Probably. I've been in and around BGG for about seven years and that has almost always been an issue. In my gaming group, if we are not playing an explicitly negotiation game, "table talk"/"manipulation" is seen as insulting to the targets intelligence, as if to say, "surely you don't think I'm dumb enough to forsake my own judgment."
Now, of course, if we are playing with new players the older players will offer a mature and reasoned council if the new player wants help, but this sort of meta gaming all but invalidates the games result, even if it makes for a nice teaching technique. On Jan 3, 6:34 pm, jdl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 3, 5:27 pm, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Must have really entertained you to carry the conversation into a > > another thread. Because I've got a little bit of time, how could you > > argue against JC's fifth point: "Any behavior not expressly permitted > > in the rules of a game should > > be considered expressly forbidden by those rules." > > Is this a rehash of the "should players in a Dominant Species game be > allowed to speak" argument that was derailing one of the DS reviews a > couple of months ago? > > -- > JDL -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en.
