Is it okay to claim what cards I have using the game chat?

[sicp]

Let's say there are 2 outlaws, the first one has Gatling and the second one has 1 life, but multiple beers. The second one wants to proclaim that the first can use Gatling with no issue.

When playing in person, a big part of the game is bluffing by saying what you have and who you are (sometimes honestly and sometimes not). However, when I did so on this site, some people claimed it as forbidden table talk.

What's your verdict?

[Falzano]

It's forbidden.
Also IRL, I think. You can bluff about your role, but not talk about your or others cards.

That said, in BGA this aspect of the game is really weal, due to technology limit, so a more silent game is always the best thing.

[Ceaseless]

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25763

[kuzestanx]

you can't name the cards in your hand: that's exactly what the author of the game wrote on BGG (but not in the rules or in the FAQ). The restriction is cringe, many players ignore it, and unfortunately many players support it.

[sicp]

Thanks! It's a bit surprising that talking about your role is okay, but cards are not. But, if that's the rules, then I'll play like that now

[Ceaseless]

Thanks! It's a bit surprising that talking about your role is okay, but cards are not. But, if that's the rules, then I'll play like that now

My personal guess for the rationale is this. Talking about your role is more of a bluffing game (you lie about your role to confuse players, they have to sort out if they think you're telling the truth, etc.) The Gatling example, on the other hand, is more of a sharing private info situation among players that already figured out their roles. The teams are just sharing their hand now, which the creator didn't care for.

[kuzestanx]

Thanks! It's a bit surprising that talking about your role is okay, but cards are not. But, if that's the rules, then I'll play like that now

The teams are just sharing their hand now, which the creator didn't care for.

I don't think this analogy is correct, and we can verify this by applying it in another constraint. It is explicitly forbidden to reveal your role card in the game. When the game starts and the player shoots the sheriff, we all identify him as an outlaw. Following your analogy, the player revealed his role and violated the rules, but this is nonsense.

[Ceaseless]

Thanks! It's a bit surprising that talking about your role is okay, but cards are not. But, if that's the rules, then I'll play like that now

The teams are just sharing their hand now, which the creator didn't care for.

I don't think this analogy is correct, and we can verify this by applying it in another constraint. It is explicitly forbidden to reveal your role card in the game. When the game starts and the player shoots the sheriff, we all identify him as an outlaw. Following your analogy, the player revealed his role and violated the rules, but this is nonsense.

I've already separated the difference between roles and cards. Determining roles is a matter of trust. You cannot show any absolute statements on your role. You can only choose to make statements to lie or tell the truth. You can tell everyone you're the deputy, but you're not allowed to prove it. Other evidence like shooting the sheriff or not comes into consideration. If a deputy/renegade does it, that's an act of deception, and can occasionally be the right call. This is usually not the best idea though, so generally shooting the sheriff counts as a pretty convincing claim to being an outlaw. Still, these are claims, they don't prove anything.

Card discussions like the Gatling situation aren't a matter of trust though. Generally, the trust phase has already been completed. Statements between players already perceived as being on the same team aren't really following the same spirit of potential deception that role claiming possesses.