Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Korunks on April 21, 2012, 09:40:53 PM
-
What is the official rule on Table Talk in multiplayer? I have always been instructed that in multiplayer it is against the rules to collaborate with other players and explicitly tell other players what they can do to deliberately stop another player. However I cannot find any sections in the rule book that state this. Where are the rules on table talk or are there no official rules?
-
I know that it has been discussed at several times in the past (per a reading of threads via the Search tool), and is frowned upon by many and given a pass by many others. There is no explicit rule I can find in the rules or mention except:
"Table Talk is an inevitable part of team play. It is allowed, but be careful what information you share, it may benefit more than just your teammate. All discussions must be in English. If you choose to reveal a card or cards from your hand it must be universal disclosure."
If Table Talk must be explicitly allowed in Teams, is it not allowed elsewhere? I have always been told by every host for tournaments I have attended that Table Talk is not permitted (especially lying, deceiving, or manipulating), and that's what I've always played under.
-
Explicit table talk is never permitted. What I've always done (and I've never been yelled at for this) is, if someone is making a rescue attempt against me, I'll announce my intentions before I do anything. "I'm discarding my character now!" "If ONLY someone had a card they could play on the evil character I may or may not decide to play!" Things like that.
-
I've always thought that table talk was pretty much left up to host discretion. Something like "Can you block him" to keep someone from handing over a soul when I could of CM, SOG/NJ or Buried is acceptable in most cases but saying flat out "Don't do that, do this instead" is cheating.
-
I just want to know where the rules for this are? If I am getting on people case for table talk, where is the rule to back me up? We all know there are rules lawyers out there.
-
I don't know as there ARE any official rules on it, but if there are they won't be in the reg
-
I just want to know where the rules for this are? If I am getting on people case for table talk, where is the rule to back me up? We all know there are rules lawyers out there.
I think it's Host's discretion. I've always ruled that if you wouldn't want your opponents collaborating against you in someway, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to someone else.
-
The problem with "Host's Discretion" on an issue like this is that it fundamentally changes multiplayer strategies, and so for bigger tournaments like States, Regionals, and Nats, there should be an established precedent.
-
The problem with "Host's Discretion" on an issue like this is that it fundamentally changes multiplayer strategies, and so for bigger tournaments like States, Regionals, and Nats, there should be an established precedent.
This is where I am getting at.
I don't know as there ARE any official rules on it, but if there are they won't be in the reg
I have checked the 10th anniversary rule book, Host Guide, Host Instructions, REG and have found nothing.
I just want to know where the rules for this are? If I am getting on people case for table talk, where is the rule to back me up? We all know there are rules lawyers out there.
I think it's Host's discretion. I've always ruled that if you wouldn't want your opponents collaborating against you in someway, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to someone else.
We have always played under these rules, but it would be nice to have a standard of play. For example if a player comes from a tournament where hosts are laid back about Table Talk and go to another tourney where the Host's are ultra restrictive about it? Should host be going over every aspect of how they games should be played before any category starts?
-
Any form of table talk is allowed, explicit or otherwise. It just has to follow the guidelines posted by Redoubter, ie must be in English, universal reveal of cards, etc. Most established teams use code words to relay to partners most cards/gameplay functions.
-
Any form of table talk is allowed, explicit or otherwise. It just has to follow the guidelines posted by Redoubter, ie must be in English, universal reveal of cards, etc. Most established teams use code words to relay to partners most cards/gameplay functions.
Multiplayer and teams are different, and I was under the impression the opposite was true.
-
Whoops, I was reading this thread as Teams, not multi.
-
Whoops, I was reading this thread as Teams, not multi.
Right, there are guidelines for Teams but not explicitly for multi. And if there have to be guidelines to allow it in Teams, I took that to mean that it is disallowed in multi, in addition to the precedent established by every host I have ever played with.
-
Right, no explicit table talk in multi. Veiled comments are common however.
But isn't this a moot point anyways, since Teams is Multi 2.0 anyways? ;D
-
I agree with the overall point of this thread that we need to write down the expectations for "table-talk," especially since the TEAMS expectations have already been written out.
