of certain cards, but I have never read anywhere that it is a particular requirement for LOTR LCG.
The core set supports 2, but deck building is very limited out of the box, and you have 3 quests. Every “adventure” pack adds a hero, some player cards, and a quest. Deluxe boxes add 2-3 heroes, player cards, and 3 quests. There are also Saga boxes that do the same, but follow the books (The Hobbit and The Lord the Rings). There are also nightmare versions of quests you can buy, and the gencon and fellowship event print-on-demand quests. These add no new players cards and are only quests. Basically there is a metric fuckton of content so it is hard to parse now for new players.
As a long time follower of LOTR LCG it has changed a lot over the years. I have a collection up to the current cycle. (Sands of Haradrim) I can support all 4 players (max intended player count) with my collection if needed. I actually have like 10 decks. But it is always more fun if someone built their own deck or you collab and build your decks together to combat a specific quest that is difficult.
P.S. This game is FUCKING HARD. (all caps intended)
TL;DR Player support with a single collection depends on how much you buy. With only the core set it is advised for 2 players but I have played it with 4 against the easiest quest and won. (Everyone as a single sphere/color) If you build a collection you can easily support 4 players but there is the cost.
That’s nice, but again I am talking in general terms and don’t give a crap about the LOTR LCG. You were pretty clearly saying that “co-op CCG” was categorically not a valid criticism, not just that it didn’t apply to this game due to it not being a CCG:
Now, maybe you actually meant something like: “Yeah, a co-op CCG would be stupid. Luckily this is a LCG”. In that case, sorry.
