Let's Begin
Here's a scene you'll recognize.
Four people at a table. One of them — let's be honest, the one who owns the box — has been explaining for about twenty minutes. There have been diagrams. There has been a phrase like "and this is where it gets interesting." Cards have been laid out and picked up again.
Finally they stop, look around with quiet satisfaction, and someone says:
"Sorry, so what are we actually trying to do?"
That question is devastating, and I want to be clear about something: it is never the listener's fault. It's the sound of an explanation that started in the wrong place. Twenty minutes of accurate information delivered in an order the human brain can't hold.
And here's why this is worth a whole lesson. Explaining a board game is one of the purest tests of instructional English there is: a complex system, an audience who knows nothing, limited patience, and instant feedback on whether you did it well. If you can teach a game clearly in English, you can write a handover document, train a new colleague, or explain a process to a client. It's the same skill, and the board game version is the one where nobody gets fired if you do it badly.
So here's the plan. At the elementary level we'll get the vocabulary of games and the imperative, the grammar of instructions, plus a verb mistake so common that I'd guess most learners are making it weekly. At the intermediate level we'll do the modal verbs of obligation and permission, which are what rules are actually built from, and the structure of a good explanation. And at the advanced level we'll get into the precise, mildly legalistic language of written rulebooks, the vocabulary of game design, and how to handle a rules dispute without ruining the evening.
And underneath it: why experts are so often the worst teachers, and the eight-second fix for almost every bad explanation.
Level One: Elementary | The Imperative, and a Verb Everyone Gets Wrong
Let's start with the objects on the table.
The board is what you play on. It's divided into squares or spaces. Your piece, counter or token is the thing you move. Dice are what you roll, and here's a small vocabulary curiosity: strictly, one is a die and two or more are dice. In modern everyday British English, most people say "a dice" for one, and nobody minds at all. Know both, use whichever you like, and don't correct anyone at a party.
Cards come in a deck or a pack. You shuffle them, you deal them, and during play you draw a card from the top. The cards in your possession are your hand.
The verbs: you roll the dice, you move your piece, you take a turn, you count your points, and eventually somebody wins and everybody else loses.
Now — the mistake. This is one of the most common errors in English and it appears in almost every learner's speech.
You win a game. You beat a person.
So: "I won the game." ✓ "I beat my brother." ✓ But never "I won my brother," which suggests he was the prize.
Say the correct versions out loud three times: "I won the game. I beat my brother. He beat me twice."
And while we're here, another one that catches people. With games and sports, you play them with no article: "play chess," "play football," "play cards." With musical instruments, you need the: "play the piano," "play the guitar." English has no logical reason for this. It simply decided, long ago, and never explained itself.
Now, grammar, and this is the heart of the level. Instructions in English use the imperative, which is the simplest form in the language: just the base verb, no subject.
"Roll the dice."
"Move three spaces."
"Take a card."
"Shuffle the deck."
"Count your points."
For the negative, you add don't:
"Don't look at your cards."
"Don't move until it's your turn."
That's it. No conjugation, no subject, nothing to get wrong. Which is precisely why instructions worldwide are written this way — it's the clearest structure English has.
You'll also want "It's your turn."
"It's my turn."
"Whose turn is it?"
And "Let's play."
Now let's build a complete explanation at A2 level. I'll use snakes and ladders, because almost everyone knows it, which lets you focus on the language rather than the game.
"The goal is simple. You want to get to square one hundred first. Roll the dice and move your piece. If you land on a ladder, go up. If you land on a snake, go down. The first player to reach one hundred wins."
Six sentences. Elementary grammar throughout. And crucially — look at the first sentence. The goal comes first. Everything after it makes sense because the listener already knows what it's for.
Your turn, and please do this out loud. Explain a very simple game: rock paper scissors, tic-tac-toe, or a card game you played as a child, in five imperative sentences or fewer. Start with the goal. Actually say it.
Here's a small story from my own family. A relative of mine used to explain every game the same way: rule one, rule two, rule three, in the order they appeared in the box. And every time, there would also be someone who was about seven and had no patience whatsoever, and they would interrupt with the same question: "But why?"
