BGA culture & etiquette - do you "play nice"?

[KyzaGreen]

I was just berated in a game chat for "meanness"*. It got me thinking... In my early days on BGA I played nice like I would with my family - if I could see someone else's plan I wouldn't interfere or block them.

I was a little shocked, at first, when other people on BGA didn't play nice but I soon came to see it as part of the game. So I adjusted my gameplay and honestly haven't really thought about it since. I don't expect anyone to play nice on BGA.

But the player who berated me has FAR more BGA experience than me so it got me wondering... I haven't spent time in the forums and don't often chat with other players, I just play turn-based games quickly in my spare moments - there may be a whole lot of BGA culture and etiquette that I haven't picked up on? I'm thinking maybe I haven't been noticing when people play nice - only when they don't - and so I've come to see that as the norm?

Do you play nice? Always or only in certain circumstances?

For example, with new players? If you are going to win anyway? If you are going to lose anyway?

*To be clear, the comment was purely about my game play we had no chat history.

[Meeplelowda]

if I could see someone else's plan I wouldn't interfere or block them.

There is a certain vocal population on the BGA forums that want you to just let them do whatever they want. They are universally not the elite players at a game, i.e., they aren't successfully competing in the world championship qualifiers (if the game has one) or high ELO. Why does that matter? Because elite player recognize that in a zero sum game denying your opponent points could be worth more than gaining your "own" points. Those players don't cry about people blocking them. With everyone else, it's all over the map.

[Ceaseless]

I was just berated in a game chat for "meanness"*. It got me thinking... In my early days on BGA I played nice like I would with my family - if I could see someone else's plan I wouldn't interfere or block them.

I was a little shocked, at first, when other people on BGA didn't play nice but I soon came to see it as part of the game. So I adjusted my gameplay and honestly haven't really thought about it since. I don't expect anyone to play nice on BGA.

But the player who berated me has FAR more BGA experience than me so it got me wondering... I haven't spent time in the forums and don't often chat with other players, I just play turn-based games quickly in my spare moments - there may be a whole lot of BGA culture and etiquette that I haven't picked up on? I'm thinking maybe I haven't been noticing when people play nice - only when they don't - and so I've come to see that as the norm?

Do you play nice? Always or only in certain circumstances?

For example, with new players? If you are going to win anyway? If you are going to lose anyway?

*To be clear, the comment was purely about my game play we had no chat history.

People are playing a game where the resources are imaginary and designed for the express purpose of being played by the system created in the rules. Descriptions like "nice" or "mean" seem rather silly here. The way the players play directs the flow of the game, maybe this match will be about maximizing your scores to see who explodes into the most absurd plays. Or it could become heavily interactive where the goal becomes which player can establish a playable baseline and keep the opponent from doing the same. Mybe it's divided roles, with one player seeking to try insane things and the other aiming to reign them in. These can all be various paths individual games can take despite all of them being under the same game name. Part of the game is figuring out what role you're best suited for under the circumstances and playing it.

Now, if you're playing with more than 2 players, interaction gets messier, because unlike in 2 player, where each player is given a somewhat even footing with their opponents, with more than 2 players interaction can just cause the conflicted parties to burn out and the opposed to float ahead. The game politics there can get messy and I don't think there's a full answer there.

In any case, nothing is locking you into playing a certain way, you have to decide what you're aiming for. If I'm playing a new player, am I trying to show them the game? Then I might prioritize doing clearly understandable moves that show what the game is about. Basically, a way to clearly show how you get from A to B to C. Give them an idea of what basic attacks are, as well as basic disruption, etc. If the outcome is already decided, you have to determine your priorities.

[Name_Taken]

Things have affected me in a similar way, and I can't really decide how to feel about it...

