prog | (no subject)

Even in this startup mode, I think I need to take a day off at least once a week. Yesterday was that day for me, though I refused to admit it until bedtime. After the shoot I returned home to work, and while I did do a little I mostly farted around online for 10 hours. (Some of that was me diving headfirst into the /davis_?square/ mess, which I actually consider to be time well spent, but mostly it was around-farting.)

Oo oo I just got a good idea for a Gamshelf side-project: Jmac's Guide to Teaching Games. A short video illustrating my personal principles of good board game teaching, contrasted with my observations of well-meaning-but-ineffective teaching. This was inspired by a thread on BGG where I witnessed people complaining about how nobody ever listens when they teach a game by reading its rules out loud, to which I say, "You're reading the rules of a game out loud?!"

I would like to use a "goofus and gallant" format, but am not sure whether I should be in one role, or both, or neither. The most "obvious" choice to me involves me playing the Good Teacher and casting "evil jmac" (me w/ glued-on goatee or Dali 'stache or something) as the Bad Teacher but that's kind of a tired joke so I don't know.

It would be entirely scripted, making it a fun new challenge for me. (The Gameshelf's host segments are only lightly scripted, which is unfortunately evidenced by the thus-far strained nature of my monologues. I need to improve this.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I know at least one person whose approach to teaching games is often to read the rules out loud, and I've found that it's not such a bad approach after all, and have occasionally adopted that approach myself. The reasoning is that, there's no a priori reason to assume that the person teaching the game can come up with a more clear and concise explanation of the rules, improvised on the spot, than what's contained in the actual published rulebook. Of course, the manner of reading can be a help or hinderance. Varied vocal inflection, occasional pauses to let things sink in or even for some discussion of what was just read, and judicious skipping of redundant material, can be helpful.

The reasoning is that, there's no a priori reason to assume that the person teaching the game can come up with a more clear and concise explanation of the rules, improvised on the spot, than what's contained in the actual published rulebook.

I consider the rules to exist primarily as an ultimate reference that's handy to have at the table. As far as teaching rules goes, though, I see the rulebook more as a "seed" that imparts the game's rules to one who hasn't had the opportunity to be taught the game by someone else. Person-to-person game-teaching can and should be a far more interactive experience than a textbook lecture.

I know that when I want to play, nothing is more boring than being read to, especially when there are happy colorful bits lying around. This leads to the BGG thread of people honestly confused why their dumb newbie friends would rather stack their meeples into pyramids than listen to them read the rules. There is hostility there towards people who say "How about we just start and I'll pick it up," which is unfortunate, since this is exactly what I usually say when I find myself stuck listening to someone earnestly recite a rulesheet at me.

My approach avoids either situation by using the game's bits to improvise illustrations as you go over the rules, which is significantly less boring than plain reading.