GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 133.55
49.2% of Goal | left
If a player signals, in any way, "I need help," and the other players can then figure out SPECIFICALLY what kind of help he needs -- then giving the signal violates the rule, because without that signal, the fact that he needs that specific help is not "readily available" to the other players.
So it seems that discussions (aka Table Talk) which conform to the rule are limited to "prospective" agreements about _future_ actions.
Can of worms.
Without a Traitor, "more" table talk makes it easier to win, but doesn't disadvantage any player.
I see lots of posts saying "my group does xxx this way, and everyone knows it means yyy."
But the Collaboration rule says you cannot reveal "specific game information not READILY available." So many groupthink conventions actually violate that rule, to the detriment of a Traitor player.
If the game were balanced, the Traitor would win half the time. Otherwise, he needs to resign himself to the role of a gamesmaster who is trying to make the game entertaining & challenging for the other players.
Placing facedown cards on combat quests
If it is face down, that signals it's nothing to worry about. We only do face up if you have no Merlin cards and you want your team to know that the card must be stopped.
But that is a violation of the Collaboration rule. The fact that you need that help is not "readily available" to the other players, so you cannot let them know that you need that specific help.
- Last edited Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:17 am (Total Number of Edits: 2)
- Posted Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:13 am
I'm going to be completely honest with you here. You need to re-read that side-bar on Collaboration. What you have written doesn't seem to match what is discussed in that side-bar.
In the example you give of playing a black card face down signifying a "low" value card, this does not provide "explicit values of cards" or "specific game information", but rather are "general and non-specific". Playing a face down card does not tell the other players that it is a 1 or a 3. In fact, the traitor may have played a 4 or 5.
There is no can worms. Springy snakes... perhaps.
This "agreement" violates the rule: "face up if you have no Merlin cards and you want your team to know that the card must be stopped."
In this example, the face up card is readily available knowledge, as would be the fact that the player did not remove the card themselves. Even without the pre-arranged agreement, any request for assistance with the quest would be non-specific, within the collaboration guidelines, and rather easy for the other players to figure out.
If the knight did NOT ask for assistance in that situation and ended up losing the quest, the other players would probably assume he is the traitor and lost it on purpose. I do not believe forcing this kind of play is the intent of the collaboration rules. Personally, I believe you are overthinking the rules here.