I used to always try to be as nice and polite as possible to people online, because I don't know anything about them or what they might be going through. Over time I guess I got jaded into this smartass I've become. I still chat politely in a game, but there's so much snobbery everywhere, even these forums sometimes, and I bite back now. But part of me still regrets it sometimes. Maybe the rude snobby person I encounter on the forums is just a nervous teenager that's going through a lot and in a perfect world wouldn't be rude at all to begin with. I dunno. This is all very rambly. I used to be a nice person

[Name_Taken]

Mabye my gripe is separate. I don't understand people who join a forum thread without any answers or anything to contribute except "Your question is dumb"

[nik592]

I think you play the game that gives you the best chance of winning, whatever that involves. I think "mean" is choosing another player to attack repeatedly without a clear strategic reason behind it - to be clear, not every decision will be obvious to all players, so yes, someone might attack my game and I might wonder why, but maybe they're seeing something I'm not. But if they're choosing me on EVERY attack option they get, when other players would sometimes make sense, then that's a kind of play I don't like.

People often complain about blocking in Ticket to Ride. Blocking is absolutely a part of the game - it used to frustrate me, but I've realised it has to be there. But then, in my early days of TTR, I would play on Xbox Live (long before I ever came near BGA), and I had a few games with players who would literally put track in front of ANY track I laid down. To the point that their own game tanked and I was still able to win because I understood what they were doing. Those kind of players I would avoid. I don't think I've seen them on here though, but I have had a few experiences where an opponent made bizarre, random moves that made no sense and also lost the game. I also red thumb those people.

[Grimwold]

I play a game at the best if my abilities anytime to win.
However it happens that sometimes my opponent ask me questions about rules and/or tips when they don't understand something. In that case I answer the best of my ability too.

[Strode]

I think there is such a thing as crossing the line into jerkiness, and that relates to not trying to win. If I join a game and spend my time futzing up other people's plans without any intent of winning myself, that's improper. Same thing if I just made random moves. The gaming social contract is, at least try to win as defined by the game's rules.

Most older games have to be played "mean" to be interesting. That's how they're designed. Of course, that's the case with Chess, Risk, etc. It's nothing personal; it's just that's where the decision-making is focused. Don't leave yourself vulnerable to "mean" moves by others.

A lot of people dislike this and came into the hobby only when "multi-player solitaire" games came about. I don't begrudge them for wanting to play that way, but then they need to select games that are designed that way.

Often the arguments come with games like Ticket to Ride and Carcassonne, which both predate the trend toward multi-player solitaire gaming, but some people think they should be played that way.

[stillframe]

Do you play nice? Always or only in certain circumstances?

I play to win, and I enjoy the game most when opponents are also doing so. There is no mean or nice, there is only the rules.

Within that frame, I try to be ... polite. I avoid spiteful moves that do not advance my win chances. Late in a game that I am well ahead, I may take my foot off the gas.

Blocking is fine. If an opponent does not like it, they are free to red thumb me, that is what the system is for.

As an aside: I suspect that at least some of the time, the complaining player is not addressing any customary practice, but rather is trying to coerce you into not interfering with them, to aid their own chance to win. Gamesmanship, essentially.

[Ceaseless]

Things have affected me in a similar way, and I can't really decide how to feel about it...

I used to always try to be as nice and polite as possible to people online, because I don't know anything about them or what they might be going through. Over time I guess I got jaded into this smartass I've become. I still chat politely in a game, but there's so much snobbery everywhere, even these forums sometimes, and I bite back now. But part of me still regrets it sometimes. Maybe the rude snobby person I encounter on the forums is just a nervous teenager that's going through a lot and in a perfect world wouldn't be rude at all to begin with. I dunno. This is all very rambly. I used to be a nice person

You misunderstood the question as framed, the "nice/mean" phrasing probably didn't help here. Looking at portions such as "if I could see someone else's plan I wouldn't interfere or block them." and "So I adjusted my gameplay" they're not referring to the chat in this context. They're referring to the actual gameplay decisions, also known as interaction, where players disrupt each other.

Mabye my gripe is separate. I don't understand people who join a forum thread without any answers or anything to contribute except "Your question is dumb"

That might depend on the question, and how it was asked. When you read threads about how to get out of the game with a bot and ban them from your tables because the opponent has "bot" as part of their username, or when players jump straight to accusing their opponent of hacking/cheating for what ends up being a simple mistake/blunder on the accuser's part...