Community consensus / unwritten rules about blocking?

[john0607]

My go-to comparison for those who disagree is that it's like playing poker and being upset when someone bluffs. Yes, you can play poker without bluffing, but insisting on removing that dimension of play, where you can just stop wondering how your opponent will mess with you, actually makes the game less fun, not more. Such people are literally missing the point of playing games (IMO). More strategy options is a good thing, not a bad thing. And OMG, unlike poker, there isn't even any real-world consequence here! (money at stake) How ironic that the people who say THEY do NOT care that much about winning their games, simultaneously get mad if their opponent does?

Except Poker is played for money and Ticket to Ride is supposed to be played for fun. Supposed to. So comparison does not hold up

Did you even read to the end of my paragraph before replying?

I did and saw how you destroyed your own argument. Thought it was worth pointing out again. A completely ridiculous comparison.

[LaOread]

1) I don't block and would prefer others not to block my routes on purpose (fine when they need the path for themselves).
2) I don't block, but I have no problems with others blocking it to win the game or prevent me from gaining too many points.
3) I don't block, but I don't care when and why others block my routes.
4) I block only when I need the route for points and hope others do this only in such case too.
5) I block and don't mind others blocking for any reason.

I'm in between #4 & #5.
I take care of my own routes first, but when possible if I see a way of doing it that will also block someone I might do that (unless it looks likely to block myself later). If not, I'll block near the end-game if it's more logical than drawing more cards/routes.

I don't love getting blocked but I rarely get too annoyed - people that spend too much time at it are unlikely to win either.

[dhnyny]

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.

[thg0724]

Seems a decent comparison to me. Most people who play poker do it because it is fun, that fun may be enhanced by the stakes, but it's still being played for fun. Yes, I am aware that some people play poker as a form of employment.

If there were no keeping score (or rankings here) Ticket To Ride wouldn't be any fun.

Except Poker is played for money and Ticket to Ride is supposed to be played for fun. Supposed to. So comparison does not hold up

Did you even read to the end of my paragraph before replying?

I did and saw how you destroyed your own argument. Thought it was worth pointing out again. A completely ridiculous comparison.

[thg0724]

Come on, the reason we keep score is that it's a competition against the other players playing the game.

This is not like playing a round of golf where you might just be competing against your own handicap or trying to achieve individual goals that have nothing to do with the people you are playing with. Playing "with" rather than playing "against".

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.

[MadManMark]

I did and saw how you destroyed your own argument. Thought it was worth pointing out again. A completely ridiculous comparison.

A pleasure to share POVs with you, too!

.... 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 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... 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.

At the risk of triggering our friend johnny again, let me make another analogy: this is like saying some Monopoly players get pleasure from completing property color sets (blue, red, etc, 2-3 properties each), and if another player buys the third property when another player has two, then that is similarly "malicious, or unfriendly, or "hard core," or "win by any means necessary."

C'mon, be honest: if we were talking about Monopoly here, and someone felt that way about how other players lock down things on the board, you wouldn't really think that, you'd think Why is this person even playing this game, if that's the way they react?

[Romain672]

6. Play to win with any strategy the rules allow, and don't get annoyed when other players also play to win.

To take my comparaison in another forum. Are you ready to win to:
- use potential known bug
- using chat to tell X how to play his last turn if he has two choices (make him finish second and you first) or (make him finish third and you second) (even if ticket to ride have some unknown info going on so that doesn't seem to apply)
- expelling players which said they will come back in 30 seconds if they are 20 seconds out of time

You can argue this is different, and I agree, but I still believe the comparaison is fine.
What you consider unsportsmanship can be different that what consider unsportsmanship others players.

[Salvidrim]

Are you ready to win to:
- use potential known bug

Interesting question. If BGA allows a move, then that's how the BGA implementation works, even if different from paper rules. Plus, a bug is available to every player, so in that sense it is not "unfair", but generally no I would not abuse a known bug / unintended exploit.

using chat to tell X how to play his last turn if he has two choices (make him finish second and you first) or (make him finish third and you second) (even if ticket to ride have some unknown info going on so that doesn't seem to apply)

Other players don't have to listen to you, so this would be kind of pointless anyways. Bluffing/deception is definitely a valid tactic in many games however!

- expelling players which said they will come back in 30 seconds if they are 20 seconds out of time

Absolutely. As soon as a player goes beyond their allotted time control, their opponent is absolutely within their rights to boot them and claim match victory. That's universal both on BGA and in timed OTB play. Rules are the rules. Heck, in a lot of other contexts, going beyond the allotted time control is an automatic loss.

[Carolinemgm]

- use potential known bug
- using chat to tell X how to play his last turn if he has two choices (make him finish second and you first) or (make him finish third and you second) (even if ticket to ride have some unknown info going on so that doesn't seem to apply)
- expelling players which said they will come back in 30 seconds if they are 20 seconds out of time

It is totally different since SalviDrim is talking about playing by the TTR´s rulesbook, playing like you will do IRL.
The examples you give are only related to BGA.

I really do not understand how playing exactly as the rules of the game says and as even the coneptor of the game says can be argued.

[ManonIronteeth]

I hate purposely blocking. It’s rude and unsportsmanlike.
I recently had a game where someone blocked me on purpose right near the end. I said in the chat, “hey that’s not cool to block on purpose. I don’t like playing with people who do that so I’ll be giving you a red thumb.” And then they reported me and I got moderated for “aggressive behavior” with that comment. They didn’t get moderated for me reporting them for their comment of “be a better loser”. So rude!