Why are people so obsessed with no telling roles?

[Morninghiro]

Yes telling roles is totally against rules and sportsmanship. The game is played with hidden roles (only sheriff is visible) by purpose of creators not just coincidence. I hate it when the game begins sheriff starting to jail/cat baldu/panic all players and there must be always someone "crying vice" saying omg sheriff I m with you/I m vice/ etc. I know that someone can bluff but in 99% it´s real vice.
Don t get me wrong but when you are outlaw at 5 players and vice recognize himself to avoid sheriff attck the game is lost (also for renegade).... the same is at 7 players where there are 2 vices.
It´s game so don´t ruin it when sheriff hit you just cause you are vice.... Play as vice and sheriff will see in 1 2 round who is with and against him. By telling roles you are totally killing the game.

Couldn't agree more

Couldn't agree less. Read the game rules. Don't ruin the game applying your own interpretation of the rules and founding your own religion.

[SquashEngineer]

I think the game is intended to be, and is better, when roles are hidden. Alliances can be discovered by watching the other player actions, and bluffing can be briefly attempted by slow play or small deceptions. But verbal indication of roles is not part of the game.

Similar to Saboteur, it’s better played with hidden roles.

[Yorgad]

But verbal indication of roles is not part of the game.

That's wrong, if you read the FAQ from dVGiochi (Bang! game editor), table talking is allowed since "that’s one of the most amusing aspects of the game"

Similar to Saboteur, it’s better played with hidden roles.

Again, that's your personal opinion, which I find wrong too. My best experiences on BGA was playing Saboteur with 7 experienced players, where table talking is necessary to allow efficient cooperation/coordination, notnetheless to say that a successful bluff is the cherry on the cake.
(assuming you meant to not "tell" your role because roles card acttually remains hidden until they are revealed at the end of the round)

Cheers,
Y.

[ChiefPointThief]

How far can we take this giving knowledge about hidden cards thing? If my teammate is acting before me can I tell them “ hey save your bang cards because I may be playing Indians next turn (wink wink)?

[Ze Monstah]

Yes telling roles is totally against rules and sportsmanship.

No, it is totally approved by the official rules! Link below.

https://www.dvgiochi.com/giochi/bang/do ... AQ_ENG.pdf

From the official rules above:
Q01. Can players talk during the game?
A. Of course! That’s one of the most amusing aspects of the game. However, players cannot ask
questions directly related to the playing of the cards (e.g. they cannot ask the Sheriff if they can
play a Gatling).

How far can we take this giving knowledge about hidden cards thing? If my teammate is acting before me can I tell them “ hey save your bang cards because I may be playing Indians next turn (wink wink)?

So basically, this repetitive thing was debated on, on and on and on.
If I say "I am Deputy/Vice/etc.", I may lie.
The lie is usually uncovered towards the end of the game.
But if I am the Vice and ask the Sheriff "Can I use Indians, so we win?", and the Sheriff gives the true answer and I use Indians and win, this is (again, according to the rules), not allowed.

I am not sure why people think these 2 things are comparable, and I also don't understand why this "telling roles" thing is brought on and on, again, when the official wording of the game publisher is clear enough (again, the links...).
Role Cards and Playing Cards are not the same thing, and making the Playing Cards public for your team is totally forbidden.
But one may or may not bluff on the Role!

[ChiefPointThief]

Yes telling roles is totally against rules and sportsmanship.

No, it is totally approved by the official rules! Link below.

https://www.dvgiochi.com/giochi/bang/do ... AQ_ENG.pdf

From the official rules above:
Q01. Can players talk during the game?
A. Of course! That’s one of the most amusing aspects of the game. However, players cannot ask
questions directly related to the playing of the cards (e.g. they cannot ask the Sheriff if they can
play a Gatling).

How far can we take this giving knowledge about hidden cards thing? If my teammate is acting before me can I tell them “ hey save your bang cards because I may be playing Indians next turn (wink wink)?

So basically, this repetitive thing was debated on, on and on and on.
If I say "I am Deputy/Vice/etc.", I may lie.
The lie is usually uncovered towards the end of the game.
But if I am the Vice and ask the Sheriff "Can I use Indians, so we win?", and the Sheriff gives the true answer and I use Indians and win, this is (again, according to the rules), not allowed.

I am not sure why people think these 2 things are comparable, and I also don't understand why this "telling roles" thing is brought on and on, again, when the official wording of the game publisher is clear enough (again, the links...).
Role Cards and Playing Cards are not the same thing, and making the Playing Cards public for your team is totally forbidden.
But one may or may not bluff on the Role!

So when the sheriff plays a bang and attacks the vice and The vice says “ why are you playing a bang I’m on your side” isn’t that asking a question about cards that are played? Which it says not to do.

Also when the sheriff is attacking the vice and they say, “what are you doing sheriff? Think about it. Slab shot you and willie didn’t shoot slab 5 turns ago.” The vice is now influencing the sheriffs actions. Essentially telling them what cards to play on all future actions. Which it says not to do above.

[Jellby]

So when the sheriff plays a bang and attacks the vice and The vice says “ why are you playing a bang I’m on your side” isn’t that asking a question about cards that are played? Which it says not to do.

No, because the supposed vice (remember, that someone says "I'm the vice" doesn't mean it's true) is not really asking "why are you playing a bang"... or rather, asking is fine, there's no real information exchange. Now, it depends what the sheriff does. If he/she says "because I have this or that other card that I'm saving for the bandits", that would be against the rules, but if he/she just says nothing, or "oops, I thought you were the renegade", or "you're lying", or "I just want to keep everyone's health low", then, again, it's not talking about the cards, but about roles, and that's allowed and encouraged.

