= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rwallace comments on A Player of Games - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (73)
This is a bit different because typically, most of the people playing any given game have played it before, with only a few newcomers who learn the game as they play it. It wouldn't be a good way to play the meta-game, because you shouldn't expect to be competitive against someone who has played the game for a while.
It shouldn't matter as far as "learning to learn games goes", ideally. However, I expect it will, because you're not competing against other people learning to learn games. If you want to win -- and most people like to win -- the incentive here is to keep playing this one game until you're good at it.
I did something like this back in the 90s, with a guy in a local gaming club who had a big collection of boardgames, played a different one each time, and won about 50% of the time. It's important to bear in mind the typical boardgame does not have the depth of chess or Go -- those are classics for a reason -- and most of them are actually pretty much ideal for this sort of rapid pickup.
You have that right. There is nothing like the combination of having a lot of fun and winning. Oh, wait, different 'pickup'. Nevermind. ;)