Community consensus / unwritten rules about blocking?

[2blackdogs]

I think this is a real issue and I think it is due to the particular nature of Ticket to Ride, not some generic issue that affects all games. Ticket to Ride is designed in such a way that there are multiple agendas going on at once. Yes, you are trying to win the most points and, therefore, win the game. For some players that is the whole point of the game and the discussion ends there. Players who see the point of the game as amassing the highest score will likely find the whole "blocking" discussion weird and pointless and maybe annoying.

But there's another dimension to the game, which is why this issue arises, I think. And that is the role of destination tickets. For players who are simply focused on points, destination tickets are opportunities to gain points and dangers of losing points. But, again, since it's all about points, that's the entire role of destination tickets in the game for these players.

But other players see completing their routes as a goal in and of itself. There's a feeling of fun and accomplishment if you can complete all your routes and, even better, if you can do so in one continuous route. In the best of all worlds, that's a continuous route of 45 trains. I think the mentality of these players is that they're primarily racing against other players to complete all their initial routes and then trying to add and complete more routes.

If you're in this second category of players, happily working away on trying to complete your individual mission, then the main things you're worried about are whether you're going to get the cards you need, whether someone else is going to finish first, and whether you and another player both need to connect the same two cities in order to finish your tickets. That last worry is where blocking comes up. If you and another player both need to connect Duluth and Toronto, say, in order to finish your tickets, then putting trains on that line is understood as simply a step toward accomplishing your goals. It's frustrating when another player does it but you get that it's just the bad luck of both needing to travel on the same line. If you're this kind of player, however, and another player places trains in a way that doesn't help them complete a route of their own and is obviously simply meant to thwart you, then it can feel malicious, or unfriendly, or "hard core," or "win by any means necessary," or something like that. The classic case would be someone who puts a train to connect Nashville and Atlanta, when you obviously need that and they don't. Unlike connecting Toronto and Duluth, which yields a lot of points on its own, this doesn't even give the player significant points. It's all about making you fail. This is the kind of move that is at the heart of the whole "blocking" dispute.

But, as I said, it all seems to boil down to whether you see Ticket to Ride as simply a game about amassing points or whether you see it as a game about pursuing the goal of completing tickets and hoping that you're also going to get the most points. People in the first camp can say that those in the second camp don't understand the game but I don't think that's fair. The design of the game lends itself to the mentality of focusing on completing your routes rather than focusing on gaining points. (Indeed, when my family plays on the physical game at home we don't even bother keeping track of points during the game and only tally them up at the end.)

Now if we could all agree on a way to characterize these two games, then we could solve this whole issue by making use of the "presentation" feature when we create a game. People don't all realize it, but when you create a game you can go to the bottom of the "table configuration" section, click "modify" where it says "no presentation yet," and put in a message that others can read before choosing to join a game. So you could say "No unnecessary blocking" or "unlimited blocking" or whatever you want in order to attract players who want to play the way you do.

Well said! I have had a few people unnecessarily blocking me recently. It's irritating because I'm only going for points and destinations. But I do understand that some people choose to play that way. It's just not MY way of playing. I guess I just red thumb them "for personal reasons" and don't report them or anything. It is the game they are choosing to play that way. And my choice of not liking it is my personal preference. I'm not a super competitive person, and my rating totally shows that.

[DirtyVegas]

My take: Blocking if you need the route, ok.
Blocking because you just want to keep the other guy from winning or delay his game is bad sportsmanship.

If it's a two player game, "keeping the other guy from winning" is the same as "winning".

omg yes, this
it is a game we are playing to win
i have fun when I play a game and get blocked, makes me think and try different strategies with the remaining time
same with carcassonne, that is the game

why would i purposefully let a player win by getting a route I could have easily blocked
red thumb me all day so it won't happen to you again and i hope you still have fun playing with no consequences or potential for loss

[Kaladry]

I think this is a real issue and I think it is due to the particular nature of Ticket to Ride, not some generic issue that affects all games. Ticket to Ride is designed in such a way that there are multiple agendas going on at once. Yes, you are trying to win the most points and, therefore, win the game. For some players that is the whole point of the game and the discussion ends there. Players who see the point of the game as amassing the highest score will likely find the whole "blocking" discussion weird and pointless and maybe annoying.

But there's another dimension to the game, which is why this issue arises, I think. And that is the role of destination tickets. For players who are simply focused on points, destination tickets are opportunities to gain points and dangers of losing points. But, again, since it's all about points, that's the entire role of destination tickets in the game for these players.

But other players see completing their routes as a goal in and of itself. There's a feeling of fun and accomplishment if you can complete all your routes and, even better, if you can do so in one continuous route. In the best of all worlds, that's a continuous route of 45 trains. I think the mentality of these players is that they're primarily racing against other players to complete all their initial routes and then trying to add and complete more routes.

