To what extent is tabletalk ok?

[Stroom]

Table talk is quite an important factor in many games. You generally want to stop the leader somehow. Maybe he is about to complete an objective, giving him lots of points. You might be able to collectively hate-draft something or just occupy the action spaces he needs to use to do it. Maybe there is a way to make him lose lots of points if you work together for a moment. Giving advice about things like this is really useful for the collective benefit. No matter if the other player thinks it's solicited or not. Have to understand each player's point of view. Someone getting angry about people talking in the game are probably mad about being blocked by other players. The goal is to win by collectively not allowing someone else to win, not to all play individually and see who scores the most at the end.

[Remkar]

Table talk is quite an important factor in many games. You generally want to stop the leader somehow. Maybe he is about to complete an objective, giving him lots of points. You might be able to collectively hate-draft something or just occupy the action spaces he needs to use to do it. Maybe there is a way to make him lose lots of points if you work together for a moment. Giving advice about things like this is really useful for the collective benefit. No matter if the other player thinks it's solicited or not. Have to understand each player's point of view. Someone getting angry about people talking in the game are probably mad about being blocked by other players. The goal is to win by collectively not allowing someone else to win, not to all play individually and see who scores the most at the end.

See, that kind of PLAY is fine without the explicit talking. If each player notices it, decides to do something about it, and figures out how to implement it on their own.

It seems pretty cheap if one player is basically instructing/manipulating 1 or more other players (especially when they are less proficient) to do their bidding. If you're going to do that, that's not much different than playing as 3 different players in 4 player game against 1 other person. That's not very sporting and seems like kingmaking, no?

Again, if you're with a group of friends or make the decision as a group before the game, it's obviously fine to play that way. But in a competitive environment against people you don't know? That kind of play seems unsporting and sketchy to me.

[Stroom]

Table talk is quite an important factor in many games. You generally want to stop the leader somehow. Maybe he is about to complete an objective, giving him lots of points. You might be able to collectively hate-draft something or just occupy the action spaces he needs to use to do it. Maybe there is a way to make him lose lots of points if you work together for a moment. Giving advice about things like this is really useful for the collective benefit. No matter if the other player thinks it's solicited or not. Have to understand each player's point of view. Someone getting angry about people talking in the game are probably mad about being blocked by other players. The goal is to win by collectively not allowing someone else to win, not to all play individually and see who scores the most at the end.

See, that kind of PLAY is fine without the explicit talking. If each player notices it, decides to do something about it, and figures out how to implement it on their own.

It seems pretty cheap if one player is basically instructing/manipulating 1 or more other players (especially when they are less proficient) to do their bidding. If you're going to do that, that's not much different than playing as 3 different players in 4 player game against 1 other person. That's not very sporting and seems like kingmaking, no?

Again, if you're with a group of friends or make the decision as a group before the game, it's obviously fine to play that way. But in a competitive environment against people you don't know? That kind of play seems unsporting and sketchy to me.

You can talk but the other players still have to make the moves. They can decide not to follow that player's orders. If one of the players clearly plays badly, instructing them can help them as well. That's not kingmaking. That's collectively making moves against a player so that he does not win. Everyone playing their own game and then comparing scores is similarly quite pointless. Why not just play solitaire? Collectively playing in a way to prevent others from getting ahead (diplomacy) is a key element in many games. Sometimes you are the one who gets targeted, sometimes you target someone else. It's not like it's always the same 3 vs 1.

[Remkar]

You can talk but the other players still have to make the moves. They can decide not to follow that player's orders. If one of the players clearly plays badly, instructing them can help them as well. That's not kingmaking. That's collectively making moves against a player so that he does not win. Everyone playing their own game and then comparing scores is similarly quite pointless. Why not just play solitaire? Collectively playing in a way to prevent others from getting ahead (diplomacy) is a key element in many games. Sometimes you are the one who gets targeted, sometimes you target someone else. It's not like it's always the same 3 vs 1.