-
I'm not saying it needs to be tomorrow but it wouldn't be that hard for a collaboration of elders or Rob to post an official statement on how to uniformly deal with Multi table talk. The trick is just to get the issue to the right people's attention. ( Hint Hint, ;) )
-
I wrote out the basics of what I see table talk being verses legitimate statements in-game:
Stating of fact or correction of game rule is not table talk. The following examples would be permitted: “I am about to surrender a soul”; “I have 2 souls, you have 3, you have 4, and you have 4”; “You would need to play a negate or an interrupt against this card”; “That card is protected from XYZ”
Suggesting action, implying tactics, or deceiving players is table talk. The following examples would not be permitted: “I am about to surrender a soul unless someone plays a dominant”; “I have only 2 souls, you shouldn’t block”; “You would need to play an interrupt or negate, like an interrupt the battle followed by a battle-winner or chump block”; “That card is protected from XYZ, you should use ABC”
-
“I have only 2 souls, you shouldn’t block”
I disagree with this one. If you were saying that about someone else or offering someone else blocking advice, it would be different, but that's the sort of thing I'd say during a 2 Player game, and I don't see the harm in it.
-
“I have only 2 souls, you shouldn’t block”
I disagree with this one. If you were saying that about someone else or offering someone else blocking advice, it would be different, but that's the sort of thing I'd say during a 2 Player game, and I don't see the harm in it.
However, you are suggesting a course of action. That is the very definition of table talk. You can point out the soul count, but telling someone they shouldn't block is most certainly table talk, as you are making suggestions to them (even if you don't tell how to do or not do something, just telling them to do or not do something is enough).
-
Especially since if you two souls you may also have SOG/NJ and you just won the game by your piece of "advice" :angel:
-
“I have only 2 souls, you shouldn’t block”
I disagree with this one. If you were saying that about someone else or offering someone else blocking advice, it would be different, but that's the sort of thing I'd say during a 2 Player game, and I don't see the harm in it.
However, you are suggesting a course of action. That is the very definition of table talk. You can point out the soul count, but telling someone they shouldn't block is most certainly table talk, as you are making suggestions to them (even if you don't tell how to do or not do something, just telling them to do or not do something is enough).
But the table talk in this case doesn't really affect anyone else at the table, at least not at the present moment. I see absolutely no reason why I can't say something like that to someone I just made a rescue attempt against. The problem with table talk is when a third party is suggesting strategy or pointing things out.
-
You're still telling your opponent how to play
-
You're still telling your opponent how to play
I just don't think that's the issue here, at least not to me. It's very possible I'm the only one who feels this way, but in general, I've always felt that if it's considered OK in 2 Player (within reason at least), it's okay in multiplayer. Table talk (again, to me) only becomes an issue when I'm making a rescue attempt and someone who is NOT the person I'm rescuing against starts pointing things out or giving advice to the blocking player.
-
You're still telling your opponent how to play
But they don't have to take the advice. The problem arises when you tell a third person how to do something that will adversely effect the other player.
-
You're still telling your opponent how to play
I just don't think that's the issue here, at least not to me. It's very possible I'm the only one who feels this way, but in general, I've always felt that if it's considered OK in 2 Player (within reason at least), it's okay in multiplayer. Table talk (again, to me) only becomes an issue when I'm making a rescue attempt and someone who is NOT the person I'm rescuing against starts pointing things out or giving advice to the blocking player.
Even then I think reasonable exceptions can be made. (E.g aadvising an RLK) I think what matters is the intent of the talk. Is it to help and advise? Or is it to deceive and tear down? Of course ills tough to judge exactly what's intended by various comments, so perhaps guidelines are necessary.
-
You're still telling your opponent how to play
Precisely, and even if it doesn't directly affect the other player Chris, it affects the game outcome. That will affect them, no matter how you slice it.
Of course ills tough to judge exactly what's intended by various comments, so perhaps guidelines are necessary.
Completely agree. Without guidelines ahead of time, how can we tell a player not to do it? It should be set up in advance and known by all so that everyone knows what a violation is.
-
Precisely, and even if it doesn't directly affect the other player Chris, it affects the game outcome. That will affect them, no matter how you slice it.
That's why I specifically noted "at the present moment." I agree that it affects them, however, there's a huge difference between someone trying to talk the person they just made a rescue attempt out of blocking and someone who is neither the rescuer or the blocker chiming in. In my opinion, I don't believe that the former should be considered "table talk" for gameplay purposes. This is going to come down to an "agree to disagree," but do you at least see my side of it?
