Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
54 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Game Negotiations rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Negotiation [+] [View All]
wendi kavanaugh

Texas
msg tools
mbmbmb
An interesting questions, "if a game's rules do not mention negotiation between players, is it allowed?"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M *
United States
Boston
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Meta Gaming is kind of a touchy subject that comes down to the players agreeing to do it or not, and if there can be no consensus meta gaming will probably prevail.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CHAPEL
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
There are games with ruled negotiation, and there are games with implied negotiation, and there are games where negotiation doesn't work. It's such a grey area that I think any implied meta-gaming with negotiation really depends on the game group.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If a rule book does not say it's against the rules it's not against the rules.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
If you can get a unanimous vote among the players in favor, as far as I'm concerned you can interpret the rules any way you like. But before you can agree on a meta rule, you have to agree on whether you can agree on a meta rule, and so on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Game rules are permissive -- they state what may be done. Anything game-affecting which isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, is disallowed.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Matthews
United States
Boston
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
If a rule book does not say it's against the rules it's not against the rules.


... within reason. Many rulebooks don't say things like "don't look at your opponents cards" either, but that doesn't mean it's allowed (though it may mean the rulebook needs some work).



Negotiation (in games that are not strictly negotiation games) is generally acceptable, but ultimately depends on the play style and dynamics of the group. A classic example is Risk, which is ostensibly a free for all war game, but negotiation and alliances tend to emerge pretty frequently. Negotiation and temporary alliances fits the theme, so why not?



Alliances and negotiation tend to work better in games with larger numbers of players since the availability of each is more balanced. Obviously alliances don't work well in competitive two-player games, and in three-player games they can still be unbalanced and unfun for whomever is left out, but once you hit four players and more these alliances and deals can make a game more interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Game rules are permissive -- they state what may be done. Anything game-affecting which isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, is disallowed.

I think the difference is that it's not obvious from the rules alone what sorts of behaviors would even be valid to cover in the rules. The conclusion you reach is based on your gaming experiences and preferences. Is it legal to comment on someone's play? That could affect the game. Is it legal to give suggestions? That would definitely affect the game. Does it matter whether the motivation for the suggestion was genuinely to help the other person or whether it's an underhanded attempt to help yourself? Is it legal to discuss player options? Is it legal to think??? There are numerous types of human activity that simply are not generally covered in the rules, and the degree to which such behaviors are allowed/disallowed will always be meta-gaming issues decided by groups... of humans.

BTW, I too prefer no negotiation. And no commentary, no suggestions, etc. But I think it's just a preference. I know other very experienced gamers who prefer all sorts of table banter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Cook
United States
Denton
Texas
flag msg tools
*beep*
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fortunately, in my game group we are so distrustful of each other we will not negotiate unless all parties receive an immediate benefit, usually while chuckling to themselves about how everyone else in the deal got swindled. And then it's back to every man for himself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
Ganybyte wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
If a rule book does not say it's against the rules it's not against the rules.


... within reason. Many rulebooks don't say things like "don't look at your opponents cards" either, but that doesn't mean it's allowed (though it may mean the rulebook needs some work).




There are far more things which the rules don't specifically mention
which are assumed as 'not allowed' than things which are; indeed,
communication seems to be a special case, given the number of games
which have to explicitly disallow forms of it.

Clearly though, there's a expectation in most gaming groups that
communication is allowed. Gaming is a social endeavor, and
trying to forbid all communications which can impact the game is
just too hard. Much of it is subconscious even. In order to do
so really requires a strict set of limitations.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geert Vinaskov
Belgium
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Game rules are permissive -- they state what may be done. Anything game-affecting which isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, is disallowed.


Hm. They are permissive, in that they state what may be done "in" the game.

Certainly there are things that are not "in" the game, yet those things are game-affecting.

For instance:
- thinking very long about what you're going to do.
- bluffing/lying about cards in your hand.
- negotiating in games.
- ganging up on the leader.
- helping new players by giving them good advice.

All of these things are not explicitly allowed by the rules. And I don't think it should be, they are social rather than game rules, and should be resolved socially with the people you're playing with.

In fact, the social interaction that boardgames offer me, are one of the reasons I enjoy boardgaming so much, and I feel it would be a shame if social interaction would be dictated by hard-and-fast written rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
GeekInsight
United States
Whittier
California
flag msg tools
Giant Fire Breathing Robot
badge
gfbrobot.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If negotiation is covered in the rules, then go by what the rules say.