If you table talk like that, there's only 2 categories of outcomes.
1 - They don't follow your suggestion, and your table talk might as well not have happened.
2 - They do what you say, and you basically just gained extra game utility (like having extra cards/actions/etc. depending on the game and what you convinced them to do). And that extra utility was gained outside of the scope of the rules. That seems unsportsmanlike, no?

And why isn't it kingmaking?
Suppose we have a 4 player game with player A (500 ELO), player B (350 ELO), player C (200 ELO), player D (100 ELO). With no table talk, most games with this group would end ABCD. But, if player B uses heavy table talk and convinces players C and D to make multiple moves beneficial to B and harmful to A, the game will likely end BACD (or potentially even worse for A depending on the game and how effective B's table talk is). Player B won not because they were better, but because they manipulated two players to help push them to the top. That is effectively players C and D kingmaking (albeit without likely realizing that's what they are doing) player B at player B's behest.

Certainly, players should try to play to win, which often means doing things detrimental to the person in 1st. But not always (sometimes if you're in 4th, you may not be able to catch 1st, so you might be targeting 2nd/3rd more aggressively, especially in the endgame). But this should all be possible and decided by each individual player based on their understanding of the situation and their skill at the game.

As to your "why not just play solitaire?" comment. I assume you're being facetious and/or hyperbolic? Or do you not play many different types of board games? Even highly random, heavily solitaire style-like games such as Yahtzee will favor the player in the long run that pays attention to their opponent's choices. Then when you start to get into more complicated Euros, there are so many ways you that impact and interact with your opponents that is built into the rules of the game without heavy-handed table talking. But this is getting off topic...

I totally get targeting the leader, especially early/mid game when everyone hopefully still has a chance to win, but everyone should be able to make that choice and how to do it based on their own skills, not based on the skills of the player who is the best table talker.

I mean, if people like playing that way with their friends and in groups that are ok with it, more power to them. But in an anonymous, competitive online environment? That seems like an unethical way to play.

Maybe we're talking about different games, though? Since you mostly just seem to play Hanabi on here, I don't have a good grasp of what you're basing your thinking on.

[Stroom]

If you table talk like that, there's only 2 categories of outcomes.
1 - They don't follow your suggestion, and your table talk might as well not have happened.
2 - They do what you say, and you basically just gained extra game utility (like having extra cards/actions/etc. depending on the game and what you convinced them to do). And that extra utility was gained outside of the scope of the rules. That seems unsportsmanlike, no?

Not true. This kind of table talk is not one-sided all of the time. Sometimes A is in the lead so people have to gang up on him. Then B gets ahead so you gang up on him. Then A again, then B... And during all this time, C and D will get more time to catch up to both of them. And then C might actually become a threat. And all this table talk about who seems the strongest, is not something that one player dictates. It is a collective hivemind trying to manipulate other players to think who is ahead while downplaying their own strengths. If you don't table talk in a game with player interaction and diplomatic aspects, you put yourself at a disadvantage.
It's easy to hate-draft cards that are more useful for someone else in games with card drafting - you might gain 2 points for a card but you can make a player NOT gain 6 points by taking the card from him. Similarly you can take action spaces in worker placement games. You can do it alone but often you have to do it collectively.

And why isn't it kingmaking?
Suppose we have a 4 player game with player A (500 ELO), player B (350 ELO), player C (200 ELO), player D (100 ELO). With no table talk, most games with this group would end ABCD. But, if player B uses heavy table talk and convinces players C and D to make multiple moves beneficial to B and harmful to A, the game will likely end BACD (or potentially even worse for A depending on the game and how effective B's table talk is). Player B won not because they were better, but because they manipulated two players to help push them to the top. That is effectively players C and D kingmaking (albeit without likely realizing that's what they are doing) player B at player B's behest.

I explained how you are looking at it in a very black and white way. One player does not dictate how other players have to play. The other players can also open their mouths and suggest other courses of actions.

