To what extent is tabletalk ok?

[Remkar]

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.

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!

If "Soandso should be stopped in X way" is too much for you, sorry but that is just stupid.

and manipulation is a form of skill.

With my last post I thought I was attempting an amicable, "agree to disagree" statement, while leaving the topic open for others to read and jump in if they wanted, as well as truly wishing for you to have enjoyment in your games and for us to move on. I know text can't always properly show tone, so just wanted to throw this out there.

I feel like your last post was starting to get more angry undertones (using "stupid and funny" towards me and my thinking and some all caps).
You also posted some outright lies (or unintentional falsities).

I could write a response, but I think it might be better for you to edit out your last post (and I can edit out this one), and we can leave things on more friendly terms.

If you do wish to continue for some reason, maybe edit your post and focus on the real issue. The unsportsmanlike advantage that can be gained by things like quarterbacking. If, as you say, manipulation is a form of skill, and ALL games should have it, then it is the single most powerful skill for all board games (if you can get good at it), and if you are correct, that seems immensely sad and boring to me.

If you do stand by what you wrote with no edits, though, I suppose I'll respond later.

[OwnerOfTheIronThrone]

Please read Kingmaking definition given in bga faq. What you are saying clearly does't fall under this cathegory and truthfully I don't think there is a reasonable definition of kingmaking that would consider this kingmaking, as we are discussing tabletalk as a mean to victory rn. Kingmaking is opposite of winning. If you won, you didn't kingmake. If you kingmade someone then u couldn't have won.

[Remkar]

Please read Kingmaking definition given in bga faq. What you are saying clearly does't fall under this cathegory and truthfully I don't think there is a reasonable definition of kingmaking that would consider this kingmaking, as we are discussing tabletalk as a mean to victory rn. Kingmaking is opposite of winning. If you won, you didn't kingmake. If you kingmade someone then u couldn't have won.

No, I think you're misunderstanding.

If player B is using table talk to quarterback/socially manipulate player C into making actions that ruin A's chances of winning so B can win, player C becomes the kingmaker at B's behest.

[Stroom]

Please read Kingmaking definition given in bga faq. What you are saying clearly does't fall under this cathegory and truthfully I don't think there is a reasonable definition of kingmaking that would consider this kingmaking, as we are discussing tabletalk as a mean to victory rn. Kingmaking is opposite of winning. If you won, you didn't kingmake. If you kingmade someone then u couldn't have won.

No, I think you're misunderstanding.

If player B is using table talk to quarterback/socially manipulate player C into making actions that ruin A's chances of winning so B can win, player C becomes the kingmaker at B's behest.

In such an abstract and broad sense, ANY move that results in someone else winning, is kingmaking, so every loser is basically a kingmaker.

What if player D wins due to such quarterbacking? Is that also kingmaking? Or is it just the nature of the game that people make moves and someone eventually wins?

What if you see player A winning and you do nothing? Is that NOT kingmaking? Very similar to the trolley problem - no clear solution to this situation. So the whole premise of quarterbacking == kingmaking seems flawed.

You just seem to hate it if players bash the leader via talking about the game. And everyone should individually understand what and how to do to stop the leader... instead of just... collectively talking about it. Not all talking leads to quarterbacking, just the player understands that what someone else proposes, is the most viable option. And that is fine. It prolongs the game and gives other players a chance at winning.

[Remkar]

Please read Kingmaking definition given in bga faq. What you are saying clearly does't fall under this cathegory and truthfully I don't think there is a reasonable definition of kingmaking that would consider this kingmaking, as we are discussing tabletalk as a mean to victory rn. Kingmaking is opposite of winning. If you won, you didn't kingmake. If you kingmade someone then u couldn't have won.

No, I think you're misunderstanding.

If player B is using table talk to quarterback/socially manipulate player C into making actions that ruin A's chances of winning so B can win, player C becomes the kingmaker at B's behest.

In such an abstract and broad sense, ANY move that results in someone else winning, is kingmaking, so every loser is basically a kingmaker.

What if player D wins due to such quarterbacking? Is that also kingmaking? Or is it just the nature of the game that people make moves and someone eventually wins?

What if you see player A winning and you do nothing? Is that NOT kingmaking? Very similar to the trolley problem - no clear solution to this situation. So the whole premise of quarterbacking == kingmaking seems flawed.

