Månedens bruger: Jens Hoppe - april 2010

[Jens_Hoppe]

Hvilke spil regner du som perlerne i din samling?

Tja, det er vel primært de spil jeg synes er gode, kombineret lidt med samlerværdien og sjældenheden, eller den generelle "awesomeness" af visse spil.

Jeg ser det som de spil jeg i første omgang ville prøve at redde hvis huset brændte, så det kunne f.eks. være

- Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
- 1830
- Titan (AH edition)
- War of the Ring (monsterudgaven, selvfølgelig)
- Civilization
- ASL
- Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective
- Space Hulk 3rd ed.

[Frouvne]

Her på falderebet kunne jeg godt tænke mig, at høre lidt mere om dine erfaringer som regelforklarer. Du udmærker dig nemlig som en rigtig god regelforklarer, og det kunne jo være rart (ikke mindst for andre) om man kunne drage nytte af det. Har du en bestemt skabelon du bruger, tænker du inden du skal redegøre for reglerne over, hvordan det vil være mest hensigtsmæssigt at gribe det an med netop dette spil etc.? Kort sagt: Har du nogle gode tips og tricks, det er værd at give videre?

[Jens_Hoppe]

Håber det er ok at jeg citerer mig selv fra en kommentar jeg skrev til et blog-indlæg...

As a general principle, I always start with the big picture – try to build up a general “skeleton” of the game, so to speak, upon which to hang all the details I am going to introduce later on. For that reason, a phrase that can always be heard when I explain rules (often several times during an explanation!) is “I’ll get back to that later on in more detail!”

Like Werbaer I usually describe the components early on, eg. “so, the board consists of a number of regions, you can see Europe here in the middle, and the various other regions – Africa, India, and so on placed around it”. I find that if players have an idea what they are looking at, the rules are often easier to digest. For that reason, I always unpack a game so all the components are visible before I begin my explanation.

While I might mention in general terms how one wins a game (and how it ends), I usually wait with the specifics until later on in the explanation. Going into details early on is detrimental, since a new player doesn’t know any other rules and terms that provide the context for those details.

As for strategy hints, it depends: If the rulebook lists some, I might go through those briefly. “Hey, the rulebook has a few hints, d’you wanna hear them?” Also, if I am familiar with gameplay and the other players aren’t, I don’t mind describing in general terms what the game *is about*. For instance, I’ve explained Homesteaders a couple of times now, and the second time I ended my explanation telling the players that “yes, this is very much an ‘economic development’ game, and it’s going to escalate a lot: It’ll be slow going for a couple of turns, and then things will start to take off. Also note that the buildings that become available for the last two turns score BIG points compared with the ones that come before, so be ready for them”.

So, for me it’s more or less

1. Story/theme
2. General overview / big picture / goals described in general terms
3. Components
4. Rules details. Going by the sequence of play if possible.
5. Possibly a couple of sentences giving a general overview of strategy.