They were told they were being difficult. They were, in fact, being excellent students, because they'd noticed something adults politely ignore: you cannot remember a rule you don't have a reason for. A rule attached to a purpose sticks. A rule floating in space evaporates in about eleven seconds.
So even at elementary level, the pattern is: goal, then rules. It costs you one extra sentence and it saves everyone twenty minutes.
Level Two: Intermediate | The Grammar of Rules
Now let's get into the machinery, because rules are made of a very specific set of grammatical parts.
First, vocabulary.
The objective or aim is what you're trying to achieve.
Set-up is what you do before playing.
Components are all the physical parts.
Turn order is who goes when; usually clockwise (or anticlockwise in Britain, counterclockwise in America).
The starting player goes first.
Cards can be face up (visible) or face down (hidden).
There's a draw pile and a discard pile.
A round is one complete cycle of everyone's turns; a phase is a section within a turn.
If you can't or don't want to act, you pass or skip a turn.
A penalty costs you something; a bonus gives you something.
A tie-break decides a draw.
And house rules are the variations a particular family or group has adopted, usually incorrectly, and usually with enormous confidence.
Now, the grammar that matters most: modal verbs of obligation, permission and prohibition. These are what rules are literally built from, and one distinction here causes constant trouble.
Must and have to express obligation:
"You must play a card if you can."
"You have to move the full number."
Can and may express permission:
"You can trade with any player."
"You may look at your own cards at any time."
Can't and mustn't express prohibition:
"You can't move backwards."
"You mustn't show your hand to anyone."
And here's the one: "don't have to" and "don't need to" do not mean prohibition. They mean no obligation; it's optional.
So look at these two sentences carefully.
"You mustn't take a card." = It is forbidden. Taking a card breaks the rules.
"You don't have to take a card." = It's your choice. Take one or don't.
Those are close to opposites, and learners swap them constantly. In a game it's mildly confusing. In a workplace instruction, it's a genuine problem — "you don't have to submit the form" and "you mustn't submit the form" will produce very different Mondays.
Quick test, out loud. Which one goes in each gap?
"You ___ move if you don't want to."
"You ___ look at the other players' cards."
First one: don't have to. Second: mustn't or can't.
Second key structure: the zero conditional, which is the grammar of rules in every language that has it.
The form is if plus present simple, then present simple.
"If you roll a six, you go again."
"If you land on an occupied space, you send that piece back to the start."
"If the draw pile runs out, you shuffle the discard pile."
Notice there's no will. Rules aren't predictions; they're permanent truths inside the game's world, so they take the present simple on both sides. "If you roll a six, you will go again" isn't wrong exactly, but it sounds like a forecast rather than a rule.
And a subtle distinction worth having: if versus when.
Use if for things that may or may not happen: "if you draw a penalty card."
Use when for things that certainly will: "when your turn ends, pass the dice to the left."
Getting this right makes your explanations feel much more precise, because you're quietly telling the listener what to expect.
Third: sequencing language, which holds the whole explanation together. "First,… Then… Once you've done that,… After that,… Finally,…" And with before and after, remember the -ing form:
"Before drawing a card, check your hand."
"After moving, you may trade."
Now, the structure of a good explanation, and this is the part that will genuinely change how people react to you.
Start with the goal, in one sentence.
Then how you win, which is not always the same thing.
Then what happens on a turn; and here's the crucial move: don't describe it, demonstrate it. Play a fake first turn out loud with real pieces.
Then how the game ends. And only then, and briefly, the exceptions.
Everything else — the edge cases, the clever combos, the thing that happens once every four games — gets deferred with a phrase you should memorize:
"There's one more thing about that, but it won't come up for a while. I'll flag it when it matters."
Let me tell you about two friends of mine, because they're a perfect natural experiment.
One of them explains games by reading the rulebook aloud, in order, including the section about component storage. He is thorough, he is accurate, and by minute fifteen everyone at the table has begun to think about their own mortality.
The other says something like: "Right, you're all merchants, you're trying to get to fifteen coins first, and the tension is that the fastest route is also the one everyone can see you taking. Here's what my turn looks like." Then he plays one turn, narrating it. Then he says: "That's basically the whole game. Shall we start and I'll explain the rest as it comes up?"
