To clarify: I talk all the time during games I play, but only when its not my move and not to influence the moves of other players.
On Jan 3, 6:40 pm, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
