Variant Friendly Robber Disabled

[Mucklan]

When I set up a game of Catan, I always choose to have the variant Friendly Robber disabled. Yet, opponents keep asking to play Friendly Robber. Yet, opponents choose to play Friendly Robber. I find that disrespectful. I think there should be a way for the table host to report opponents and quit the game (without penalty), or at least the latter, when opponents refuse to play accordingly to the set-up that is made by a Premium-paying player. Or something else, I'm open for suggestions!

I don't see the point of having the option to enable/disable the variant when there's absolutely nothing that makes sure people do what they are expected to...?

I recently played with a pair of opponents that refused to collaboratively abandon the game, when it was clear they wanted to play Friendly Robber despite my set-up where the variant was DISABLED. My only option in that situation is to leave the game and get a penalty, which is incredibly unfair!

It's so unnecessary for this scenario to take place. PLEASE, do something about this. The toxicity in the Catan community exists only because it's enabled...

When a game is about to start, and the players must accept or decline. If they do not approve of the set-up, WHY do they accept??? I cannot understand this. Is it that they simply can't read because the text is small and they are too lazy to zoom in? It could easily be prevented by BGA by making it bigger and more in-your-face so players can't skip reading. And perhaps with a warning, that if you accept but don't follow the rules, you will get a penalty.

Idk, I'm really tired of this. I don't wanna leave BGA because I love playing games here, but I hate being punished for things I didn't do wrong... :(

[Jontia]

You said a pair of opponents. Does that mean this is a three player game? I never seen this kind of thing in four player games, indeed I disabled friendly robber immediately and have never seen any in game chat or reference to it at all.

[Jellby]

I recently played with a pair of opponents that refused to collaboratively abandon the game, when it was clear they wanted to play Friendly Robber despite my set-up where the variant was DISABLED. My only option in that situation is to leave the game and get a penalty, which is incredibly unfair!

Huh? Your obvious option is to play without friendly robber in spite of their requests. If they don't like it, they can quit. Sure, they could team up against you in "retaliation"... but that can happen in any game for any other reason.

[legrandc]

Yeah just steal them, it's not your problem if they didn't chose the right option but theirs. And even if they steal you afterwards, at least you stole from them before

[QueenSquid]

My issue is that the friendly robber variant rule is incorrectly applied. Friendly robber should apply until the person at 2 VPs starts robbing the person at 3+ VPs. I just played a game with friendly rules enabled and I was robbed - no joke - nine times by both players before either of them reached 3 VPs, instead choosing to invest in roads and dev cards. As soon as you start to rob someone, you should be fair game to be robbed.

[Mucklan]

You said a pair of opponents. Does that mean this is a three player game? I never seen this kind of thing in four player games, indeed I disabled friendly robber immediately and have never seen any in game chat or reference to it at all.

Exactly, I always set up a table for 3 players (myself included) because I prefer a shorter game time. Would it be different if it was a 4 player game, and if so why?

[Mucklan]

I recently played with a pair of opponents that refused to collaboratively abandon the game, when it was clear they wanted to play Friendly Robber despite my set-up where the variant was DISABLED. My only option in that situation is to leave the game and get a penalty, which is incredibly unfair!

Huh? Your obvious option is to play without friendly robber in spite of their requests. If they don't like it, they can quit. Sure, they could team up against you in "retaliation"... but that can happen in any game for any other reason.

I don't deserve getting red thumbs and bad rep because the opponents don't care to read the chosen set-up options before accepting to join the game.

[Jellby]

I don't deserve getting red thumbs and bad rep because the opponents don't care to read the chosen set-up options before accepting to join the game.

If you quit a game, you deserve a bad rep.

And red thumbs you, and everyone else, always deserve them, as they can be given for no reason at all.

If the other players were abusive in some way, report them.

[Mucklan]

I don't deserve getting red thumbs and bad rep because the opponents don't care to read the chosen set-up options before accepting to join the game.

If you quit a game, you deserve a bad rep.

And red thumbs you, and everyone else, always deserve them, as they can be given for no reason at all.

If the other players were abusive in some way, report them.

It seems you don't understand my point here. Of course I deserve a red thumb if I do wrong. The wrong-doers here are the opponents refusing to play as we should.

[Jellby]

My point is that red thumbs are not "deserved". If someone does not want to play with you, because they don't like your username or whatever, they are free to red thumb you without any explanation. There's nothing to complain about (and no consequence for you).

I agree that those who did not accept the rules are doing "wrong", but unless they did anything reportable (cheat, insult...), there's nothing you can do, except red thumb them so you don't encounter them again. If instead you chose to quit the game, then that's something you did wrong and got a penalty. If you instead you chose to insult them in chat or accuse the players publicly, then that's something you did wrong and you could be reported and punished for that. If all you did is keep playing according to the rules set for the table, then you did nothing wrong.