Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Do you allow table talk when playing Small World? For example, would it be permissible to say something like "Bob's sorcerers are getting way too strong - we ought to to take them out."
Thanks
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Heck ya. It's small world, not mute world. It's all about shifting focus on me and my growing pile of victory tokens and letting the other beat each other up.
-
-
Sure, I don't mind it - In fact I like em... Adds another element into the game
-
-
Definitely. We always talk in the open. Either to shift focus from yourself to someone else, to make an alliance, to break someone's alliance, etc.
-
Skylar
United States
Tempe
Arizona
-
In Smallworld, where races aren't inherently balanced, it is especially important to be able to have small talk.
-
Justin
United States
Lincoln
Nebraska
-
In my group it's part of playing the game. Though "crying wolf" might also draw some unwanted attention as people question why you're pointing that out in the first place.
-
Jeff Dunford
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
I not only allow it, I encourage it - and am often am first to get it going. The "art" of diplomacy is what makes multiplayer area control / war games fun. That, and the trash-talking!
If my players were opposed to table talk, we'd play more games with less interaction, like Dominion and Race for the Galaxy.
(Those are fine games that I enjoy, but they often don't require your opponent(s) to be in the same room as you)
-
Gastel Etswane
Spain
Peterborough
Ontario
-
Only restriction is that you can't say, "Beat up Bob's races." Instead you should say, "Beat up on the Socerers and Wizards." (Which happen to be Bob's.) This lessens the feeling that a person is being beat up, rather it is their successful races which need to be kept in line.
-
Adam 314
United States
Ohio
-
I would say that I have some restrictions (although not explicitly spelled out before game or anything): Given some of the above examples, I think it's fine to say "Bob has been scoring a lot of points recently" or "we have to get those trolls out of the mountains before they get too powerful", but I don't think it's in good spirit to be too specific about how a player should enact the strategy.
For instance, saying something like "actually, if you came in this part of the board instead [of what you were about to do] you would be able to take over this and this territory and set up blah blah blah for next turn and then I can take out this section on my turn..." would be going a bit far. It's one thing to label a player or race as powerful, but it's another thing to come up with a cooperative detailed plan for taking them out.
-
Железный комиссар
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
-
I don't see this as a matter of explicit rules as much as implicit ethos. In my group, constantly trying to coordinate or sway the actions of other players is just considered rude. This is etiquette in action, not in theory. We're not going to have a sit-down with someone who constantly broadcasts their views for how the entire game should be playing out. We're just going to stop playing with that person for what are, in our setting, self-evident reasons.
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
JohnRayJr wrote: I don't see this as a matter of explicit rules as much as implicit ethos. In my group, constantly trying to coordinate or sway the actions of other players is just considered rude. This is etiquette in action, not in theory. We're not going to have a sit-down with someone who constantly broadcasts their views for how the entire game should be playing out. We're just going to stop playing with that person for what are, in our setting, self-evident reasons.
Yes, I agree. I was meaning to ask about ethos; I hope the word "allow" didn't suggest something else.
So to clarify: if table talk is something that you would find annoying or consider rude, you should choose "No." in the poll.
To ask you further: you say "constantly trying." Does that mean that a little bit of table talk is fine (even expected), and it only becomes a problem if someone is doing too much? Or do you feel that the less table talk the better, and ideally none?
-
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
The statement below is false.
The statement above is correct.
-
This is not Agricola or Puerto Rico. This game is about fantasy races beating up each other. Verbally and with fists - so yes, table talk to your heart's content and I'll be happy.
-
Steven Sousa
United States
Massachusetts
-
I think it's kind of insulting to assume that your fellow players haven't also noticed that somebody has been raking in the coins for the last two turns.
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
haslo wrote: This is not Agricola or Puerto Rico. This game is about fantasy races beating up each other. Verbally and with fists - so yes, table talk to your heart's content and I'll be happy.
Interestingly, I created an almost identical poll in the Puerto Rico forum, expecting to get somewhat different results, but, so far at least, the majority there is also for table talk.
-
Железный комиссар
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
-
Elendil wrote:
To ask you further: you say "constantly trying." Does that mean that a little bit of table talk is fine (even expected), and it only becomes a problem if someone is doing too much? Or do you feel that the less table talk the better, and ideally none?
