Almost every game has their group declarant bears . This is usually an honorary title, sometimes a burden, because it goes hand in hand with a lot of work. I am pleased to hear from my fellow players from time to time that they like how and when I tell them my games.
What makes a good explanatory bears? The most obvious criterion is whether to have understood the statement to play the game or whether the penny drops after the first game.
The most important rule for a commentator is that he has especially fun to play and the declaration of the same . I can explain a game that I would not at least play well. If you're not having fun in the matter, one can convince his listeners not expect that it is worthwhile to listen to the next 10 minutes. If I'm not having fun with the thing, I can not convince yourself. It weighs much heavier.
know the game to is of course essential. Although I am now (Attention, self-praise!) Also very good at any game rules so as to read from that play most of my players can at least, but I am trying to avoid. Only in food or other events where it is primarily about getting to know many new games, I resort to this ability. Ideally, I have enough time to work through before the rule itself. It is very useful to directly identify pitfalls or even show similarities to already known games.
My rule statements usually go in a sequence of five steps across the stage.
In the first step I give to first provide a broad overview on the theme of the game.
"In Age of Steam it is about building the best possible network of railways for freight transport in the eastern United States." is coupled with adirect the presentation of the material game. In this performance, it is especially important to me, the concepts of the game (goods cubes, track plates, stocks, ...) to establish and then to hold on this. Nothing confuses a new player more than a change of terminology in the middle of the statement. Also, the explanation that is necessary to win the game is included in this first step
"It's about the end of the game, after 6 rounds, the earnings bar furthest to be on top."
In the second step of the declaration then jointly set up the game . I think this step should therefore provide essential, because on the one hand, each player will be introduced again in the terminology and on the other hand, the audience should feel right from the beginning of the statement included in. Through the joint establishment of the game to reach both. Everyone knows where everything is and recognizes, at least, in passing, some mechanisms.
"In each city will be placed randomly Warenwüfel 2, and Wheeling Pitsburgh only get three. The turn marker is ..."
The third step, makes the bulk of the declaration. Here I am, first coarsely and then becoming increasingly detailed, one on the steps of a typical round . The end of a round will be touched upon briefly and then explained in detail each phase. The important thing is that must be worked out at this time, not every detail from the depths of the rule. The main points should, however, come across clearly.
"In the first Phase of a round will be issued new shares. Important here is that only can be issued new shares at this stage! "At this point I then quickly to the usual problems , have new players with each game. Age of Steam for example, to stay in the example, has the most blatant breach in the logic of the game to the point where realize the players that it is important to build a possible inefficient network because one of the transport of goods over a longer route once more profits last. Such logical breaks in the subject of a more abstract game must clear be found before the start of the game.
The fourth step is seamlessly connected to the third step. The detailed description of each phase. After each player has now been a rough idea of what is possible in principle, every round, he will now learn how exactly does it do so.
"I have just said that everyone each round chooses a role. This happens in the order of play, which was determined by the auction. A once by a player chosen role for the rest of the round for the other players banned."Even at this stage but I will obscure special rules and rarely necessary characteristics away yet. Latest In this step, however, there is the first substantive questions (at least when asleep by then nobody). This is for me to determine the most important point, which I will now answer questions and what questions I explain later in yet wants. It makes no sense to answer every question about licentious here. Especially so, because the answers from the following description itself. Important to me is that I forget any of the questions asked and later in the declaration and in any event be back.
Finally, the fifth step, I recapitulate again quickly end the round and I make sure myself that I did not forget any important details or intentionally omitted. (My teammates know only too well the classic words: "Two and a half things ...") still here, I would finally also points to obscure any special rule or special peculiarity. It is on this only necessary for me even in the course of the game no benefit here purposely omitted gains complexity. So I do not miss the special rule unerläuterte IV.a-9) to bring the application to get out of unfavorable position to prevail anyway. In this part of the explanation debuting this point is easily fix in the minds not sufficient evidence that it reserves all. I would therefore an unfair advantage. However, I am pleased when someone uses such, to myself. This shows me that I was not too boring.
This first batch never runs smoothly. I'm not a fan of "practice rounds" or abortion after the first half, then durchzustarten again with new knowledge. I have found that this is often not necessary if everyone at the table has the correct approach to the game. Winning is nice but it's more about the games. Of course mistakes are made. Of course one or two times forgets a rule. So what?
During the game it is important to me as Erklärbär, the fun of it all added. Therefore, I throw a hand without being asked not with good advice for me, otherwise I may however point to the emerging error based on a misinterpretation of the based of my narrative.
I: "Do you want a little hint?"
you: (nodding) "Yes, you ..."
I: "You should think about this red cube goods here, the brings you move away but one point less than the blue yonder, but I can not thereby reap the 5 points.."
've Overall I learned that it stands out, a rich source of game experience have to explain a game. In that each rule of the game is different, you get through more experience to more settlements and more particularly to structure.
my opinion, there is no "best " (printed) rule. As has been ground with me a certain routine in the structure of the rule explanation for my game group, I knew, of course, as an ideal match for me would usually be designed (which I will write again surely something). Yet there is hope thousands more players in the world who prefer a different structure of the game rules or the declaration by its own explanatory bears.
All versions on this subject are therefore subject to change and are based solely on personal experience. However, I hope that maybe one or two useful ideas were there.