You just seem to hate it if players bash the leader via talking about the game. And everyone should individually understand what and how to do to stop the leader... instead of just... collectively talking about it. Not all talking leads to quarterbacking, just the player understands that what someone else proposes, is the most viable option. And that is fine. It prolongs the game and gives other players a chance at winning.

So, I take it you are ignoring my first comment to you on this page? About your previous post? If so, I'll go back and respond to that post later today if you aren't going to edit it.

Very quickly, to address this post, though, you are either trolling, or just very bad at debating/discussing things logically.

In a previous post you attempt to counter something I said by using "You can't use all 'not in the rules so it's allowed' claims at the same level."
So, you apparently wish to recognize nuance and the ability to rank things in that case, but here all of a sudden, you want to equate everything regarding potential kingmaking scenarios on the same level.

Very convenient and intellectually dishonest of you, eh?

If you honestly can't see how socially manipulating someone to help you win over a better player is at the very least in the same broad category as kingmaking (and is different than a player just making a poor strategic move on their own), I really don't know what to say to you anymore. I feel that is an extremely simple and obvious concept. You may be fine with play like that (there are plenty of people who are fine with kingmaking and don't think sportsmanship is a valuable ethical consideration in fair competition), but you should at least be able to understand the difference.

[OwnerOfTheIronThrone]

Please read Kingmaking definition given in bga faq. What you are saying clearly does't fall under this cathegory and truthfully I don't think there is a reasonable definition of kingmaking that would consider this kingmaking, as we are discussing tabletalk as a mean to victory rn. Kingmaking is opposite of winning. If you won, you didn't kingmake. If you kingmade someone then u couldn't have won.

No, I think you're misunderstanding.

If player B is using table talk to quarterback/socially manipulate player C into making actions that ruin A's chances of winning so B can win, player C becomes the kingmaker at B's behest.

As I understand if you are refering to your hypothetical situation and not the one I have given as an example in the first post of this thread. I will refer your example then. If player C is aware that his move means giving up 2nd place in order to make B can win, then it is kingmaking. But if he wasn't in position to take 2nd place anyway, when he made the choice to perform discussed move, then it is NOT kingmaking. If he was not aware he had a shot at 2nd place, then this is NOT kingmaking. If he was not aware pf the consequences of his move, it is NOT kingmaking. Do we agree on that much?

If yes, then your kingmaking comment only stays true regarding situations where a player is trying to convince someone to intentionally give away the win to him for social reasons. I am however discussing tabletalk regarding the gamestate.

[Stroom]

In such an abstract and broad sense, ANY move that results in someone else winning, is kingmaking, so every loser is basically a kingmaker.

What if player D wins due to such quarterbacking? Is that also kingmaking? Or is it just the nature of the game that people make moves and someone eventually wins?

What if you see player A winning and you do nothing? Is that NOT kingmaking? Very similar to the trolley problem - no clear solution to this situation. So the whole premise of quarterbacking == kingmaking seems flawed.

You just seem to hate it if players bash the leader via talking about the game. And everyone should individually understand what and how to do to stop the leader... instead of just... collectively talking about it. Not all talking leads to quarterbacking, just the player understands that what someone else proposes, is the most viable option. And that is fine. It prolongs the game and gives other players a chance at winning.

So, I take it you are ignoring my first comment to you on this page? About your previous post? If so, I'll go back and respond to that post later today if you aren't going to edit it.

Very quickly, to address this post, though, you are either trolling, or just very bad at debating/discussing things logically.

In a previous post you attempt to counter something I said by using "You can't use all 'not in the rules so it's allowed' claims at the same level."
So, you apparently wish to recognize nuance and the ability to rank things in that case, but here all of a sudden, you want to equate everything regarding potential kingmaking scenarios on the same level.

Very convenient and intellectually dishonest of you, eh?

If you honestly can't see how socially manipulating someone to help you win over a better player is at the very least in the same broad category as kingmaking (and is different than a player just making a poor strategic move on their own), I really don't know what to say to you anymore. I feel that is an extremely simple and obvious concept. You may be fine with play like that (there are plenty of people who are fine with kingmaking and don't think sportsmanship is a valuable ethical consideration in fair competition), but you should at least be able to understand the difference.