Same game. Same information, more or less. One of them takes twenty-five minutes and produces confusion; the other takes four and produces people who want to play.
The difference isn't English ability. It's sequence, and it's the willingness to let people learn some of it while playing rather than all of it beforehand.
Two more phrases you'll need constantly.
To check understanding:
"Does that make sense so far?"
"Shall I run through a turn?"
"Any questions before we start?"
And to handle an interruption gracefully:
"Good question; that's exactly what I'll come to in a second."
That last one is worth its weight in gold, because it acknowledges the person without letting them drag your explanation out of order.
Level Three: Advanced | Precision, Edge Cases, and the Rules Lawyer
Now let's get properly precise, because written rules are a genuine register of English with its own conventions, and once you can read them, you can read contracts, terms and conditions, and technical specifications.
Start with the vocabulary of precision.
"Unless otherwise stated" means this applies except where a specific rule overrides it.
"With the exception of" introduces a carve-out.
"In which case" points to a consequence: "you may run out of cards, in which case you draw from the discard pile."
"For the purposes of this rule" narrows a definition temporarily; a wonderfully lawyerly phrase.
Then quantity precision:
"up to three cards" means three or fewer.
"At least two players" means two or more.
"Exactly one." "Any number of." These distinctions are the difference between a clear rule and an argument at eleven at night.
And a genuine distinction in formal English: "may not" and "cannot."
Strictly, may not means it isn't permitted, while cannot means it isn't possible. In rulebooks that difference matters, because a card that says you may not play a certain tile is imposing a restriction you could physically break, whereas cannot often describes a state that simply doesn't exist in the game. Most people blur them. Precise writers don't.
Now, structures for refining conditions, and these are what elevate a B2 explanation to C1.
Unless is the elegant negative condition: "You must draw a card unless your hand is full." That single word replaces "if your hand is not full, you must draw a card," and it's much cleaner.
Provided that and as long as express a requirement: "You may trade with any player, provided that both parties agree."
Otherwise gives the alternative: "Play a matching card. Otherwise, draw two."
And defining relative clauses scope a rule to a specific group: "Players who have already passed may not take further actions this round." Note there's no comma; that clause is defining, meaning it identifies which players we mean. If you put a comma in, you've accidentally said that all players have passed, which is a completely different rule and a genuinely fascinating way to lose an argument.
Now some game vocabulary at the enthusiast level, because it's fun and it's real.
A mechanic is a system of rules that produces a certain kind of decision.
Hidden information is what only some players know.
A catch-up mechanic helps the player who's behind; without one you get a runaway leader, which is when someone wins forty minutes before the game ends and everyone else plays on out of politeness.
Analysis paralysis is the condition of a player who has been thinking about their move since the previous season.
Downtime is how long you wait between turns.
And kingmaking is when a player who can't win gets to decide who does; generally considered a design flaw and always a social hazard.
Idioms now.
To play by the rules is to follow them; to bend the rules is to stretch them without quite breaking them.
A level playing field means fair conditions for everyone.
To call someone's bluff is to challenge a claim you think is false.
To up the ante or raise the stakes is to increase what's at risk.
To play your cards close to your chest is to keep your intentions hidden.
The luck of the draw is pure chance.
Beginner's luck is the infuriating phenomenon of the newcomer winning.
Back to square one means returning to the start.
And a sore loser is someone who takes defeat badly; a phrase you may find yourself needing.
There's also a term worth knowing: a rules lawyer is the player who argues technicalities, usually correctly and always at the wrong moment. It's affectionately insulting, which is one of English's specialties.
Now, register: the same rule in three forms.
Spoken, to a friend at the table:
"Oh, if you've already passed, you're out for the round. You can't do anything else."
Written in a rulebook:
"A player who has passed takes no further actions until the beginning of the next round."
On a quick reference card:
"Passed = out until next round."
Notice the middle version. It uses a defining relative clause, a nominalized construction, and no contractions. That's the rulebook register; precise, impersonal, and completely unreadable if you're trying to learn a game for the first time. Which brings me to something worth saying plainly: rulebooks are reference documents, not teaching documents. They're written to resolve disputes, not to introduce a game. That's why reading one aloud is such a terrible way to teach, and it isn't your English that's the problem.