-
I believe the rule for table talk in Multi is as Redoubter pointed out earlier. You cannot lead another player towards a course of action, but you may verbally reflect upon anything in the current gamestate.
-
I believe the rule for table talk in Multi is as Redoubter pointed out earlier. You cannot lead another player towards a course of action, but you may verbally reflect upon anything in the current gamestate.
The problem is this is open to interpretation. I would add the stipulation that if it is not a player's turn, and they are not currently being attacked, they can't say anything about the game at all.
-
Stating of fact or correction of game rule is not table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul”
Suggesting action, implying tactics, or deceiving players is table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul unless someone plays a dominant”
What is the distinction here? Saying that "I am about to surrender a LS" is a statement of fact. But saying "that the only thing that could stop the rescue at this point is playing a dominant" is also a statement of fact (assuming there are no Unholy Writs, etc. active).
-
Stating of fact or correction of game rule is not table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul”
Suggesting action, implying tactics, or deceiving players is table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul unless someone plays a dominant”
What is the distinction here? Saying that "I am about to surrender a LS" is a statement of fact. But saying "that the only thing that could stop the rescue at this point is playing a dominant" is also a statement of fact (assuming there are no Unholy Writs, etc. active).
The former is a statement of fact, but the latter actually goes further. It suggests how someone else should respond, with Grapes or CM or something else. That's the difference.
If I tell say to you "I have two souls, you have 3, and both of you of 4" when I make a rescue attempt, that is very different from, "Okay, I only have 2 souls. You have one in your territory, and both of them have 4. Just let me have it."
By suggesting a course of action, or what specifically should be used, you would be table talking. There is a difference, but I agree that there should be specific guidelines.
-
By suggesting a course of action, or what specifically should be used, you would be table talking.
I find these kind of statements helpful during a mutiplayer game with newer players. Sometimes they simply don't realize what they can do in certain situations.
With that said, I still think there should be written guidelines, since friends/brothers (or other similar groupings) who team up against specific players is not fair and undermines the fun and fellowship of the game.
-
maybe before each game the players choose whether or not it should be allowed depending on which players are at the table? (new, seasoned, etc.)
-
Redoubter, I think you're going down the middle of the road, which is exactly we're trying not to do. I think we can all agree that third parties should keep their mouths closed during a battle challenge or rescue attempt, so the question becomes how much can be said by the rescuing and blocking players, and I think this should be an "all-or-none" situation. I think that either I can say whatever I want to during a block, "If you use your Unholy Writ, I have Christian Martyr and we can stop him," or we have to let third parties use their own judgement on when to play things. At the bigger tournaments, there's not going to be a difference between "I'm about to discard my evil character and surrender a soul" and "I'm about to discard my evil character and surrender a soul, unless someone plays Grapes of Wrath or Christian Martyr" except in those cases where an inexperienced player is playing, at which point, some measure of table talk is to be expected, if only for clarifying rules. With that in mind, your suggestion is essentially allowing the former option (all), just placing unnecessary stipulations on it.
-
So you went from "let's agree to disagree" to "your position is exactly what we're trying to avoid"? :P
All kidding aside, I still completely disagree with you that there is no difference. If I don't say "I'm about to surrender a soul," then what can I say to the person who is upset because they had no opportunity to play a dom between the time I stopped playing cards and a soul is rescued?
This actually happened at the last tournament in a T2 multi game. I was being attacked, gave up playing cards and then tossed the soul to the rescuing player. The uninvolved party was upset, because he was planning to CM when I was done playing blocks.
If you don't allow people to say something like "I'm about to surrender a soul," then you can't give the time or opportunity for other players to respond with their own actions. That's to be avoided as much as table talk.
The crux of table talk is that it involves either suggestions or information otherwise not available.
-
The crux of table talk is that it involves either suggestions or information otherwise not available.
This is where we have to be careful about having a written definition, since we would be saying that veteran players cannot give suggestions to a newer player who would not otherwise know what to do. I do not agree with forbidding the assistance new players require.
-
I do not agree with forbidding the assistance new players require.