The first, more or less. Comments here or there (like, "we're getting thrashed") can be innocuous socializing. When those comments are obviously intended manipulatively (i.e., it's quite clear that they don't match what's actually happening in the game), they come off as petty, childish, and an insult to the group's intelligence, generally. When comments are repeated ad nauseum, it's again clear that the commenter is unwilling to simply let other players make their own choices. Etc. etc.
I realize that a subset of gamers at large see outspoken belligerence and manipulation (complaining, accusing, manufacturing indignation, deceiving, spinning, yada yada) as one of the main attractions of of the hobby. That's fine, as long as they're up front about it.
-
Железный комиссар
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
-
Elendil wrote: haslo wrote: This is not Agricola or Puerto Rico. This game is about fantasy races beating up each other. Verbally and with fists - so yes, table talk to your heart's content and I'll be happy. Interestingly, I created an almost identical poll in the Puerto Rico forum, expecting to get somewhat different results, but, so far at least, the majority there is also for table talk.
I'm not sure that means they are for the same things. You've asked people if they can "talk" about the game during play. Unless you're dealing with gamers who have spent a lot of time explicitly thinking about metagaming, the reflexive response is going to be "of course," almost regardless of ethos. In other words, I'm not sure a poll like this is going to capture whatever difference you're trying to isolate. Your respondents' notions of "table talk" aren't going to be half as rich as sophisticated as your own.
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
JohnRayJr wrote: Elendil wrote: haslo wrote: This is not Agricola or Puerto Rico. This game is about fantasy races beating up each other. Verbally and with fists - so yes, table talk to your heart's content and I'll be happy. Interestingly, I created an almost identical poll in the Puerto Rico forum, expecting to get somewhat different results, but, so far at least, the majority there is also for table talk. I'm not sure that means they are for the same things. You've asked people if they can "talk" about the game during play. Unless you're dealing with gamers who have spent a lot of time explicitly thinking about metagaming, the reflexive response is going to be "of course," almost regardless of ethos. In other words, I'm not sure a poll like this is going to capture whatever difference you're trying to isolate. Your respondents' notions of "table talk" aren't going to be half as rich as sophisticated as your own.
The results of the Puerto Rico poll so far do make me fear that. On the other hand, maybe I am just wrong about how the majority of people play Puerto Rico. Personally I don't mind table talk (a limited amount, at least), but more than once in other threads when I have said that there is a certain amount of politics in Puerto Rico, I have had someone pop in and say, "no, you're not allowed to do that." But maybe that's not the majority speaking, but instead a vocal minority faction.
Still, the poll results there (although not here) are a bit different than my experience, which makes me wonder if I was misunderstood. Arguing against that, though, are the following:
1) "table talk" is a technical term that I assume would be widely understood among gamers. It's not just talking, its talking about the game in a way that affects the game
2) I gave a specific example in the text above the poll of someone doing that, and
3) All of the actual responses in this thread have been people who clearly do understand what I am talking about.
So, I'm not sure.
If I were to do the poll again at some future date, how do you think that I should word it to get the most accurate response?
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
Elendil wrote: 1) "table talk" is a technical term that I assume would be widely understood among gamers. It's not just talking, its talking about the game in a way that affects the game
I don't know that I agree with this assessment. "Table talk" is a general term that just means chatting at the table. In a general sense, it is just small talk or a social conversation.
It is a technical term in card games. I am not certain that translates into board games as much. But even in card games, it is usually limited to revealing hidden information. In neither Puerto Rico or Small World is there any hidden information that one player has and not another.
All this to say, I wouldn't have quite grasped what you meant by "table talk" with out the clarification of beating on Bob.
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
ColtsFan76 wrote: Elendil wrote: 1) "table talk" is a technical term that I assume would be widely understood among gamers. It's not just talking, its talking about the game in a way that affects the game I don't know that I agree with this assessment. "Table talk" is a general term that just means chatting at the table. In a general sense, it is just small talk or a social conversation. It is a technical term in card games. I am not certain that translates into board games as much. But even in card games, it is usually limited to revealing hidden information. In neither Puerto Rico or Small World is there any hidden information that one player has and not another. All this to say, I wouldn't have quite grasped what you meant by "table talk" with out the clarification of beating on Bob.