Certainly, players should try to play to win, which often means doing things detrimental to the person in 1st. But not always (sometimes if you're in 4th, you may not be able to catch 1st, so you might be targeting 2nd/3rd more aggressively, especially in the endgame). But this should all be possible and decided by each individual player based on their understanding of the situation and their skill at the game.

That's how bad players would play this. You don't take an action that does nothing for you. You'd do something that can give you 2-3 points while the optimal move would be to get 4-5 points... but by doing that, you can prevent another player to lose or not gain 6-7 points. But who has to make that move often depends on player order, who can actually perform these actions etc. Since a lot of games have hidden information, other players might not know what people can actually do. You seem to suggest that players should display all of their hidden information in order to make these leader-bashing moves. No. They can still have individual goals and taking specific moves can both hinder an opponent and help themselves. When table talking, you can just point out minor details about the opponents and what you think they are planning to do. And other players can look into it and change their tactics (what order they place their workers in) but they still play for themselves too.

As to your "why not just play solitaire?" comment. I assume you're being facetious and/or hyperbolic? Or do you not play many different types of board games? Even highly random, heavily solitaire style-like games such as Yahtzee will favor the player in the long run that pays attention to their opponent's choices. Then when you start to get into more complicated Euros, there are so many ways you that impact and interact with your opponents that is built into the rules of the game without heavy-handed table talking. But this is getting off topic...

Not hyperbolic IMO. You tend to suggest that hate-drafting or taking opponent's locations or stealing from a leader is somewhat wrong if people reach the decision of WHO the leader is, by table talking. So you might think that people should be more solitaire-ish in their decisions. To think for themselves. Even if they are wrong.

I totally get targeting the leader, especially early/mid game when everyone hopefully still has a chance to win, but everyone should be able to make that choice and how to do it based on their own skills, not based on the skills of the player who is the best table talker.

If someone does not notice something and others are not allowed to point it out, which ultimately makes someone win, isn't that kind of a kingmaking situation - for those that did not table talk or the one who made a mistake? Also it kind of ruins the game if you play with 3 strong players and one bad player who accidentally makes all of the mistakes in a way that it benefits only player A... So he gets an advantage over other strong players and the others can't do anything about it. In Catan, a player could place settlements in weird locations that ruins the long term plans for 2 other players, but leaves a lot of room to build for one player.

I mean, if people like playing that way with their friends and in groups that are ok with it, more power to them. But in an anonymous, competitive online environment? That seems like an unethical way to play.

Maybe we're talking about different games, though? Since you mostly just seem to play Hanabi on here, I don't have a good grasp of what you're basing your thinking on.

I don't find talking unethical in any way. You always have a risk of it backfiring at you if the other player doesn't want to listen and you still insist. If you waste too much time on your turn, it's not going to be viewed favorably. Other than that, talking about the game while playing and collectively sharing information about who you think is in the lead and what their plans might be, is what makes the game last longer and prevents people from getting ahead, more easily. So you have to think extra hard to fulfil your goals.

I have played a lot of Catan, Carcassonne, Ticket to Ride, Dune Imperium, Twilight Imperium, West Kingdom series games, Lords of Waterdeep, Secret Hitler etc. In most of those games, understanding other player's intentions is a key element and talking about the state of the game helps everyone to stop the opponents from winning.

I myself am not someone who excessively table talks. But I do point out if someone is in the lead or if I think I see through their plans and what might stop them from gaining a massive point lead. If I wouldn't point it out and others don't notice it, the games would often end quickly and it would be boring for everyone. Someone snowballed and the game is over... OR you could stop them and other players can also get their engines running, suddenly it's a more even race and everyone has a chance.

I am not in favor or limiting other players from HOW they are supposed to play the game. If the rules allow it, do it. Talking is rarely banned in games (except in Codenames and not to the spirit of the game Love Letter). Similarly, kingmaking player A so that player B would not win because B completely ruined your game is OK - if you make nasty moves targeting one player, prepare to be avenged.