Nuance definitely matters. Buy you always go back to the one quarterbacking example. I try to bring you nuances but you ignore all of them.

If you read my last post again, you will see that I used rhetorical questions and I built the logic upon your assumptions. I do not equate everything to kingmaking. I am just showing how your previous comment indicated that you might think this way. OR there are nuances in which case your quarterbacking = kingmaking claim is invalid.

By your standards making a move that might make someone else win but the game is a little bit longer is kingmaking.
I gave you a nuance of whether letting someone win and not doing anything about it is kingmaking. Based on your previous post, I would say that you would think that way. So there is no way to win this argument.

Basically I presented you a flaw in your logic. I used rhetorical questions, doing it. I don't think any of these things are kingmaking. your concept of what constitutes kingmaking is flawed.

I am going to ignore all your personal stabs at how I try to formulate my thoughts as I'm not a native English speaker and go on.

Manipulating someone over a better player... why doesn't the better player manipulate himself if he sees that the other player is getting an advantage? He could just as well "point out" that it is actually the other player who is the threat. It's not the fault of the people who manipulate, it's the ones who listen without thinking for themselves and making a move that does not benefit themselves. And why is manipulation off the table in a game with high player interaction? Sometimes one player can't stop the leader alone and having other players help him, can help everyone.

There can be many specific situations but you seem to only use the one rare case where the player who is being quarterbacked, does not gain ANY benefit from taking the action rather than something else. This is rarely the case. You need to bring up some very specific examples, otherwise you are just using meaningless hypotheticals. Your claim of quarterbacking just does not make sense in the context of most games I've played. And as I said, the player who is being given advice, is always FREE to do what he wants. If he lets himself be manipulated into making moves that only benefit the one who manipulated him, it's his own fault.

I guess you just don't like manipulation. Even in Chess, players do things that throw other players off their game. Standing up and walking away during the match, playing very aggressively etc. And that is not forbidden. All I read from your posts is that you don't like the WAY people are playing the game and you want them not to play like this. But in most cases, it is not forbidden and it is not something players should even agree or not agree about, before the game. Just your personal opinion

[Patrick of the Isles]

Table talk is quite an important factor in many games... 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.

Not everyone enjoys the same experiences, so the answer is subjective based on what people happen to find pleasant. There are threads on BGG where people argue for many pages about what level of negotiation/suggestion is enjoyable in games that do not explicitly call for it. Many players will like games with diplomacy-type elements of table talk. Many other players will dislike such talk. My experience is that in the euro gaming genre there are more people who dislike it than like it, but there are definitely both. Perhaps the important thing is that people try to play with others who enjoy a similar level of negotiation/suggestion so that no one is forced to endure something they find unpleasant.

[Stroom]

Table talk is quite an important factor in many games... 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.

Not everyone enjoys the same experiences, so the answer is subjective based on what people happen to find pleasant. There are threads on BGG where people argue for many pages about what level of negotiation/suggestion is enjoyable in games that do not explicitly call for it. Many players will like games with diplomacy-type elements of table talk. Many other players will dislike such talk. My experience is that in the euro gaming genre there are more people who dislike it than like it, but there are definitely both. Perhaps the important thing is that people try to play with others who enjoy a similar level of negotiation/suggestion so that no one is forced to endure something they find unpleasant.

I'd say that in euro games you want to talk just as much as in other games. It's quite common sense that players would try to do something to stop someone else from winning while also trying to win themselves. Whether stopping the leader happens due to individual actions or by group-think, has no clear boundaries. Sometimes people have the same vides nonverbally and reach the same outcome, sometimes it's easier to talk things through first and act later.

So... either way specific playstyles should not be banned. Let people play as they like. As a player it's your decision how you play. And you have to deal with any kind of playstyle.

[Patrick of the Isles]

I'd say that in euro games you want to talk just as much as in other games... Let people play as they like.

Yes, I agree people should play as they like. It's my experience that many euro game players do not want to play in games where people are negotiating or suggesting moves. Ideally they could play with likeminded people where that is the understood norm, and people who like diplomacy could play with other people who share that norm. In situations like BGA where people do not know each other before playing, some friction is likely to occur when people end up at tables with people who have different expectations.