Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
I am curious what sort of table talk you consider acceptable when playing Puerto Rico. So I've listed some types of statements, along with some hypothetical examples, and I'd appreciate if you would vote which ones would be acceptable and which would not.
This is a question of ethos and preferences, so if you would find a statement to be annoying or in poor taste, you should mark "not acceptable."
Assume in every case that the person talking is indeed trying to influence the outcome of the game, not just idly chatting, and that everyone is playing to win.
Thanks. I am really curious about this.
-
Tibs
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
-
Well, the final two questions aren't in the rules, so the players are trusting each other at their own risks!
Any of these are fine. But I don't want the game to take two hours, so, clearly, don't dictate every causal tree.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Blech, I hate all of these.
Luckily, no one I ever play with resorts to this stuff.
-
Mitchell
United States
Buford
Georgia
-
I haven't played puerto rico yet, however I think any sort of table talk is acceptable. So is any backstabbing, lies told, or alliance broken. I'll do whatever happens to help me the most at any given time
-
Dan Nunuyerbiznez
United States
Unspecified
Nevada
-
I'm in the "No game situation talk at all" camp. I find that works the best.
JSMNHO.
-
Greg Jones
United States
Washington
-
Elendil wrote: Pointing out who is winning: e.g. "Wow, Bob's off to a great start."
I almost said ok, but given your caveat that the person saying it trying to influence the outcome, I say no. That's metagaming deceptively masquerading as chit-chat. You can say deceptive things in games, but don't mask them as chit-chat, or I can't enjoy the chit-chat.
Elendil wrote: Pointing out an on-board situation/dropping a hint as to a play: e.g. "If Bob gets to trade that coffee we're toast."
Elendil wrote: Explicitly suggesting a play: e.g. "I think you should take captain so that Bob will have to ship that coffee."
That's very annoying to Bob. He doesn't mind playing a competitive game, but that kind of talk sounds like you're ganging up on him. Also, to be competitive, Bob will now have to point out moves to the noob as well. It devolves into playing the game for another player. There should be no need for this kind of thing, since everybody can see the same information on the board.
Elendil wrote: Making a one-off deal (non-binding): e.g. "If you will build, then I will mayor so we can both get our production going."
There rarely a need for this in Puerto Rico. Without any stated deal, player 1 can see that if he takes Builder, player 2 will want to take Mayor to get his production going. If that will also help player 1 get his production going, then player 1 is likely to take Builder.
I mean, I suppose you could have a situation where player 1 and player 2 both can benefit from some third role, say Trader. Player 3 can't benefit from that role but will benefit nicely by Craftsman with player 1 and player 2 getting little. Player 1 is governor. The outcome of Builder + Mayor is better for player 1 than the outcome of Trader. However the outcome of Trader is better than the outcome of Builder + Mayor for player 2. So if player 1 takes Builder without negotiating, player 2 will take Trader, so player 1 will not choose that option. If player 1 takes Trader, then he achieves the 2nd best outcome, and player 2 achieves the 3rd best outcome. However if they negotiate player 1 can achieve his best outcome and player 2 can achieve his 2nd best outcome.
It's an uncommon situation.
Elendil wrote: Making a long-term alliance (non-binding): e.g. "The only way we're going to stop Bob is if we start working together."
There should be no reason to have to discuss that. Everyone can see the state of the game, and both other players can individually figure out who the leader is and play moves to oppose that player.
-
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
-
"Shut up and play the F'ing game, will ya!" ~ Reiner Knizia
-
don reiter
United States
Iowa
-
Table talk extends games and is annoying. If you don't like table talk in PR, NEVER play a game of thrones. the game could take 90 minutes to play, but everybody attempts to persuade their will onto others or play poor-me card every turn.
I am also in the "shut up and play" camp.
who else hates playing chess and a 3rd party starts barking out potential moves?
-
Blorb Plorbst
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
I think we're all bozos on this bus.
-
I try to respect the tone of the group I'm playing in but personally, I love table talk and the group I play in gets involved in it regularly.
It certainly creates a great deal of strife at times and will lengthen game play.
Catan, for all of its luck, seems to generate the most impassioned politicking: "Don't trade with so and so, they're clearly winning and you're about to give them a city", "The robber has to go blah blah blah, if you place it on me, I'll soldier it back on you."
This can result in some lively debate. And when it's done well, it adds a great deal of excitement to the game. But some players feel overwhelmed by it and I try to keep in mind who it is we're playing with.
In PR, we don't politic too much because most of the folks who play are savvy enough to know what's up and will call bullshit on people who try to bluff a bad play.
And yes, I will captain that coffee onto the 7 ship if you don't captain now.
-
James Pinnion
United Kingdom
Peterborough
-
One person is entitled to do this (and I would never want to legislate against it) but they often find people doing the polar opposite of what they want!
In general; if I wanted a quick game with no talking I wouldnt be playing board games face to face.
-
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
-
jpinnion wrote: One person is entitled to do this (and I would never want to legislate against it) but they often find people doing the polar opposite of what they want!
In general; if I wanted a quick game with no talking I wouldnt be playing board games face to face.
You'd be playing Chess or Go, no?
-
Steven Backues
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Thanks again for all of the responses. I tried to avoid putting in my own two cents lest that influence the poll, but I think I have enough data now to call it good.
