john m
United States
Georgia
-
I'm sure there's fine line between being dominate and collaboration. But, how do you know when you've cross the line? If you see the correct strategy but the other players whose turn it is doesn't, then how do you play? Do you just keep quiet? Do you advise them? If you do advise them, does that mean your dominating and not letting the person make decisions?
I guess one way to look at it is to let the person make their decision and let it be. Everyone suffers for their mistake or gains by their good decision.
I just don't know where collaboration begins and ends.
Was hoping for comments. Thanks.
For reference I was playing Pandemic, only one game so far. Liked it very much, and I don't want to spoil future games. It seems the more experienced I get the harder it will be to be quiet.
-
Alex Bourne
United States
North Pole
Alaska
Damn, it feels good to be a hamster!
-
Well if they stop playing with you then you probably interjected to much.
-
Wade Nelson
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
-
If you find yourself getting impatient and/or jumping in with advice on everyone else's turn, you're dominating. I've learned that it's more fun if everyone is having fun than it is when one person is dominating and the play is optimal.
With that in mind I've taken the "What are you thinking?" approach. People will usually respond positively, such as "Well somebody needs to deal with the red disease," to which I might respond, "Well player A is closest and I could use your help dealing with the blue, because we know they're coming back soon since we just did the Epidemic shuffle."
Just remember that you're a field agent, and none of the roles are titled "CDC Director of Operations" 
-
Wade Nelson
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
-
johnnyLikesGames wrote: It seems the more experienced I get the harder it will be to be quiet.
Very true. Just remember that it's in your best interest that everyone's having fun (i.e. not taking orders) so that you have more people to play the game with. You can always talk strategy after the fact. "We could have done this or maybe we should have done that."
-
James
United States
Midlothian
Virginia
-
If you are worried about being too dominant (that's the word), then just be mindful of the responses you get to the tone you use. Cooperative games are supposed to be interactive with players coordinating their moves; they're not much fun otherwise. After having stated your ideas, make a point of remembering to ask them for their ideas on how you all should proceed.
It's most helpful to play cooperative games with people of similar experience with the game. When there is a disparity here, you are correct, balanced collaboration becomes more difficult. You could offer to loan the game out to them to get some experience on your own; you could offer to play another cooperative game with which they have more experience.
I have found Pandemic to have the "alpha" player dynamic a bit more than other titles. I've had more success with collaboration with Arkham Horror and Defenders of the Realm, but YMMV, certainly. Good luck!
-
john m
United States
Georgia
-
I remember saying, "I think we need to cure the black plague," when I saw how to do it. I was hoping the other person would catch on. They did.
-
Alex Bourne
United States
North Pole
Alaska
Damn, it feels good to be a hamster!
-
Brother Jim wrote: I have found Pandemic to have the "alpha" player dynamic a bit more than other titles. I've had more success with collaboration with Arkham Horror and Defenders of the Realm, but YMMV, certainly. Good luck!
I would agree, in Pandemic one wrong move can cost you the game. It's hard to ignore a misstep of another player.
-
A
United States
Roseville
Minnesota
-
How do you know when you becoming too dominant a player in a cooperative game?
When you can't bear to do it someone else's way.
-
James
United States
Midlothian
Virginia
-
It did occur to me with regard to Pandemic that the game is short enough that you could easily sit out a session or two and just facilitate, answering rules questions, for example. At the end of the game you could offer a "post mortem" on where their strategy went wrong and what they could have done differently. A couple of sessions of this might bring them closer to your level of understanding of the game and also might make you seem (if you handle it with the right tone) to be a generous and patient teacher of the game. I sat out the first two games of Arkham I taught to my friends and it helped the dynamic considerably in subsequent games played together.
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
johnnyLikesGames wrote: For reference I was playing Pandemic, only one game so far. Liked it very much, and I don't want to spoil future games. It seems the more experienced I get the harder it will be to be quiet.
Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss it in person with the people you actually intend to play with? Groups differ, and strangers on the internet aren't apt to give you better answers than the actual participants.
I'm not trying to be snide; I often wonder about this when I see such queries posted, and decided I would simply ask this time.
-
Gergo Tothmihaly
Hungary
Budapest
-
Try to focus on team work and cooperation instead of winning the game.
