Tips for losing to new players

[sIKE]

I was thinking just miss the 10 starting mana, although that might not be a large enough disadvantage.

I have found that for most players that I am playing for the first time that I could kill them so fast that it isn't funny even with the sub-par books that are provided in Apprentice mode.

[sdougla2]

That will be harder without the 10 starting mana.

[kiwipaul]

Of course reacting badly to what they do is also a way to give them the chance.   Cast conjurations and then a creature to guard it.  Move slowly forward into the danger zone and maybe fire off some low level attacks or spells.  of course you could go hand to hand with their mage and then retreat.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I'm not sure that I'm sufficiently socially skilled to pull that off. Either they will realize that I am playing badly on purpose and get discouraged, or they won't realize it and take my poor tactics as an example to follow. Are handicaps like no starting mana and a worse spellbook not sufficient to give newbie opponents a fighting chance? If not then there are other things you can do, such as raising their life total or lowering yours.

On that note, there's actually a variant I invented that would be perfect for this scenario: Immortal Boss Battle Mode, aka Punchbag Sid format.

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14523.0

Just give the newbie infinite life and see how long it takes for them to beat you.

[sIKE]

When I am demoing along the way I let them know I am playing to teach them how to play and not necessarily to win. I also say I am not playing here to lose or throw the game, but really to show you how the game mechanics and features work which means that I am not playing optimally to win. 

I did have one demo at BGGCon that ran for 2 hours. At the 2 hours point I told him: My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

He then proceeded to place a Force Hold on my Brogdan and then he put a Sleep on my Grey Angel. Needless to say I was quite proud that he grasped those mechanics quite that well. I then brought out a Royal Archer and killed him a couple of rounds later. He was very grateful and was even able to explain what he should of done to win game.

 

[Sailor Vulcan]

I didn't realize we were only referring to demo games. I thought we were talking about when playing against new players in general. Even if it's not the very first game, won't totally creaming them in the second or third game still be enough to scare them away? Hence my variant format which I linked.

On that note, there's actually a variant I invented that would be perfect for this scenario: Immortal Boss Battle Mode, aka Punchbag Sid format.

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14523.0

Just give the newbie infinite life and see how long it takes for them to beat you.

Also, if someone really skilled started playing this format then that would make an ALMOST PERFECT way to measure a player's skill level by comparing their high scores fighting that player.

Edited above, I misspoke

[Cnoedel]

This topic is fun

I'd agree on most parts, just react to the opponents action in an understandable but not "perfect" manner.
Letting him kill your creeps is also very statisfying, so is the Harry Potter Wandfight. Just adjust to what he wants "the game to be" and let him feel the power of hi choices.

As previously discussed i am against the "build up until he starts attacking you" because it teaches bad gaming. Yes I played the same way at the beginning, but it just takes way too long and gives a wrong impression. Go hit him with a bitterwood fox and force his first action, then do as told above.

I really like the aforementioned idea of attacking armored creatures with attackspells to show off the conditions!

[Zuberi]

I disagree with the idea that you should go easy on new players entirely. I think you should always play your best, especially when showing someone the game. Otherwise you are teaching them bad habits. They are looking towards you to learn how to play after all. Plus, I don't find it fun if someone lets me win, so why would I expect someone else to enjoy me letting them win?

Instead, I would recommend playing your best, but take it extremely slow and explain everything in great detail. Explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what you are planning on doing in the future, and what they might do in response. Be completely honest. This takes away a lot of the surprise elements of the game, but allows you to still play your best and for them to understand what's going on and how they can compete against it.

They will still probably lose, but they should feel like they understand the game and that they have a chance to beat you if they stick with it. The reason creaming newbies might turn them off of a game is that it can make them feel overwhelmed and like they'll never get the hang of it because they don't understand what happened. But I don't think anyone expects to be a master of a strategy game the very first time they play it. As long as you make sure they understand what's going on, they should be fine with losing their first game (or three), and will probably be excited when they finally start surprising you and closing the skill gap.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I disagree with the idea that you should go easy on new players entirely. I think you should always play your best, especially when showing someone the game. Otherwise you are teaching them bad habits. They are looking towards you to learn how to play after all. Plus, I don't find it fun if someone lets me win, so why would I expect someone else to enjoy me letting them win?

Instead, I would recommend playing your best, but take it extremely slow and explain everything in great detail. Explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what you are planning on doing in the future, and what they might do in response. Be completely honest. This takes away a lot of the surprise elements of the game, but allows you to still play your best and for them to understand what's going on and how they can compete against it.