[Amau_Catepetl]

That depends on the game. I agree that in many games the chat is not used. But in some games this is not necessary, even if a "hello" or "have fun" could be nice

But for Catan for example, I don't like it on BGA because IRL we need to talk to trade and here many people don't talk.

On the other hand, for Tzolk'in we have a whatsapp group of 14 "regular" players. So, when we play with each other, there are many comments during the games. Even if it is not necessary about the game, it makes the game more friendly. In addition, it is easier to give up a game when the table seems unbalanced at the beggining of the game.
Still on Tzolk'in but with other peoples, we recently play turn based games where we talk about different strategies, that is really interesting.

So, yes, it's a pitty that the chat is not used by many players

[Remkar]

Not true. This kind of table talk is not one-sided all of the time.

...

I am not in favor or limiting other players from HOW they are supposed to play the game. If the rules allow it, do it. Talking is rarely banned in games (except in Codenames and not to the spirit of the game Love Letter). Similarly, kingmaking player A so that player B would not win because B completely ruined your game is OK - if you make nasty moves targeting one player, prepare to be avenged.

No, I understand how table talk can work, I was just trying to draw up an isolated example to show how a less good player could beat a better player through table talk when they normally wouldn't be able to, and how that basically ruins the entire competitive fairness of the game and can turn into Kingmaking if it works.

And the rules do NOT allow table talk in most games. Please show me some game rule books (that aren't diplomacy based already like Game of Thrones, Werewolf, Secret Hitler, Catan, Blood on the Clock Tower, Resistance, etc.) that allow for quarterbacking other people's moves and similar talk.

Rule books generally tell you what you can do, not what you can't do... except when clarifying a rule like "Move your piece 3 spaces. You may NOT end on another player's piece. Or perhaps for some expected common misconception.

Do rulebooks generally state:
-that you can't steal money from the bank when nobody is looking?
-that you can't steal goods from another player?
-that you can't bribe other players with in came items?
-that you can't bribe other players with real life money? Or favors?
-that you can't annoy someone with spitballs until they agree to team up with you?
-that you can't threaten violence to make someone do a certain move?
-that you can't knock the table over when you think you're losing and then lie about where you remember the pieces being to try to get a better position?
-that you can't have a group of friends sit around the table and coach you?
-that you can't use an computer to calculate the best moves for you?

I doubt you'll find those in many rulebooks. That doesn't make it ok to do. The rulebook tells you what CAN do. If the rulebook doesn't tell you how you can talk, make deals, make alliances, trade things, etc., then it isn't part of the game.

You can add them, but that's a house rule.

So, again, if you are playing with friends and you like playing like that, great! Enjoy! I've been in those games many time in real life. In an online ELO rated game? In a tournament? No, definitely not ok unless you all agree (or it is part of the rules).

[Stroom]

No, I understand how table talk can work, I was just trying to draw up an isolated example to show how a less good player could beat a better player through table talk when they normally wouldn't be able to, and how that basically ruins the entire competitive fairness of the game and can turn into Kingmaking if it works.

And the rules do NOT allow table talk in most games. Please show me some game rule books (that aren't diplomacy based already like Game of Thrones, Werewolf, Secret Hitler, Catan, Blood on the Clock Tower, Resistance, etc.) that allow for quarterbacking other people's moves and similar talk.

Rule books generally tell you what you can do, not what you can't do... except when clarifying a rule like "Move your piece 3 spaces. You may NOT end on another player's piece. Or perhaps for some expected common misconception.

Do rulebooks generally state:
-that you can't steal money from the bank when nobody is looking?
-that you can't steal goods from another player?
-that you can't bribe other players with in came items?
-that you can't bribe other players with real life money? Or favors?
-that you can't annoy someone with spitballs until they agree to team up with you?
-that you can't threaten violence to make someone do a certain move?
-that you can't knock the table over when you think you're losing and then lie about where you remember the pieces being to try to get a better position?
-that you can't have a group of friends sit around the table and coach you?
-that you can't use an computer to calculate the best moves for you?