I do have a problem when the experienced players can possibly manipulate inexperienced players to take actions that can win them the game. No suggestions, is better than having table manipulation. Lets not be naive and assume players only have the best intention in regards to helping. I have seen veteran players "help" one RLK at the expense of another, or to their own advantage. That is exactly the problem with allowing any table talk. I can't guarantee that each RLK will get equal help from a veteran, so I should allow the favorites, and underhanded veterans to win? Absolutely not!
-
So you went from "let's agree to disagree" to "your position is exactly what we're trying to avoid"? :P
All kidding aside, I still completely disagree with you that there is no difference. If I don't say "I'm about to surrender a soul," then what can I say to the person who is upset because they had no opportunity to play a dom between the time I stopped playing cards and a soul is rescued?
But that's still table talk. By saying that, anyone with some multi experience will know exactly what that means and the implications of it. I would either rather allow a defender to strategize with other people at the table to stop a rescue or just stop the table talk entirely. Your viewpoint leaves way too much up to interpretation of what's okay and what isn't, and it's going to give players the flexibility to see what they can or cannot get away with. I don't believe your answer is an answer at all.
If you don't allow people to say something like "I'm about to surrender a soul," then you can't give the time or opportunity for other players to respond with their own actions. That's to be avoided as much as table talk.
You can give them both the time and opportunity to do it. I really don't think that forcing a third party to take a risk when playing a CM to avoid a successful rescue is really a bad thing.
The crux of table talk is that it involves either suggestions or information otherwise not available.
I disagree, depending on exactly what you mean by "crux". "I'm about to surrender a soul" is giving information that would otherwise not be available. It's also suggesting, albeit not explicitly, that someone do something about it. It is table talk, and if you're going to allow that, I see no reason not to allow it more extensively since it doesn't make much of a difference beyond coordination anyway. Allow some but not all table talk, as I said before, doesn't solve anything, because it's possible to establish what is and isn't allowed except by host discretion, unless we establish a list of things that are okay to say, which is cumbersome and a bad answer.
-
I do have a problem when the experienced players can possibly manipulate inexperienced players to take actions that can win them the game.
The same goes both ways, though. By not being able to say anything, a newer player may not realize that they could have just stopped the veteran from winning even though they were not in the battle. I would think that the other veteran players would interject if the dishonest veteran was giving bad advice.
The problem here is creating a written rule that would not allow the honest players to give suggestions to novice players during a tournament. You are forcing them to remain silent or knowingly break the rules.
-
As a general rule I agree with Redoubter - But I can also see Chris' points quite well.
My feeling on the matter is that explicit table talk is not allowed - However, common courtesy in the form of waiting to hand a soul, and or stating what you are about to do is allowable, and in fact encouraged. Nothing bugs me more than a player just tossing a soul to the opponent with 3 while I'm holding Burial or Son of God in my hand....
In response to YMT - I can see your point about newer players, and at a local and even a district level I will be much more open and will frequently break the unwritten rules of table talking to assist newer players, even in 2Player events. However, at a Regional or National level I feel it should be understood that table talking will be highly frowned upon.
-
If you are a new player you should not be entering in a high level tournament and expect to win. We should not give new players advice during tournament games because human error is supposed to be part of the game, ignorance of the possible ways a card can be played is not an excuse to break this. If they explicity break a rule or play a card in a way that cannot be played that is one thing, but to tell them how to best use their own cards in game changes the outcome of the game to favor the person giving them the advice as 9/10 they are only taking issue with the way someone is playing because it does not help them win, or directly hurts their chances. The player at the table most likely to speak up when an RLK is blocking someone they shouldn't block is the person who is hinging on that player instead blocking someone else or the person being blocked who is not in the lead and wants the lost soul (thus telling them NO NO you don't want to block me because he's winning and you'll use up all your cards blocking me and have nothing against him). Casual games are were you teach a player to play, not tournament games. There is too much on the line to risk abuse of the table talk system of "oh well he's new so I'm just telling him he shouldn't block this guy but instead take the lost soul off the board". Such a statement has likely never been made by the guy with 4 souls and has the next turn, but is more than likely made by the guy with 3-4 who goes after him and is hoping to get more turns by denying the winning player the easy walk in win. So long as you allow "unqualified" players to play in tournament games with REPs newbies making bad plays will always cost SOMEONE a win, but that is fine as long as the person who lost didnt do so because of manipulation of the RLK/Newbie.
-
In response to YMT - I can see your point about newer players, and at a local and even a district level I will be much more open and will frequently break the unwritten rules of table talking to assist newer players, even in 2Player events.
