Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Do you allow table talk when playing Puerto Rico? For example, would it be permissible to say, "I can't believe Bob is producing coffee already. If he gets to sell that we're toast."
Thanks
-
Blorb Plorbst
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
I think we're all bozos on this bus.
-
Elendil wrote: Do you allow table talk when playing Puerto Rico? For example, would it be permissible to say, "I can't believe Bob is producing coffee already. If he gets to sell that we're toast."
Thanks
Is giving everyone the finger considered talking? Because we do that a lot.
-
Nick Case
England
Epsom
Surrey
-
What about the catagory;
Yes table talk is compulsory.
-
Phil
United States
Falmouth
Maine
Skyrim = Amazing!!!
O.o
-
Is swearing allowed? If so, than yes.
-
Tibs
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
-
It's mandatory when there is a new player learning the ropes.
Our only restriction is that we don't want the game to drag on.
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
To clarify, just in case: This question is about group ethos. So if table talk is something that you would generally find annoying or consider rude, and rather play without, you should choose "No." in the poll.
-
-
Big Bad Lex wrote: What about the catagory;
Yes table talk is compulsory.
This. I play boardgames in part to interact with people. If I wanted everybody to be silent, I'd opt for the PR game app, which I never do in place of a face-to-face game.
-
Kevin Shepherd
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
-
In my gaming circle, table talking is virtually mandatory. It adds a lot to the experience.
-
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
-
MolsonMan wrote: In my gaming circle, table talking is virtually mandatory. It adds a lot to the experience.
Same with mine, it adds to the fun. The only exception is a game that disallows it (such as Wars of the Roses) Bribes, counter bribes, threats of violence and fake temper tantrums are all standard. As you can imagine we love Battlestar Galactica.
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
To get more detailed data, and to eliminate potential confusion about what I mean by "table talk," 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.
-
don reiter
United States
Iowa
-
Table talk happens in every game to a degree. Whenever you have a group of people, normally 1 person will rise to the top and become the leader. This is the part I dislike about table talk. If there is a leader, then their must be followers. So with table talk, The leader can persuade the weak-willed player to play the way the leader wants. This will ruin a game for me. I almost prefer to play online for this reason. My normal game group consists of 2 "You play to win the game" players (I am one of them) and 2 "win or lose it's how you play the game" players. So if I let the other play-to-win player have his way with his table talk, I pay the price by playing 3 on 1. While it is allowed and accepted, it does to a degee ruin the game.
-
Greg Jones
United States
Washington
-
donnyrides wrote: Table talk happens in every game to a degree. Whenever you have a group of people, normally 1 person will rise to the top and become the leader. This is the part I dislike about table talk. If there is a leader, then their must be followers. So with table talk, The leader can persuade the weak-willed player to play the way the leader wants. This will ruin a game for me. I almost prefer to play online for this reason. My normal game group consists of 2 "You play to win the game" players (I am one of them) and 2 "win or lose it's how you play the game" players. So if I let the other play-to-win player have his way with his table talk, I pay the price by playing 3 on 1. While it is allowed and accepted, it does to a degee ruin the game.
Exactly - and maybe you could try to give as much "advice" as the other guy, but then it turns into the debate team and not a game. That's not fun.
-
Dan Nunuyerbiznez
United States
Unspecified
Nevada
-
donnyrides wrote: Table talk happens in every game to a degree. Whenever you have a group of people, normally 1 person will rise to the top and become the leader. This is the part I dislike about table talk. If there is a leader, then their must be followers. So with table talk, The leader can persuade the weak-willed player to play the way the leader wants. This will ruin a game for me. I almost prefer to play online for this reason. My normal game group consists of 2 "You play to win the game" players (I am one of them) and 2 "win or lose it's how you play the game" players. So if I let the other play-to-win player have his way with his table talk, I pay the price by playing 3 on 1. While it is allowed and accepted, it does to a degee ruin the game.
PR has so little hidden info (VPs) that to allow table talk is to basically have a tag-team against the leader (in which case you might as well each keep track of the VPs on a note pad, in which case, just play with the VPs flipped up). PR is much too short and dynamic a game for that to occur.
That is not individual game playing. That is annoying. If you want to play a game of politics, play a game of politics. Except in the case of a training game, I choose not to play that way (or, more exactly, I consider that to be a completely different game than PR).
I will roll my eyes if someone plays a sub-optimal kingmaker move, but I grit my teeth and accept that as part of the game as long as there is no collusion (hard to prove at BSW, but obvious in FTF.
JMNSHO.
-
|
|
