SpielByWeb

[daveszum]

I have been wanting to ask about this topic for a little while but was unsure how to broach it. Still, I will put it forward because I see a little bit of it and am not sure just how far the community is willing to go with it. I come from a fairly social group of boardgames where, unless specifically forbidden in the specific game, table talk was allowed and encouraged. In fact, if you didn't do it, you were usually at a disadvantage. By "table talk" I mean proposing deals. "If you do this then I will do that". I have also played with other groups who would get rather upset just at the concept (which is why I was hesitant to bring it up. So, I would like to find out what the stance of the community on this is.

Thanks!

[TMJJS]

I personally have no problem as long as it is done in the messages of the game. Just like at a real face-to-face table, I should be allowed to hear the deal making and jump in if I want. I don't think the negotiations should be done via PM since the other players don't know what's going on.

However, having said all that, I don't see deals being done in the games I play and don't know if they are being done via PM.

[Golux13]

Generally (games like Diplomacy aside), alliances are against the spirit of a game in which each player is supposed to strive for victory on his own, so I would frown on two players in a game making any such deals. It's always harder for a player to succeed against a combined force of two opponents than against individuals each working toward his own ends.

I suppose if it's above-board and everybody can hear (or see) what's going on, and join in the bidding if they are so inclined, it's less of a problem; but as a practical matter, here on SBW such table talk could slow games down considerably.

[ahauwi1]

Trouble is that in an FTF game, everyone's paying attention to every proposed deal and can immediately jump in with their counterdeal; on this system, you'd have to pay attention at all times to be able to put up that counterdeal before it's too late.

I think the rules of Santiago encourage negotiations. Income page: "-Non-binding agreements among players are possible in any phase of any round." I'd just expect that these be communicated in the game's message board (unless players agree to private messaging as they join the game - i.e. something stated in the comments section).

Other games - well, I'd be unhappy with opponents ganging up on me in an organized way (i.e. "If you cut him off from this market connection, I'll seal him out of the market with my move"; "'ll let you have Dakhla for free if you take it; I'm really interested in Thebes for the bank of the Nile bonus..."). Unorganized ganging up seems just fine, but when it comes out in the open, I think that'd be discouraging for the odd player out. Might make for some inrteresting play though - as long as people agree up front.

If there's interest, maybe this could be an extra variant in all games... one that would basically not impact scoring or game play from a development standpoint, but it'd indicate to the players joining and playing that table talk is allowed / encouraged in the current game.

[rseulow]

My take: Shut up and play.

I'm all for a little cheerful banter in the messages, but Amun Re is not a game that is improved by deal making. Particularly when there is a mix of skill levels in the game, deal-making can throw off the flow of the game and put a weak player in a bad situation.

I've done some table talk in other games here, and have generally cut it out almost completely. I think it makes people angry - more angry than they would be normally even with the same final score.

I also point to the greatest Amun Re player on SBW, flaviorj. He is invariably silent. In fact, he's posted maybe 3 messages in games ever, over 1000+ games. And he's beaten me more times than I can count, and I'm always pleased to see him in a game. He's my hero.

[stargate]

cheerful bander is ok

deal making is not

some users are very quite -- that's ok also

[daveszum]

Clear enough. I especially like the idea where it can be listed as a game option in the comments section of a game description but, unless it appears here, mum's the word (for those who listen to their mummies

[flaviorj]

[stargate]

[bearsfan]

I have enjoyed back and forth banter that sometimes takes place in the Messages for Amun-Re games. Sometimes I will comment after a player makes a move that is particularly good or annoying to me. Most players are quiet, but the in-game messages do not slow the game down. If the messages bothers a player, they could ignore the messages.

I can't think of a time I've made a side deal in Amun-Re and I don't see how such deals wold improve the feel of the game. Still, the possibility of proposing a deal would be there in a face-to-face game, so I don't think it should be prohibited here.

[Bkruppa]

Personally I enjoy the banter as much as the games (as my record proves--hah said before you Bob ). In my opinion, the point of games is not the game so much as the comradery of time spent. The diversion of this site is worth thousands spent on therapy if used wisely.

[Bkruppa]

Personally I enjoy the banter as much as the games (as my record proves--hah said before you Bob ). In my opinion, the point of games is not the game so much as the comradery of time spent. The diversion of this site is worth thousands spent on therapy if used wisely.

[Rebelslayer]

The occasional chit chat, or explanation of why what someone just did was terrible for them or good for one particular player etc helps improve the overall skill level of all, making for better games.

As for organised gang-ups ... no thanks (although my wife would say that I always get the better of a table talk game ... so maybe)