If you're in this second category of players, happily working away on trying to complete your individual mission, then the main things you're worried about are whether you're going to get the cards you need, whether someone else is going to finish first, and whether you and another player both need to connect the same two cities in order to finish your tickets. That last worry is where blocking comes up. If you and another player both need to connect Duluth and Toronto, say, in order to finish your tickets, then putting trains on that line is understood as simply a step toward accomplishing your goals. It's frustrating when another player does it but you get that it's just the bad luck of both needing to travel on the same line. If you're this kind of player, however, and another player places trains in a way that doesn't help them complete a route of their own and is obviously simply meant to thwart you, then it can feel malicious, or unfriendly, or "hard core," or "win by any means necessary," or something like that. The classic case would be someone who puts a train to connect Nashville and Atlanta, when you obviously need that and they don't. Unlike connecting Toronto and Duluth, which yields a lot of points on its own, this doesn't even give the player significant points. It's all about making you fail. This is the kind of move that is at the heart of the whole "blocking" dispute.

But, as I said, it all seems to boil down to whether you see Ticket to Ride as simply a game about amassing points or whether you see it as a game about pursuing the goal of completing tickets and hoping that you're also going to get the most points. People in the first camp can say that those in the second camp don't understand the game but I don't think that's fair. The design of the game lends itself to the mentality of focusing on completing your routes rather than focusing on gaining points. (Indeed, when my family plays on the physical game at home we don't even bother keeping track of points during the game and only tally them up at the end.)

Now if we could all agree on a way to characterize these two games, then we could solve this whole issue by making use of the "presentation" feature when we create a game. People don't all realize it, but when you create a game you can go to the bottom of the "table configuration" section, click "modify" where it says "no presentation yet," and put in a message that others can read before choosing to join a game. So you could say "No unnecessary blocking" or "unlimited blocking" or whatever you want in order to attract players who want to play the way you do.

Well said! I have had a few people unnecessarily blocking me recently. It's irritating because I'm only going for points and destinations. But I do understand that some people choose to play that way. It's just not MY way of playing. I guess I just red thumb them "for personal reasons" and don't report them or anything. It is the game they are choosing to play that way. And my choice of not liking it is my personal preference. I'm not a super competitive person, and my rating totally shows that.

That was indeed well said. I like to complete my tickets. I don't care if I lose if I still get that sense of accomplishment from completing my tickets and just not doing well enough in other aspects like longest train or most tickets. I don't even care if someone blocks me once because we both need the same path. It's when people maliciously and repeatedly block every single connection I need on purpose that I draw the line. I just had a game where someone tried doing that and it was just exhausting. I was still able to connect since I had four wilds to claim the last remaining very roundabout connection (18 around for the initial 3 they blocked) and of course at that point they wanted to abandon the game. LOL.

[thg0724]

I like to complete my tickets. I don't care if I lose if I still get that sense of accomplishment from completing my tickets and just not doing well enough in other aspects like longest train or most tickets.

People play for different reasons. Sure. But, when lots of people come together to play the game on this platform, the default objective as spelled out in the rules in to accumulate the more points than your opponent(s). To get mad at people, to call them names, to complain about their unsportsmanlike behavior, when they are indeed playing to win is out of line. Red thumb them, put notes on your games, play in non-competitive mode, etc. but don't tell them they are unsportsmanlike or playing the game wrong.

[Kaladry]

I like to complete my tickets. I don't care if I lose if I still get that sense of accomplishment from completing my tickets and just not doing well enough in other aspects like longest train or most tickets.

People play for different reasons. Sure. But, when lots of people come together to play the game on this platform, the default objective as spelled out in the rules in to accumulate the more points than your opponent(s). To get mad at people, to call them names, to complain about their unsportsmanlike behavior, when they are indeed playing to win is out of line. Red thumb them, put notes on your games, play in non-competitive mode, etc. but don't tell them they are unsportsmanlike or playing the game wrong.

It's your opinion that calling them unsportsmanlike is out of line just like it's my opinion that it is. If anyone maliciously blocks every route from a city or every connection I have the right to give them a red thumb to never play with them again because that is malicious behavior and I won't stand for it. Those types of people are not playing for fun so I don't want to play with them. Have some decency.

[Suoivax]

Those types of people are not playing for fun so I don't want to play with them. Have some decency.

And who are you to dictate what "fun" is for me? My fun is winning the game as described in the official rules of the game.

[Kaladry]

Those types of people are not playing for fun so I don't want to play with them. Have some decency.

And who are you to dictate what "fun" is for me? My fun is winning the game as described in the official rules of the game.

If playing to win by being malicious to other players is what you think of as fun then you need to work on yourself. Don't be a villain.

[thg0724]

We agree!

It's your opinion that calling them unsportsmanlike is out of line just like it's my opinion that it is.

[Silene]

Those types of people are not playing for fun so I don't want to play with them. Have some decency.

And who are you to dictate what "fun" is for me? My fun is winning the game as described in the official rules of the game.

If playing to win by being malicious to other players is what you think of as fun then you need to work on yourself. Don't be a villain.

If being malicious within a game - played for fun and no consequences on real life - feels malicious to you as a person then maybe YOU should work on yourself .

We competitive players like a good fight. I enjoy trying my best to beat the other player. And I enjoy when the other players tries their best to beat me. This is fun to me. Regardless of who wins in the end.

[Suoivax]

Those types of people are not playing for fun so I don't want to play with them. Have some decency.

And who are you to dictate what "fun" is for me? My fun is winning the game as described in the official rules of the game.

If playing to win by being malicious to other players is what you think of as fun then you need to work on yourself. Don't be a villain.

I feel that your version of fun is unsportsmanlike, as you are not giving other people a challenge in the game, as per the official rules.

Like I said, why is your definition of fun more important than mine?