I doubt you'll find those in many rulebooks. That doesn't make it ok to do. The rulebook tells you what CAN do. If the rulebook doesn't tell you how you can talk, make deals, make alliances, trade things, etc., then it isn't part of the game.

You can add them, but that's a house rule.

So, again, if you are playing with friends and you like playing like that, great! Enjoy! I've been in those games many time in real life. In an online ELO rated game? In a tournament? No, definitely not ok unless you all agree (or it is part of the rules).

You are hyperboling a lot here yourself. You brought out a strawman situation that can happen sometimes but that is not a reason to ban all kinds of table talk.

Talking is fine. The rules don't have to say anything about not talking. Except in games where talking matters - like Codenames. There is a LOT of talking and temporary alliances in Twilight Imperium. And trading resources in order to gain favors. Even in tournaments.

Talking does not influence game state. It is a board gaming etiquette issue, not about the rules - whether you bribe or threaten someone or use external help. Also it's a common sense issue - talking is not a problem.

[Remkar]

You are hyperboling a lot here yourself. You brought out a strawman situation that can happen sometimes but that is not a reason to ban all kinds of table talk.

Talking is fine. The rules don't have to say anything about not talking. Except in games where talking matters - like Codenames. There is a LOT of talking and temporary alliances in Twilight Imperium. And trading resources in order to gain favors. Even in tournaments.

Talking does not influence game state. It is a board gaming etiquette issue, not about the rules - whether you bribe or threaten someone or use external help. Also it's a common sense issue - talking is not a problem.

My hyperbole was just a way to show that your statement about table talk being allowed by the rules if it wasn't explicitly mentioned is pretty meaningless (because than you'd have to consider all of those other things to be "allowed by the rules").

You mention Twilight Imperium has a lot of talking and alliances even in tournaments... I haven't played it yet, but from reading the boardgamegeek page, it looks like verbal negotiations are explicitly IN the rules, so that's a bad example for you to use, because of course it would be ok if it's in the rules, I already said that.

Try going to some tournaments for games without explicit trading/negotiations and let me know what norms you find.

I've personally been playing boardgames for longer than you've been alive with numerous game groups in different cities and in numerous ways online, and I've only met 1 player in person who thinks social manipulation is ok in every game, and I can't think of any major instances (I don't consider a casual, "man, Soandso is trouncing us" as major, I'm talking more about explicit move suggestions like "Soandso, you should definitely pick up that card so the leader can't get it") that I've seen online in any game that didn't already explicitly allow for such social manipulation in the rules.

Anyway, I feel like this conversation between us isn't really going anywhere, so I'll just try to leave a short summary of my thoughts for others.

1 - using table talk to socially influence another player changes the game.
2 - anything not explicitly allowed in the rulebook should (by common sense etiquette) be agreed to by all parties playing before being added to and changing the game.
3 - social manipulation and attempts at quarterbacking other player's moves is therefore unsportsmanlike unless agreed to by the whole group.

If I beat someone through socially manipulating others in a game that didn't explicitly include it, I would consider it a tainted victory. I didn't win by utilizing the game rules, I won by creating an imbalanced game state via social engineering. If I want to argue and try to manipulate people, I'll go on internet forums (or join a debate team or Model UN). I'm looking to play board games... not engage in social engineering. And when I DO want to combine the two, I'll grab Blood on the Clock Tower or Game of Thrones (or apparently Twilight Imperium).

Regardless of our differences of opinions, I do hope you enjoy your games, but I'm guessing I don't ever want to play anything more than 2 player with you unless it's co-op (or it explicitly includes social engineering in the rules), haha!

[Stroom]

My hyperbole was just a way to show that your statement about table talk being allowed by the rules if it wasn't explicitly mentioned is pretty meaningless (because than you'd have to consider all of those other things to be "allowed by the rules").