If negotiation and "table talk" are not covered explicitly, then its up to the group. Most groups settle into an amount that everyone is generally comfortable with. And, depending on the group, that could vary from utter silence to creating and maintaining alliances of players in games where alliances may not have been intended (e.g. Monopoly).

So, the short answer is: if it isn't expressly covered by the rules, then it is up to the group to determine the proper amount. I don't think there's a "right" answer that is applicable to every game and every player.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dawson
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I consider Puerto Rico a negotiation game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jennifer Derrick
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think as long as it can be done fairly and everyone is on board and understands the potential consequences, it's not a problem.

It's not fair if it's two players ganging up on one and that one has no one else to work with. And it's not really fair if it's a bunch of experienced players negotiating to sink the noob without the noob having a clue what's going on or how to deal with it.

But if everyone understands the game well and understands how the negotiation and alliances may benefit or hurt them, then I don't see a problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It depends on the game as much as the players, in my opinion. In some games, certain information has to remain hidden or players can form a coalition that breaks the sprit of the game. Many times, exchanging this sort of information is expressly forbidden by the rules (such as in Battlestar Galactica).

Other times, it is not explicitly mentioned, but I always go by what the apparent intent of the game rules is. If any information exchange breaks that intent, I wouldn't allow it. Otherwise anything goes. Even this is subject to some opinion, but its a nice guideline.

I think a good example is Citadels. If the players on both sides of a leading player agree (and the leading player did not pick first or last this round), they can deduce the leading players role with perfect accuracy, painting them as a target for the assassin or thief. This really ruins the game for us since there should be some risk of these roles not targeting the player who you intended. On the other hand, I see no problem with people making observations or suggestions based on public info ("He has a huge lead, somebody try to kill him!")

It would also be pretty rotten to read out your entire hand of cards just before the Magician swapped with you, but on the other hand I don't see any problem with another player saying, "My hand is bad, you won't like it if you swap with me." Of course, he could be lying and trying to convince you to pick someone else.


Another fine example is The Resistance. Although it was ruled later (and I think became a printed rule), if I recall the first printing had no rule forbidding you from discussing card art. However, if players freely discussed their card art, it would give a great deal of information about who the spies are. Even before it became an official rule, it was clear to many that discussing art had to be forbidden as it broke the spirit of the game (unknown identities) but otherwise, of course, this is a game with a great deal of discussion and information exchange!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
badge
I'll think of something witty to put here...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
If a rule book does not say it's against the rules it's not against the rules.


No. If this were true, then rulebooks would allow everything and list all the actions players are not allowed to do. They would also be very long.

Can I take money out of the bank whenever I feel like it? Can I take away your VPs and remove your pieces too? The rules don't say I can't!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jarrett Dunn
United States
Tulsa
OK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geert Vinaskov wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
Game rules are permissive -- they state what may be done. Anything game-affecting which isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, is disallowed.


Hm. They are permissive, in that they state what may be done "in" the game.

Certainly there are things that are not "in" the game, yet those things are game-affecting.

For instance:
- thinking very long about what you're going to do.
- bluffing/lying about cards in your hand.
- negotiating in games.
- ganging up on the leader.
- helping new players by giving them good advice.

All of these things are not explicitly allowed by the rules. And I don't think it should be, they are social rather than game rules, and should be resolved socially with the people you're playing with.

In fact, the social interaction that boardgames offer me, are one of the reasons I enjoy boardgaming so much, and I feel it would be a shame if social interaction would be dictated by hard-and-fast written rules.


You won't convince Clear of that. In his mind games are not about socialization, to quote:

Quote:
Instead I look at games as conversational statements within a larger investigative discourse. Games are part of a conversation which is identifying and discussing the field of problem spaces. Thus like any other statement in a discussion, games only have value while the current/local participants are still at work understanding that part of the problem-space. Once the local players understand and agree on that portion of the problem-space (Why yes, gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of distance!) the conversation (and the game) is over.


He also feels that once a game is fully understood there is no further purpose to continue the play of said game in the future. He views them as a set of mechanics to be understood to the exclusion of all else, thus anything not explicitly stated within the boundaries of the written rules are thus not permitted as they exist outside the stated problem space. Of course that is simply my understanding, I could be completely wrong.

