United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Any interest in adding a new "learning curve/time" field to each game's Information section/block? I'm surprised BGG didn't have this. In addition to age range, length of game, etc., some ppl may wanna be able to soak in this info at a glance. Especially since there are games that pick up quickly, but take a long time to complete while other games are slow to learn, but quick to finish.

Your thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This will lead to oddities like Go. Very easy to learn, very difficult to play properly. And then some people will say Puerto Rico takes 20 games to "get".

Perhaps rather than learning curve, more like "Rules Length".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren M
Canada
Fort Vermilion
AB
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Re: any interest in having a new "learning curve/time" field
Not a bad idea... add it to the pile of hundreds of other features that are "in the works" but not yet implemented on BGG.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Alvaro
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: any interest in having a new "learning curve/time" field
Perhaps it would be simpler to break down "weight" into more categories that can be rated from 1-5 such as:

complexity of rules
complexity of gameplay
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Schmidt
United States
Maryland Heights
Missouri
flag msg tools
blindspot wrote:
Perhaps it would be simpler to break down "weight" into more categories that can be rated from 1-5 such as:

complexity of rules
complexity of gameplay


Agreed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geosphere wrote:
This will lead to oddities like Go. Very easy to learn, very difficult to play properly. And then some people will say Puerto Rico takes 20 games to "get".

Perhaps rather than learning curve, more like "Rules Length".


Well, the idea behind the learning curve/time field is approximately how much minimum time would be needed to jump into the game and get playing. It would take into account that players will likely need to clarify rules every now and then, like when a player plays Chess, just how to castle and under what circumstances they can't. For Settlers Of Catan, it's OK if they need to consult the almanac every 3 turns of so.

Also takes into account that mistakes will happen and that's fine, like if someone thinks that the opponent has no legal move and his king is NOT in check, ti's a win for himself, or that multiple dev cards in Settlers can be played in the same turn.

The learning curve time would NOT account for strategy. That's something to be picked up either right away, or over the long haul of 20+ sessions or something like that.

I'm not a Go player, but for someone to be able to start playing and play properly enough.... I'd say the learning time would be higher.

Since my definition of learning time is defined as how much time is spent learning the rules before one can properly play the game enough while following most of the rules in a reasonable manner, # of game sessions could be used instead of time, but that would really be reserved for very complex games..... perhaps RPGs, wargames, or any other game ppl tend to mess up the first few times or so.

nexttothemoon wrote:
Not a bad idea... add it to the pile of hundreds of other features that are "in the works" but not yet implemented on BGG.


Any place to do this, or could we assume some admin will take wind of this and add it to 'the list'?

blindspot wrote:
Perhaps it would be simpler to break down "weight" into more categories that can be rated from 1-5 such as:

complexity of rules
complexity of gameplay


only reservation about this is that it may not be precise enough. If the playing time were converted to this scale, it may not be helpful if all it said was:
very quick
quick
somewhat quick
average
slow
VERY long
etc........

since "average" can mean different things to different players in different regions. If you assign a range to it and users need to look it up anyways, it may be more troublesome than it's worth. Also, if the ranges aren't set correctly, that may be too imprecise

Granted, I'm sure learning curve measurements shouldn't vary as mcuh as play time, but a 1 to 5 scale may be too ambiguous.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.