[Ze Monstah]

So when the sheriff plays a bang and attacks the vice and The vice says “ why are you playing a bang I’m on your side” isn’t that asking a question about cards that are played? Which it says not to do.

The Vice can simply say "I am the Vice", after the Sheriff's bangs; no need for her/him to say "Why are you playing X or Y?"
And even if (s)he did, there is no information regarding what cards the players have in hand, which I assume that's the logic behind the "Might I use a Gatling, Sheriff?" example.
The situations are kind of different, aren't they?

Also when the sheriff is attacking the vice and they say, “what are you doing sheriff? Think about it. Slab shot you and willie didn’t shoot slab 5 turns ago.” The vice is now influencing the sheriffs actions. Essentially telling them what cards to play on all future actions. Which it says not to do above.

I don't see how the Vice is telling the Sherrif exactly what cards to use, in the example you gave.
And even if (s)he did, no hidden PLAYING CARDS info was shared - this is the thing the rule addresses.

[ChiefPointThief]

So when the sheriff plays a bang and attacks the vice and The vice says “ why are you playing a bang I’m on your side” isn’t that asking a question about cards that are played? Which it says not to do.

The Vice can simply say "I am the Vice", after the Sheriff's bangs; no need for her/him to say "Why are you playing X or Y?"
And even if (s)he did, there is no information regarding what cards the players have in hand, which I assume that's the logic behind the "Might I use a Gatling, Sheriff?" example.
The situations are kind of different, aren't they?

I don't understand how this is up for debate. Players are literally asking questions about cards that are being played. Just because it isn't the exact question from the example that was provided doesn't mean they aren't questions.

I don't see how the Vice is telling the Sherrif exactly what cards to use, in the example you gave.
And even if (s)he did, no hidden PLAYING CARDS info was shared - this is the thing the rule addresses.

By telling them what cards not to play you are telling them what cards to play and to whom to play them against. If you have to tell the sheriff don't attack me because blah blah blah then obviously the sheriff prior to that didn't have knowledge not to attack you. The problem with your bluffing argument is that players aren't bluffing. They are using hidden knowledge (players roles) and combining it with the actions in the game to paint a clear picture for the sheriff to give hidden information.

I don't know if you play spades but I know jellby does. In the example I provided it would be the equivalent of player d and e being on teams and player d playing a club. Player d then says, "Why did you play clubs. Do you remember earlier in the hand I didn't have a heart?". They don't have to literally say I'm void on hearts. Go to hearts so we can win. In both scenarios they are telling them what cards to play by telling them what not to do.

In every setup of bang someone is at a disadvantage. Like someone already stated when the team with the advantage is also giving roles and doing extra communication it makes it extremely difficult and even impossible for the team with the disadvantage to compete.

[Ze Monstah]

So when the sheriff plays a bang and attacks the vice and The vice says “ why are you playing a bang I’m on your side” isn’t that asking a question about cards that are played? Which it says not to do.

The Vice can simply say "I am the Vice", after the Sheriff's bangs; no need for her/him to say "Why are you playing X or Y?"
And even if (s)he did, there is no information regarding what cards the players have in hand, which I assume that's the logic behind the "Might I use a Gatling, Sheriff?" example.
The situations are kind of different, aren't they?

I don't understand how this is up for debate. Players are literally asking questions about cards that are being played. Just because it isn't the exact question from the example that was provided doesn't mean they aren't questions.

I don't see how the Vice is telling the Sherrif exactly what cards to use, in the example you gave.
And even if (s)he did, no hidden PLAYING CARDS info was shared - this is the thing the rule addresses.

By telling them what cards not to play you are telling them what cards to play and to whom to play them against. If you have to tell the sheriff don't attack me because blah blah blah then obviously the sheriff prior to that didn't have knowledge not to attack you. The problem with your bluffing argument is that players aren't bluffing. They are using hidden knowledge (players roles) and combining it with the actions in the game to paint a clear picture for the sheriff to give hidden information.

I don't know if you play spades but I know jellby does. In the example I provided it would be the equivalent of player d and e being on teams and player d playing a club. Player d then says, "Why did you play clubs. Do you remember earlier in the hand I didn't have a heart?". They don't have to literally say I'm void on hearts. Go to hearts so we can win. In both scenarios they are telling them what cards to play by telling them what not to do.

In every setup of bang someone is at a disadvantage. Like someone already stated when the team with the advantage is also giving roles and doing extra communication it makes it extremely difficult and even impossible for the team with the disadvantage to compete.

Jellby, I and the game publisher kind of covered all aspects of this issue, I think.

If Sheriff attacks me, I don't have to say anything regarding the Bangs!
I can simply say "I am the Vice", if I wanted to. Of course, that would indirectly involve the Bangs I was just attacked with.
Then anyone can bluff and say "I (they) am the Vice; that guy you just banged, is lying; keep banging him!".

The examples you gave, IMO, are not good.
The Sheriff doesn't know for sure, anything. The playing of cards lets the roles unfold, after all.
Just 'cause the Vice or the Renegade (or even an Outlaw) tells the sheriff stuff, doesn't mean that the Sheriff is brain damaged, you know...
And even after a person says something regarding the roles, anyone can counter and bluff.
So... No hidden card stuff is revealed, and no one is forced to play cards in a certain way! Because the Sheriff is not a puppet and doesn't have to take anyone seriously and do what they tell him to.
You just want to see things in your way, I guess.

In every setup of bang someone is at a disadvantage. Like someone already stated when the team with the advantage is also giving roles and doing extra communication it makes it extremely difficult and even impossible for the team with the disadvantage to compete.

Perhaps the problem is with the people who see this game, a mute one; and aren't capable of lying/bluffing. But that's their problem... After all, this game isn't a work of art; bigger fish to fry...

If people still want to play without a word spoken, without role-bluffing or in any other way, I personally don't care. Enjoy.