I played Pandemic with beginners, too. I played the game dozens of times before. I was absolutely sure we will loose, to me it was obvious, still I let the others contribute in the decisions we made. We could have won, but it would have been me giving orders to the group. I'm quite sure that would have been the first and very last play with Pandemic.
We lost the first game, yes (and the next one, too), but we lost having fun. And as we had fun the guys wanted to play some more, they got better, gained some experience, and we win at the end. Together.
-
Chris Wilczewski
United States
Folsom
California
-
Brother Jim wrote: It did occur to me with regard to Pandemic that the game is short enough that you could easily sit out a session or two and just facilitate, answering rules questions, for example. At the end of the game you could offer a "post mortem" on where their strategy went wrong and what they could have done differently. A couple of sessions of this might bring them closer to your level of understanding of the game and also might make you seem (if you handle it with the right tone) to be a generous and patient teacher of the game. I sat out the first two games of Arkham I taught to my friends and it helped the dynamic considerably in subsequent games played together.
Maybe you're losing too often in pandemic if you call the after-game summary a "post mortem" ... 
-
-
When playing with beginners, I try to ask what they would like to do with their turn. I will offer any alternative moves that I see and explain the pros and cons for each course of action. Then let the player make their own decision. As they get more comfortable with the game, they will need fewer suggestions. It is more important (in my opinion) that the player have an enjoyable experience than to win the game. I find that lost games often encourage more discussion of tactics and people asking for a rematch.
-
john m
United States
Georgia
-
I think I'd rather lose than cheat them out of the experience.
I don't call that losing.
-
Ed G.
United States
Fort Wayne
Indiana
-
When it starts out cooperative and ends solitaire.
Edit: Spelling!
-
Andy Andersen
United States
Newark
Delaware
-
When someone dumps the Cheetos on your head.
-
Sebastian Helm
United States
Washington
-
Brother Jim wrote: It did occur to me with regard to Pandemic that the game is short enough that you could easily sit out a session or two ...
That's a great idea for altruistic people. But for a true geek ("/gēk/: A socially inept person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest") that may not be so easy. Luckily, for those among us, the bio-terrorist expansion provides a similar solution. Since this is not just about Pandemic, I'd like to ask whether other cooperative games have similar variants?
I also liked the suggestion by several here (Wade, James, KemKat) to ask open questions, especially so, since that often leads to interesting discussions where everyone learns. But I'd recommend keeping a bit of a balance between asking and answering questions. Give your team mates time to come up with their own questions. The beauty of "What are you thinking?", asked at the right time, is that it can encourage just that.
-
Sebastian Helm
United States
Washington
-
Sphere wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss it in person with the people you actually intend to play with? Groups differ, and strangers on the internet aren't apt to give you better answers than the actual participants.
I'm not trying to be snide; I often wonder about this when I see such queries posted, and decided I would simply ask this time.
This is a good question. But, as the second paragraphs says, it's not particularly related to the topic of this thread. The thread "Please drink and eat while playing my games!", raised the same question for me. Maybe there's already a thread about that; if not, how about starting a new one?
-
James
United States
Midlothian
Virginia
-
SebastianHelm wrote: Brother Jim wrote: It did occur to me with regard to Pandemic that the game is short enough that you could easily sit out a session or two ... That's a great idea for altruistic people. But for a true geek ("/gēk/: A socially inept person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest") that may not be so easy.
...yet, though I have been a card carrying (it's laminated) geek for over thirty years, I was able to exercise a force of will to make it happen. I have documentary evidence of my achievement.
Kidding aside, it's doesn't have to be about altruism. If you have a game that you want others to play and enjoy as much as you do - so that you have people to play with - sitting out a couple of sessions (two-three hours of your life) is a pretty efficient way to make this happen.
As far as variants for cooperative games that accommodate disparities in experience, I'd instead recommend semi-cooperative games, such as Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game. That way, all the noobs have a real shared challenge going against the one opponent managing the "bad guys." Some of these games (such as LNoE) have diverse scenarios and ways to adjust the difficulty for one of the sides. This sounds like another tangent, though, so I'm happy for the thread not to follow this course, either, if anyone is similarly worried about keeping the thread focused.
-
|
|
