What are common mistakes you've seen when teaching new players?

self wrote:

The biggest thing thing that's hemmed up new players that i've seen is during stealth/intercept exchanges, they very often see +1 Stealth on an action card, and want to use that +1 Stealth. Perhaps a change in how included stealth is expressed on actions? wouldn't it be clearer if instead of [+1 Stealth Action] on a card it was just [1 Stealth Action] and the + was removed?

I stumbled upon this old thread and thought I'd reply. So, the new player sees the "+1 stealth" at the top of the text box and thinks "I need stealth! I'm going to play this," and thus confuses the action card for an action modifier. I believe this happens because some common action modifiers, such as Lost in Crowds, contain the same "+1 stealth" text.

This problem seems to have been addressed (possibly inadvertently) in later sets specifically on political actions, where "+1 stealth" was changed to "called by [fill in the blank] at +1 stealth." I'm willing to bet that a new player would not try to play a political action for stealth. The added instruction coupled with a consistent template on political actions that is different than how text is presented action modifiers like Lost in Crowds is one way to help new players discern the different card types and how they work.

maybe make the action modifier symbol different? there is a fair similarity between action modifier and action icons, which could lead to confusion if someone needs to have the idea reinforced. here's a few offhanded ideas using the same elements:



another idea is to make the card templates for action modifiers and actions less similar, and remove the green bar so that card type could be more easily recognized. currently, the texture is the same on Actions as they are with Action Modifiers, but with a pallate swap.

Ankha wrote:

I've thought a lot about it, and couldn't find a clever, satisfying way to "fix" this.

• you can't put the stealth in a dedicated place on the card because some actions have a different stealth depending on the discipline or level used, or some cards are actions and another type (eg. Draba)
• the card is an action (action symbol). Actions are taken by default at 0 stealth. All bonuses (+bleed, +strength, +votes) are expressed as "+" modifiers. So you end up needing to write "+1 stealth" and "action". That's where I can't find an elegant, non-confusing way to express that (no, "This is a +1 stealth action" is neither elegant nor non-confusing)

I'm opened to suggestions.

I think what you do is get rid of the stealth modifiers in the introductory part of the card and move it in parentheses after the explanation of the action.

Example:

Abbott (current text):
+1 stealth action. Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Put this card on the acting Sabbat vampire and untap him or her...

Abbott (revised text):
Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Put this card on the acting Sabbat vampire and untap him or her (+1 stealth)...

Placement is key. With Abbot, the parenthetical can go right after the first sentence because it makes sense. For Draba, it goes after the first sentence in the inferior clause. For Govern the Unaligned, it goes after the superior clause. And for peculiar cards like Petra Resonance, it needs to go after the entire paragraph explaining what happens:

Not usable if any Methuselah's crypt is empty.
Each Methuselah reveals the top card of his or her crypt. If there is a tie for highest or lowest cost among the revealed cards, every Methuselah burns 1 pool. Otherwise, the Methuselah revealing the highest cost steals 3 pool from the Methuselah revealing the lowest cost. All Methuselahs shuffle their crypts afterward. (+1 stealth).

Note that using parentheticals in this way should be reserved for only stealth modifiers to action cards. All other modifiers given in the card text should stay as is.

Atonement
Requires a ready vampire with a capacity below 6.
Put this card on the acting vampire (+1 stealth). This vampire gets +1 intercept when attempting to block. He or she does not tap when blocking a vampire of the same age or younger. Any vampire may burn this card as a action; Followers of Set get -1 stealth when attempting that action.

I don't think that's much clearer (if not less clear) than the way Stealth is already described. that's just me though.

I plan on running some demos locally in the coming months, so I'll hopefully be able to gather some meaningful anecdotes.

I think the best way will be to add +1 stealth to all undirected actions in the rulebook and remove it from the most cards at all, just leave +/- modifiers to very few undirected actions which got other basic stealth level.