Yes, and this is where I think the context of a given game being played makes all the difference. This was a pre-scheduled game with five eager novices, none of whom had actually played the game. Had I the proper understanding, I could have helped alleviate his runaway. Those weren’t the unspoken terms of the meet. It was an outright newbie table with full teach.
But I think this has definitely exposed real nuance to the topic, since even my own individual opinion on the matter varies wildly depending on what “the table” looks like.
I think this is a tricky one. On the one hand, I feel like it is great to know more and better ways to win a game, particularly if luck is more involved (say Splendor, or even Twilight Struggle, where the luck of the draw has specific weight).
But on the other hand, in our game group we have a guy that loves to talk about the strategies of the game, even as he is finding them through a first play. On some occasions, I did not mind that, but during other games, he gave away my strategy, or spoiled the experience somehow by affecting the meta game (other players are more aware of how important is a given resource in a worker placement, for example). That I definitely did not enjoy.
I think I do not mind talking strategies much outside of an actual play, but sometimes, during play, it can be a bummer.
Manipulating other players through convincing them you have a better grasp of strategy, whether that’s true or not, can be annoying.
If the other players are able to accurately judge for themselves whether it’s true, then it’s not really a problem. Then the manipulation and the false claims fall away, and you just get real talk about the game.
I am pretty dim at strategy so discussing is a great bonding experience. It’s still cool when a player drops the hammer unannounced and we all go… Ooooohhhh…
If you are a master with a game and teaching others then a few pointers seem only fair.
Generally speaking I think unsolicited strategy discussion is most definitely a spoiler (especially people discussing your best strategic move right as you’re trying to decide what happens on your own turn) but pointers as to good options as you get started so as to avoid miserable times are not.
However there is a continuum between the two and sometimes what’s intended as one can come across as the other
A long time ago someone taught me the game Bullfrog Goldfield and shared some hints. The main thing was pointing out that railways and mines was one was early game and one late game in terms of returns and focus. It was appreciated by me and the other new player.
I feel like it’s strategy on a technicality. It’s a core thing to talk about what a lot of games do with an inflection point. The teacher gave no more information but did tell is that an inflection point exists. For me at the time it struck the balance well, however I’m not sure it’d suit all games or groups. With Antiquity as another example telling new players that being stuck without wood is probably fatal seems to me like a good thing to do but presumably not everyone would appreciate. it seems intellectually like some basic mistakes are not worth pointing out as it interrupts the learning flow but I can’t think of any examples of the top of my head so maybe that’s rot.
I also really enjoy the discovery phase of a game. Playing around with things, pushing leavers to discover what’s going on is a part of the joy for me. I was disappointed in a game where everyone was new recently when one player turned up having read a full strategy guide. It felt at the time like the space was shrunk for some mistakes and that we would all be inhibited from developing out own styles. In retrospect it might be just as arbitrary as what ever pool of beginner mistakes happen in the game. As @Benkyo said there’s a difference between knowledge of a list and the skill to apply it effectively.
After a game I quite enjoy some discussion/dissection of what went on in a game. Maybe that’s spoilers for next game though.
It makes a huge difference if it’s a one off or regular gamers too. If someone’s is going to play a game a number of times, learning the strategies from play is part of the experience. If someone’s playing a one off game, they’re not going to want to crash their face into the dirt on the second turn never to stand up again.
Generally I avoid it apart from maybe small ‘dont do this or you’ll have a bad time’ hints where it’s needed (LOOKING AT YOU FOOD CHAIN MAGNATE!).
Food Chain Magnate seems to be a cause for some traumatic gaming experiences…
I taught Beyond the Sun to a few people recently and I tried telling all of them that balancing resource producton between ore and people is an important part of the game. Except for my partner, they all proceeded to ignore my advice. One friend in particular when I tell them something is a good strategy will do the opposite… so I thaught them Race for the Galaxy without any pointers and via BGA chat, too. A frustrating experience for them. I am afraid though that we’re on game 2 and I’ll be losing that one (as much as I like Race, I am terrible at it)
I will keep this discussion in mind for the future to avoid going too far. I don’t think I have (for the most part, exceptions may have happened). I don’t want to spoil finding out how much fun alternative win conditions are or a how a certain card combo can turn the tide… or how to best get Thunderspeaker up to speed.
In our group’s first FCM game, we were all “these are the standard Turn 1 openings. Don’t pick the others unless you feel like it”
I’m definitely more inclined on telling newbies the obvious pitfalls for newbies in a game than saying anything about strategy. Our Imperial 2030 game last week, I immediately told everyone that it’s not a game of Risk; it’s a game of making money and nothing else and your countries are disposable.
I did gave some hints on the forum’s Chicago Express game, because it is very opaque.
(Sawmill and woodcutter - the other reason you don’t just get the buildings is that where you build them and how you get the starting resources to where they need to be to build is also part of the opening game. And depending on where another player chose to start may affect those decisions.
In a beginner game where everyone starts far apart and you are granted an obvious diamond of sawmill, woodcutter, quarry, and pasture, yes, it could make sense to just give the new player that setup… but where’s the harm in letting them figure out this themselves? Exactly how it’s done can also make tiny differences.)
(There are also maps where building a sawmill immediately is the wrong move - you do need to set aside the boards to build it, but the stone will come from a quarry you build. For example, you might have to build a raft factory and a raft to get the materials where they need to go to build a sawmill.)
One of my favourite things about games is the discovery phase, where my wife and I are learning how a game works and discuss strategies, sometimes during, always after. I LOVE that. Lucky me, she does too (and usually kicks my butt).
Since I’m the teacher (ironic, as my wife has ACTUALLY been one, with a diploma in it and everything), that process is never spoiled for us, since I always come to our inaugural game with, at most, a thorough reading of the manual and a two-fisted game to grasp it more concretely. I think reading a strategy guide beforehand would diminish our enjoyment. Strategy should emerge and be discussed organically, I think.
up to speed.
did I ignore them? I think I must have…