Personally I think that takes all of the fun out of it, but different strokes for different folks. I play because I enjoy games, and the experience they bring akin to a good (fiction) book, he plays for the problem solving aspects alone. It's all good.

Course I also think Clear is Larry Ellison in disguise, and one white cat away from being a bond super villain.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mltdwn wrote:
Course I also think Clear is Larry Ellison in disguise, and one white cat away from being a bond super villain.


http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1285637/clearclaw
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mltdwn wrote:
You won't convince Clear of that. In his mind games are not about socialization, to quote:

Quote:
Instead I look at games as conversational statements within a larger investigative discourse. Games are part of a conversation which is identifying and discussing the field of problem spaces. Thus like any other statement in a discussion, games only have value while the current/local participants are still at work understanding that part of the problem-space. Once the local players understand and agree on that portion of the problem-space (Why yes, gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of distance!) the conversation (and the game) is over.


He also feels that once a game is fully understood there is no further purpose to continue the play of said game in the future.


I see games as vehicles for learning. If there is nothing (or too little) left to learn from a game, then there is little reason to play it.

Quote:
He views them as a set of mechanics to be understood to the exclusion of all else...


No. I'm not particularly interested in the mechanical properties of games. Those are just parsing problems and are thus both strictly solvable and (thus) uninteresting. My primary interest is the intersection of the ambiguous problems the game presents the players, with the methods players use to solve the ambiguous problems the game presents. Or, in another phrasing, What are the properties of how players attempt to solve ambiguous game problems? In this I largely ignore socialisation and the players as specific individuals. The focus is cognition. My interest is in what the players do and why in the game, not in who they are or in how they feel about things.

Quote:
...thus anything not explicitly stated within the boundaries of the written rules are thus not permitted as they exist outside the stated problem space.


As they produce a definitionally different game. That's not a problem in itself, except that it is no longer comparable to the original game.

Quote:
...he plays for the problem solving aspects alone.


Heck no.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
My interest is in what the players do and why in the game, not in who they are or in how they feel about things.

Increased understanding of the latter can lead to increased understanding of the former.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Jome
United States
Franklin
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
All games are negotiation games. All games benefit from table talk. From thematic quirks to laugh over to detailed strategic analysis to bluff and bluster, counter-bluff and counter-bluster, communication is welcome and encouraged wherever I am playing the game.

Follow the basic human rules of not being a jerk about it or interfering overmuch in the course of play, but otherwise have at it.

And it is the poor game experience that isn't followed by an insightful and emotive discussion about the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
curtc wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
My interest is in what the players do and why in the game, not in who they are or in how they feel about things.


Increased understanding of the latter can lead to increased understanding of the former.


True, but that's outside of my focus. My focus is cognition, not specific instances/people or emotional contexts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Jome
United States
Franklin
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
wendilk wrote:
An interesting questions, "if a game's rules do not mention negotiation between players, is it allowed?"


Oh wait. Do you mean things that change the game state? Like, if we're playing Puerto Rico and I say "I'll give you 3 coins if you take Craftsman right now." Because that's strictly forbidden.

On the other hand, it's certainly acceptable to say "I think you should take Craftsman right now." It's up to you to evaluate that advice as good or not.

In the interest of friendship, if you say "Please don't tell me what to do." or otherwise make it clear commentary like this is unwelcome, then it's for the best to not do it. But it is, taste aside, completely legit to try to get players to do the wrong (or right) things by just asking them to do it.

It would be poor sportsmanship to offer something else outside the bounds of the game - "I'll do the dishes for a week if you take Craftsman now." Things outside the bounds of the game are not fair discussion points.

Just some nuances in case I didn't understand the question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Norton
United Kingdom
Macclesfield
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
If a rule book does not say it's against the rules it's not against the rules.


The rules of monopoly do not say that you can't help yourself to money from the bank whenever you like. Is this not against the rules?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
curtc wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
My interest is in what the players do and why in the game, not in who they are or in how they feel about things.

Increased understanding of the latter can lead to increased understanding of the former.

True, but that's outside of my focus. My focus is cognition, not specific instances/people or emotional contexts.

I don't see how you can possibly hope to use boardgames to study cognition of people in general when you're so willing to ignore cognition of people in the specific.

In any case, when people's motives for playing a game are so vastly different, their attitudes toward implied social gaming constructs are likely to also be different, with neither being right or wrong, but rather being more aligned with their differing goals of gaming.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.