There are two reasons for this poll. First, I have on a few occasions in recommendation threads or the like mentioned that there can be a certain amount of politics and even open negotiation in Puerto Rico, and been immediately jumped on by someone huffily insisting that’s not how the game is meant to be played. So I came to understand that my play preferences were in the minority, but I always wondered exactly how much. I ran this poll to get a better feel for that, and am somewhat surprised to see that actually doing some politicking or even all-out negotiation isn’t as uncommon as I might have thought. Now I suspect that the anti-communication faction might simply be more vocal than the other side, perhaps because people who prefer to play without open negotiation are actively annoyed by those who play with it (reasonably so), whereas one quiet person at the table doesn’t necessarily ruin the fun of those who would rather talk a lot.
My own preferences are such: I mostly play two player games, but when I do go multiplayer I enjoy a moderate amount of politics. I don’t usually want a pure negotiation game, but having some negotiation and politicking along with other types of strategy adds to my general enjoyment of the game. Puerto Rico I don’t think of as a heavily political game, but I think it does have a little bit, and I like that about it.
Specifically: I accept, and generally enjoy, pointing out who is winning and dropping hints as to plays. Not too often, of course, lest it become annoying , but often enough. Explicitly suggesting plays I am more hesitant about, and would mark that "Maybe/Sometimes/Depends." Even though this has the same effect as hinting at plays, it seems like it has more potential to offend someone (making them feel bossed around) or lead to arguments. Plus, it’s a little too easy, and thus not quite as much fun. But I’m certainly not strongly opposed to it. So, on these three points I seem to be generally in the majority (which I hadn’t realized).
I am more in the minority in my feelings on one-off deals, which I think are perfectly acceptable. I do agree with other posters who have said that it is rare for a situation to come up where such deals really make sense. It is rare, but it happens occasionally, and on those occasions I think that doing it is just fine (and I enjoy it).
Long term alliances, on the other hand, I tend to frown on, and probably mark as "unacceptable." I just feel that they have too much potential to take over the game. Actually, I find it odd that long-term alliances got almost identical statistics in this poll as one-off deals. To me the quantitative difference between them (a long term alliance basically implying a whole string of deals) is quite significant. I don’t think that the occasional deal really affects the overall play of the game very much, whereas alliance-building certainly can.
The second reason for this poll is that last week I was in a discussion on another thread where a few people were advancing the idea that if a game doesn’t specify whether or not in-game communication/politicking is allowed, one should assume by default that it is not allowed. They agreed that of course anyone could play the game differently if they wanted to, but argued that this would be to play a variant, not the game as defined in the rules.
My position was that if the rules did not specify, it became a matter of convention, and thus up to the play group to decide. Since common practice on this matter varied so greatly, I felt that any decision would be equally authentic. To get a better feel for how much common practice really did vary, I ran two polls: this one, and a parallel one in the Small World forum. My expectation was that the responses there would come back quite different. They did, indeed, show a clear difference (see the chart for an overview), although actually not as much as I expected. (It was more the responses in this poll that I was surprised at than the ones in the Small World poll). But they certainly do show how diversity there is on this matter.
-
Drake Coker
United States
San Diego
California
This is my tank for Combat Commander
-
In my usual group, social manipulation is an integral part of any game where it can be applied. Probably the only thing we (try to) avoid is being overly 'nice' to one's spouse.
So, everything is allowed, but everything is also remembered, and we will play again 
-
Nicholas Cotton
United States
Georgia
-
I've always felt weird in table-talk/politicking discussions, because I'm not sure I agree with either side. I find the first three items in this list acceptable in pretty much any non-team game. I will always make strategic suggestions to anyone. I'll do so in 2 player games also. I guess it could be classified as idle chatting, since I'm not trying to influence the outcome of the game in my favor. But I think I probably am trying to influence the outcome of the game, in order that it will be more interesting for all parties.
Keeping someone involved in the game, and keeping myself involved in other people's turns makes it more interesting, victory isn't really the point. That said, I do try to hold my tongue most of the time (after all, I don't want to be dictating everyone's moves, and in many cases I don't see a necessarily best move). And if the game is already pretty competitive, I'll refrain from any table talk.
I just, in general, want my opponent's to get better, and I like teaching (outside of games as well), so I think it bleeds into games and talking about strategy.
-
Greg Jones
United States
Washington
-
Elendil wrote: Thanks again for all of the responses. I tried to avoid putting in my own two cents lest that influence the poll, but I think I have enough data now to call it good.
There are two reasons for this poll. First, I have on a few occasions in recommendation threads or the like mentioned that there can be a certain amount of politics and even open negotiation in Puerto Rico, and been immediately jumped on by someone huffily insisting that’s not how the game is meant to be played.
If the person asking for a recommendation says, "I don't like politics and negotiation; I heard there is a lot in Puerto Rico," then the recommendation should be, "That's not how the game is meant to be played. If you can convince your group not to play it that way and you can enjoy it." If the person asking for a recommendation says, "I like politics and negotiation; I heard there is a lot in Puerto Rico," then the recommendation should be, "Puerto Rico can be played that way, but you have to make sure there aren't members of your group who are resistant to that."
Elendil wrote: So I came to understand that my play preferences were in the minority, but I always wondered exactly how much. I ran this poll to get a better feel for that, and am somewhat surprised to see that actually doing some politicking or even all-out negotiation isn’t as uncommon as I might have thought. Now I suspect that the anti-communication faction might simply be more vocal than the other side, perhaps because people who prefer to play without open negotiation are actively annoyed by those who play with it (reasonably so), whereas one quiet person at the table doesn’t necessarily ruin the fun of those who would rather talk a lot.
Warning: Elitism ahead
I suspect it is because the more vocal people are those who have more of an interest in Puerto Rico, therefore more experience. When you post on the Puerto Rico boards, you will get more replies from people who are watching those boards. With more experience you realize increasingly that this kind of table talk is unnecessary in Puerto Rico. The moves speak for themselves.
-
|
|
