SpielByWeb

[Knave]

I was wondering if it was acceptable/allowed to negotiate the sacrifice. For example, could we (publicly of course, no private messaging) all agree to sacrifice at least 5 gold to nail the camels of a clear leader?

Obviously, agreements would be non-binding. My main query concerns the amount of "table talk" allowed in the game. Some games like Caylus have fairly blatant negotiations (I'll move the provost back 2 if you also move it back 2), whereas others like Ticket to Ride it is generally frowned upon to explicitly negotiate.

I have committed enough faux pas here already, I figured I would ask before I managed to do something else, since I have twice had the urge to negotiate, and I was wondering if other players were not negotiating because it was verbotten or because they didn't know any better.

I did a forum search, and there was once question specific to auctions, which I wanted to broaden, since it is the sacrifice I wish to negotiate. The auction phase I try to negotiate with the "bid blockade" card...

[Rebelslayer]

The trouble with negotiating on this site is that the player affected may not see (and therefore be unabel to make a counter offer) before your offer is acted upon. As such I would be very unlikely to play in a game where I knew this was the plan unless it was clear that everyone waited (say until all players had posted an in game message) before playing on. FtF games this isn't a problem as everyone is there (unless we wait for Kanga to go sort out his children and make a deal behind his back that is!).

I think you would find it far less likely to make you unpopular on this site to not negotiate in game!

[stargate]

I agree with Rebelslayer

[hermes88]

I tried it (proposed a deal to another player) in one of my first games on here. I thought it was just another part of strategy.

A few of the other players just went ballistic that I would even consider such a thing. They said it wasn't allowed even if it was in open conversation on the message board. I haven't bothered since, but I can (in theory) see either version of the game being good, so long as everyone knows what the rules are.

I think the default rules are that you can't do it.

[Kanga]

I'd be against it, I think it adds an unwelcome aspect to the game. I'd generally avoid it even in ftf games, too much opportunity for team play in an individual game.

[grizzlyman]

There is nothing in the written rules to stop negociation between players. But I've never done it, and I've not seen anyone else doing it during my games. Personally, I would not encourage it. I actually think it is more enjoyable not knowing for sure what people will do.

It has been different and enjoyable though negociating with my partner in the World Cup doubles games. But here obviously there are two pairs of players who know they are specifically playing each other.

[amoxycillin]

I agree it would be very difficult to monitor on this site and could cause unpleasantries to occur, but saying that in the ftf games I think it could add to the game.

This would have to be agreed by all players beforehand.

[rico44]

I would say that generally, negotiations in a game lead to deals, backstabbing, breaking those deals, unrest, grievances and other mostly negative & unpleasant things.

Occasionally they turn out fun, but it only takes one moment for everything to turn sour, and it's always harder to read people online because you don't have the facial experssions, tone of voice, other body language to rely on for the sublety of meaning. This is why it works best f2f and with friends, where you can each other even better, although it still won't stop some arguments, lol.

I also don't think that's where Amun-Re's strenghts lie as a board game... there are plenty of games out there for that, even things like Settlers of Catan that springs to mind.

So while I agree there is some potential fun & interest in negotiation, I really wouldn't propose it as a good idea, even in a fairly friendly relaxed environment on here.

That's not to say you shouldn't try hosting a game with a comment like 'sacrifice/all negotiations in-game by public messge - join here', but I still have the feeling it wouldn't be too long before a negative experience occured for 1 or more people.

[Knave]

For the record, I never vote in my own polls, just in case somebody was wondering.

I find rebel's point to be the most interesting, which is that due to timing issues one or more players could be disadvantaged in negotiations. That reason is actually enough on its own to persuade me that negotiations should not be permitted.

As a long time hardcore Diplomacy player though, I just wanted to say that "hurt feelings" doesn't hold much sway with me. Anybody who has their feelings hurt by an in-game tactic should probably in my opinion play Snakes and Ladders, but that is the Diplomacy player in me speaking .

Either way, I am fully convinced, I'll save my negotations for BSW, and let my gold do the speaking in Amun Re

[vonklaude]

[quote="Kanga"]I'd be against it, I think it adds an unwelcome aspect to the game. I'd generally avoid it even in ftf games, too much opportunity for team play in an individual game.[/quote]

Hi - I'm new to this, but it seems to me that team players will communicate in real life (by phone or email) and can safely ignore any in-game rules on the subjct, so formally allowing negotiation levels the playing field.

Also, you never know what players will do, even when they tell you their (supposed) intentions.

-vk