You mention Twilight Imperium has a lot of talking and alliances even in tournaments... I haven't played it yet, but from reading the boardgamegeek page, it looks like verbal negotiations are explicitly IN the rules, so that's a bad example for you to use, because of course it would be ok if it's in the rules, I already said that.

Try going to some tournaments for games without explicit trading/negotiations and let me know what norms you find.

I've personally been playing boardgames for longer than you've been alive with numerous game groups in different cities and in numerous ways online, and I've only met 1 player in person who thinks social manipulation is ok in every game, and I can't think of any major instances (I don't consider a casual, "man, Soandso is trouncing us" as major, I'm talking more about explicit move suggestions like "Soandso, you should definitely pick up that card so the leader can't get it") that I've seen online in any game that didn't already explicitly allow for such social manipulation in the rules.

Anyway, I feel like this conversation between us isn't really going anywhere, so I'll just try to leave a short summary of my thoughts for others.

1 - using table talk to socially influence another player changes the game.
2 - anything not explicitly allowed in the rulebook should (by common sense etiquette) be agreed to by all parties playing before being added to and changing the game.
3 - social manipulation and attempts at quarterbacking other player's moves is therefore unsportsmanlike unless agreed to by the whole group.

If I beat someone through socially manipulating others in a game that didn't explicitly include it, I would consider it a tainted victory. I didn't win by utilizing the game rules, I won by creating an imbalanced game state via social engineering. If I want to argue and try to manipulate people, I'll go on internet forums (or join a debate team or Model UN). I'm looking to play board games... not engage in social engineering. And when I DO want to combine the two, I'll grab Blood on the Clock Tower or Game of Thrones (or apparently Twilight Imperium).

Regardless of our differences of opinions, I do hope you enjoy your games, but I'm guessing I don't ever want to play anything more than 2 player with you unless it's co-op (or it explicitly includes social engineering in the rules), haha!

Your hyperbole argument is plainly invalid. You can't use all "not in the rules so it's allowed" claims at the same level. Talking is not a rules issue at all. It's just how you play the game. If you are always silent, fine. But it is also fine to talk while playing. What you talk about, does not matter. Mechanically it does not change anything so talk as much as you want.

Twilight Imperium and talking - Not IN the rulebook. Alliances just tend to happen. Players often agree to move their forces in a way that both players can claim objectives. Non-binding negotiations, not written in the rules. And similarly, in every other game, TALKING IS ALLOWED. You trying to make all games silent is just funny.

You claiming to have played games longer does not make your opinion any more valuable than mine. If "Soandso should be stopped in X way" is too much for you, sorry but that is just stupid. Leaders have to be stopped and coming up with ideas is fine. And as I have said again and again - other players can propose their own ideas how to stop the leader. They don't have to follow every single idea by another player. The other players could do something to stop the leader as well. You constantly keep coming back to the same kind of argument of forcing other players to play in one specific way. This is rarely the case.

Your claims are refutable.
1 - Yes, using table talk does influence the actions of other players. But so does pretty much everything. Not talking and taking at all and just taking extra long to make your moves, being annoying in other ways... Quite a pointless idea overall
2 - Saying that talking not being in the rulebook is something that prevents talking whatsoever is not a valid point either. Otherwise you'd be the kind of player that says "you picked up that piece so you must make a move with that". Which is definitely not a fun way to play a game. So it is not something that has to be agreed with the players. But as a player you just have to not be a dick and not talk too much if other players don't like playing like this... BUT it is not a rules issue. It is only a gaming etiquette issue at best.
3 - is already invalid due to the first 2 points not being an issue. One player can not quarterback other player moves if the players decide to make moves on their own.

People allowing themselves to be manipulated is their own fault. Sure, you don't do it in a fun game. In tournaments though, it is likely their own fault and manipulation is a form of skill.

All I am saying is that I'd allow people to play in any way they want. I myself usually won't manipulate or quarterback other players but I would not take away their right to do it. I stand by my claim that in most games, talking is allowed (as in it is not prohibited by the rules). And I'd definitely be willing to play games with you. I play for fun but also would play to win.