A lot of games are incredibly involved, requiring a long explanation and rundown of the rules at the start of a session to all those not already familiar with it. It's a common enough issue that Shut Up & Sit Down made a 15 minute video on mastering "the teach" [1]

I don't think I've had a single gaming night lately where there isn't some explanation stage to every game, where it is eventually decided that "it will make sense once we start", yet frequently everyone agrees that it will be a lot better next time.

Then you have games like Root where learning about the insanely intricate rule-set and how the different factions interact is almost half the point and fun of playing it, still a process after multiple sessions. I've never played that one, however. Seems too daunting.

[1] https://youtu.be/P5fjDaFuft8?si=jN5LUnOBv9iqTGvI

Most GMT games still take me at least two shots, unless it's something in a familiar line e.g. another COIN game. (But sometimes even then.) SpaceCorp took me at least three but maybe it's three games so that doesn't count. I consider myself above-average at learning games but I doubt I could front-load all of Mr. President.

But I agree that for the median or even p90 game demoing at Essen, even if there's "a lot" going on, you can get it easily in one game if you have any experience with hobbyist games.

I don't think there's as big of a difference as you're drawing between "knowing the rules" and "knowing the tactics". To take one of Amabel's games as an example, I recall the rules for Aurelian being easy to understand in a literal sense (esp. having played Charlemagne), but I also recall it taking three games before I didn't wipe out disastrously just a few rounds in.

I also think if you rule any of these out you miss a lot of really interesting games.

There are lots of euro games that require a full play through to understand the game. And even then, many popular games where everytime I play with a new group I expect the rules to have been misunderstood in new ways.

Look at Root, a very popular game. It has one long manual just for your first play, and then an even longer manual that explains all the rules. They recommend you read that one later.

I actually love games with weird mechanics, but I see this problem a lot when I try to teach certain games to friends and family. Even if they're sober and used to playing board games. Some that take at least one playthrough for us are usually: Terraforming Mars, Terra Mystica, Gloomhaven.

This is going to vary wildly by game experience; many board game veterans learn shorthands for mechanics, and learn rule-learning as its own meta-skill, picking up even complicated games in 10 minutes.

That said, there are countless games where it's not unusual to budget an hour or more for "the teach". A great one I played recently is "Hegemony": a game that simulates political economy and class struggle, where one player is The State, and the others are economic classes (Working, Middle, Capitalist). Each player has their own rules, mechanics, and goals, each requiring a unique full-sized rules reference.

I tend to treat the first play of every new game as a "sacrificial round": I expect to do poorly, but I'll grok the game by the end. But I've found some need at least two sacrificial rounds: one just to get the mechanics, terms, symbology, and flow; and then another to internalize strategy and actually play well.

So yeah, this is all going to vary based on on one's experience level and definitions. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who doesn't want to spend a whole afternoon basically just to learn a game; as opposed to a game like "Photosynthesis", which might have seem intimidating to an inexperienced player, but after ten minutes they've internalized both the rules and the strategy.

Wingspan tends to trip people up alot on the first play. It seems more complicated than it is