Finally, the social skill: handling a rules dispute without souring the evening.
The language of gentle uncertainty first:
"I might be misremembering, but I think it's the other way round."
"The way we usually play it is…"
"Can we check that one?"
And then the single most useful sentence in board gaming:
"Let's agree on it for tonight and look it up afterwards."
That sentence has saved more evenings than any rule ever written. It acknowledges the disagreement, refuses to let it consume twenty minutes, and quietly signals that the game matters less than the people playing it. Which is, generally, the correct priority, and if you've ever been in the room when it wasn't, you'll know exactly why I'm laboring the point.
The Part That Isn't About English
Three ideas, and they transfer far beyond a table with dice on it.
The first is the curse of knowledge, and it explains almost every bad explanation you've ever received. Once you know something well, you genuinely cannot reconstruct what it was like not to know it. Researchers have demonstrated this in various clever ways: one classic study had people tap out the rhythm of well-known songs and predict how many listeners would recognize them. The tappers, hearing the full melody in their heads, wildly overestimated. The listeners just heard tapping.
That's the expert teaching a game. They hear the whole melody. Everyone else hears knocking on a table.
The practical defenses are simple. Start with purpose, not procedure. Assume nothing is obvious. And watch faces rather than watching yourself; the moment two people exchange a glance, you've lost them, and no amount of continuing will bring them back.
The second is working memory, which is genuinely limited; most people can hold only a handful of new items at once, and that number falls when they're being watched, or tired, or operating in a second language. So an explanation with twenty rules in it isn't thorough. It's a rounding error: the listener retains four of them and picks which four essentially at random.
The fix is chunking: group the rules into two or three named blocks, teach one block, demonstrate it, then move on. "There are three things you can do on a turn: gather, build, or trade. Let's do gather first." That's four items, not twenty, and the other sixteen hang off them naturally.
And the third: demonstrate rather than describe. One played turn, narrated aloud, does the work of five minutes of accurate speech. This is true of games, software, cooking, spreadsheets, machinery and almost everything else. If you can show it while saying it, show it. People remember what they watched happen far better than what they were told about.
Two closing thoughts.
Board games are, I think, a quietly excellent way to practice a language; better than most conversation classes, if I'm honest. The turn structure means you can't be talked over. The vocabulary repeats naturally. There's a shared object of attention, so the silences aren't awkward. And crucially, the pressure is off: nobody is evaluating your grammar, because everyone's busy trying to win. If you're looking for low-stakes speaking practice, an evening of games in English will do more for you than an hour of drilling.
And the last one, about how you play rather than how you explain. Learn the phrases for losing well:
"Well played."
"You had me from about halfway."
"Right, again; I want a rematch."
And the harder skill, winning well, which mostly consists of saying very little and offering to pack the box away. There's a reason people notice these things. A game is a small, contained, consequence-free test of how someone behaves when things don't go their way, and everyone at the table is quietly taking notes, whether they mean to or not.
Which is, when you think about it, the real reason we agree on the rules before we start.
Your Challenge
Pick one, or take all three.
The speaking challenge.
Record yourself teaching a game you know well, in three minutes maximum. The rules of the exercise: your first sentence must state the goal. Your second must state how someone wins. Then you must demonstrate one turn out loud rather than describing it. Then the end condition. And you must finish with the sentence "the rest we'll pick up as we go." Three minutes is the hard part; most people need two attempts, and the second one is always dramatically better.
The writing challenge.
Write a one-page quick reference for a game: the version you'd hand someone mid-game when they've forgotten what they can do. Use imperatives, use the zero conditional for the rules, and use unless at least once. Then write the same rule twice more: once as a spoken sentence to a friend, once in the formal rulebook register with a defining relative clause. Three registers, one rule.
And the real one.
Teach somebody a game in English this week, and count the interruptions. Every interruption is data; it marks the exact point where your explanation left the listener behind. Then teach the same game to someone else and see if you can halve the number. That's not a game exercise. That's the whole of teaching, compressed into one evening and a small cardboard box.
0 Comments