They will still probably lose, but they should feel like they understand the game and that they have a chance to beat you if they stick with it. The reason creaming newbies might turn them off of a game is that it can make them feel overwhelmed and like they'll never get the hang of it because they don't understand what happened. But I don't think anyone expects to be a master of a strategy game the very first time they play it. As long as you make sure they understand what's going on, they should be fine with losing their first game (or three), and will probably be excited when they finally start surprising you and closing the skill gap.

That might be too much information all at once in the middle of a game, which could also overwhelm them. And even if you take more time to give explanations so that they comprehend everything you say, it's not guaranteed to help them enjoy more and run away screaming less; it would make them constantly switch focus away from playing the game to listening to your explanations, and would increase game length astronomically. Not to mention they might have difficulty retaining all those explanations throughout the game, and if they do, they're probably not that focused on playing. Probably better to explain all that at the end of the game.

[kiwipaul]

we also have the apprentice mode to get people started

[Zuberi]

That might be too much information all at once in the middle of a game, which could also overwhelm them. And even if you take more time to give explanations so that they comprehend everything you say, it's not guaranteed to help them enjoy more and run away screaming less; it would make them constantly switch focus away from playing the game to listening to your explanations, and would increase game length astronomically. Not to mention they might have difficulty retaining all those explanations throughout the game, and if they do, they're probably not that focused on playing. Probably better to explain all that at the end of the game.

Not really. It mostly just boils down to walking them through your turn as you take it. All you have to do is provide narration. For example: "I activate my mage, then I move him to this zone because I want to get in range of hitting your mage with a spell, then I cast this enchantment on myself because I'm afraid you'll dissolve my armor and this enchantment will protect me."

Besides that it's just answering questions. I might volunteer tips on occasion, but I really want them to make their own decisions and learn for themselves. I've found this actually improves focus on the game because they are better able to follow along with what's happening and what I'm thinking rather than just being lost scratching their heads. Nobody has told me it's distracting. I've gotten nothing but positive feedback actually, and the increase to game length is definitely not astronomical although learning games do always take longer than a normal game. But that's why I always play a few apprentice games before introducing players to the full experience.

[baronzaltor]

The game already has a built in function for giving handicaps.

If you want to disadvantage yourself against the opponent, simply lower your 120 spell points...  build an 80 or 90 point one.   If you want to give the advantage to an opponent, increase them to 150 spellpoints or so.  Its simple, and the opponent understands the advantage you are giving them by simply showing them the mage card.   You dont have to "play down", and then when they are acclimated they can just start playing a regular book.    This also teaches a value for spell book point effeciency very early on.

[Sailor Vulcan]

The game already has a built in function for giving handicaps.

If you want to disadvantage yourself against the opponent, simply lower your 120 spell points...  build an 80 or 90 point one.   If you want to give the advantage to an opponent, increase them to 150 spellpoints or so.  Its simple, and the opponent understands the advantage you are giving them by simply showing them the mage card.   You dont have to "play down", and then when they are acclimated they can just start playing a regular book.    This also teaches a value for spell book point effeciency very early on.

That might work, but I'm not sure. Have you tested this?

[baronzaltor]

The game already has a built in function for giving handicaps.

If you want to disadvantage yourself against the opponent, simply lower your 120 spell points...  build an 80 or 90 point one.   If you want to give the advantage to an opponent, increase them to 150 spellpoints or so.  Its simple, and the opponent understands the advantage you are giving them by simply showing them the mage card.   You dont have to "play down", and then when they are acclimated they can just start playing a regular book.    This also teaches a value for spell book point effeciency very early on.

That might work, but I'm not sure. Have you tested this?

yeah.  Works out pretty well, having to skim or pad spell books to create handicap works pretty well for me when theres need for some kind of shift.

[Sailor Vulcan]

The game already has a built in function for giving handicaps.

If you want to disadvantage yourself against the opponent, simply lower your 120 spell points...  build an 80 or 90 point one.   If you want to give the advantage to an opponent, increase them to 150 spellpoints or so.  Its simple, and the opponent understands the advantage you are giving them by simply showing them the mage card.   You dont have to "play down", and then when they are acclimated they can just start playing a regular book.    This also teaches a value for spell book point effeciency very early on.

That might work, but I'm not sure. Have you tested this?

yeah.  Works out pretty well, having to skim or pad spell books to create handicap works pretty well for me when theres need for some kind of shift.

And do you build a new lower-point spellbooks from scratch, or modified versions of 120 pt spellbooks you've already built? If it's the latter how do you decide which spells to exclude?