Good to know. I was thinking of the card game usage, and thought that would be understood. But it sounds like it actually wouldn't necessarily be, if not for the example. Again, people who posted here seemed to understand, but I guess the question becomes what proportion of the actual poll respondents read/understood my example.
Oh well. I was trying to be so careful, too.
-
Ryan Wheeler
United States
Mobridge
South Dakota
Do you wonder what Ryan Wheeler thinks about certain games? If you do, you are strange and wonderful and may GeekMail him to request an opinion on any game in his collection. He just may respond.
-
ColtsFan76 wrote: Elendil wrote: 1) "table talk" is a technical term that I assume would be widely understood among gamers. It's not just talking, its talking about the game in a way that affects the game I don't know that I agree with this assessment. "Table talk" is a general term that just means chatting at the table. In a general sense, it is just small talk or a social conversation.
I don't agree with this. I think a lot of gamers would define 'table talk' just has Elendil has in his 1) definition. 'Talking across the table' shortened to 'table talk' as opposed to common socializing.
Maybe I'm wrong. Another poll?
Table talk is:
1) talking about the game in a way that affects the game.
2) general socializing at the table.
3) other. (Doesn't there always have to be an 'other'?)
I'll let Steven decide if he wants to do another poll in this thread as his purpose here may have already been served.
-
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
Mourning the end of the Manning era.
Welcome baby brother Toby James, 03/24, 8 lb. 15 oz.
-
I don't know, I find it odd how common "following suit" and "trump" are as sayings without people realizing they are trick-tacking terms.
Just happened recently while playing Mu that the light clicked for a fellow player that we were "following suit."
-
Danny Mack
United States
Santa Fe Springs
California
-
JohnRayJr wrote: I don't see this as a matter of explicit rules as much as implicit ethos. In my group, constantly trying to coordinate or sway the actions of other players is just considered rude. This is etiquette in action, not in theory. We're not going to have a sit-down with someone who constantly broadcasts their views for how the entire game should be playing out. We're just going to stop playing with that person for what are, in our setting, self-evident reasons.
So that's why I never get invited over...
Seriously though, I have a friendly bunch of folks that I play with now and then who own (between the 4 of them) maybe 5 games (Dominion, TTR, etc.) We do both sociable/non-game-related chatting, as well as tactical/political talking meant to sway others thoughts & actions in the game (all of which someone could call "table talk".) Interestingly enough, in my more serious gamers groups, the latter is the ONLY kind of "table talk" that occurs--nobody is trying to get to know one another or become better friends. I suppose they are just playing for a shared diversion/experience. I prefer the atmosphere of the friendly group (even with its longer player turns), but I wish they had a more varied, more voracious gaming appetite. Oh well, you can't have it all.
BTW: Fun poll. I totally get what you are saying.
-
S H
United States
Merrillville
Indiana
-
Just to stir the pot a little:
Don't we usually sit down at a table to play a boardgame for social reasons? If I didn't want any social interaction, trash talk, "table talk", etc, I would play online. I just think some "gamers" take their gaming way to serious. It's a "game", enjoy it (AND those you play with).
If the Strategic Planning Talk is a problem, maybe A) the player doesn't realize it's a faux pas and just needs a gentle nudge to "cool it", B) that player is just an overly competitive jerk and should've have been invited over in first place, or C) it's likely not game-breaking tactics anyway, relax.
Unless you are playing in a SmallWorld TOURNAMENT. then, NO Table Talk. Or my Flying Farming Aquatic Dragonriding Trolls will rain down the Fires of Heck on your piteous Merchant Dwarves (pssh. get a few more adjectives, loser!)
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Due to the meaning of "table talk" not being a clear, and also just to get more detailed data, I created another poll which asks whether or not 5 specific types of things are acceptable to say. Here's a link to it:
Poll: What sort of table talk is acceptable?
I would appreciate it if you would vote in this poll as well.
Thanks.
-
|
|