We are suggesting making these written rules, however. So now you would be knowingly breaking written rules during a tournament that awards RNRS points.
However, at a Regional or National level I feel it should be understood that table talking will be highly frowned upon.
I have no problem with having different written rules for the highest level tournaments.
-
Chris, while I do understand what you're saying...
My feeling on the matter is that explicit table talk is not allowed - However, common courtesy in the form of waiting to hand a soul, and or stating what you are about to do is allowable, and in fact encouraged. Nothing bugs me more than a player just tossing a soul to the opponent with 3 while I'm holding Burial or Son of God in my hand....
This. By saying what you are doing, you give other players the opportunity to play cards. It's the same as in a 2P where you ask if you have initiative on defense, you give your opponent a chance to play his dominants, you don't just start throwing enhancements down. It's bad form, frowned upon, and just plain rude ;) It makes perfect sense to allow statements of fact like that the soul is about to be surrendered in order to allow a response from all players, so that no one can complain that they had no opportunity.
And while I agree about the RLK-teaching, it should NOT be during a match where RNRS points are at stake. I actually had a situation this weekend where someone blocked me (at 2) and used up his last EC blocking me when the next player (at 4) could just walk in for any of the other 5 souls in the territory. Could he have beaten the leader? Doubtful. But it was still frustrating and took all of my patience to not explode and table talk.
After the round, however, I told him what the situation was and how to play it differently in multiplayer. I also plan to sit down with him and teach him the nuances of MP in the many situations that can arise (Shawn, if you read this, I will be trying to hold a multi clinic this week if you don't mind ;)).
THAT is when the teaching should occur: When no RNRS points are at stake. I can use the situation as an example, but not until the dust settles.
-
I haven't read the whole thing, but I support free and unrestricted "table talk" in all categories. It's ridiculous to allow "if OOONNNLLLYYYYYY someone could play a CAAAAARRRRRDDDD to KIIIILLLLLLLL his Heeeeeerooooooooooo!?!?!?!?1one" but not, "Anyone have CM?"
-
I haven't read the whole thing, but I support free and unrestricted "table talk" in all categories. It's ridiculous to allow "if OOONNNLLLYYYYYY someone could play a CAAAAARRRRRDDDD to KIIIILLLLLLLL his Heeeeeerooooooooooo!?!?!?!?1one" but not, "Anyone have CM?"
See, I'm against both. I support being able to say when you are surrendering a soul because it gives the opportunity to all players to interact, should they so desire, without giving any instruction on what to do, or that anything even has to be done.
When this issue came up in a game this weekend, where someone in a multi game wanted to play doms but the soul got surrendered to fast, there was no chance of the person who won the soul winning, but they still wanted to play that particular rescue. They have that right, just as much as those in battle, to add their doms during battle resolution.
-
After the round, however, I told him what the situation was and how to play it differently in multiplayer. I also plan to sit down with him and teach him the nuances of MP in the many situations that can arise (Shawn, if you read this, I will be trying to hold a multi clinic this week if you don't mind ;)).
THAT is when the teaching should occur: When no RNRS points are at stake. I can use the situation as an example, but not until the dust settles.
This is fine and dandy if the players are from your own personal playgroup. However, some of us have players that come to our tournaments that we've never met. They read about it online, then just show up.
We also don't have as much time between rounds as you seem to. I run a very tight ship with tournaments, so the rounds start and end promptly.
My voice has been meaningless of late, but I will not support a written rule that prohibits table talk intended to help new players, especially at the Local and District levels. If we are going to adopt an "all-or-nothing" rule, then I would vote for "all."
-
My voice has been meaningless of late, but I will not support a written rule that prohibits table talk intended to help new players, especially at the Local and District levels. If we are going to adopt an "all-or-nothing" rule, then I would vote for "all."
I do understand this opinion completely. I hope you understand my point that it is still an official tournament with RNRS points at stake, and as such should still be treated the same as a higher level tournament.
I suppose I do understand your point that not every area has the same time or connection between players in the region. I know almost everyone who comes to our Local and District tournaments, and we always leave a couple of minutes between rounds to recoup.
Honestly, what I told him between rounds took 30 seconds. A more detailed lesson will take longer, but the majority of the point was able to be communicated quickly.
-
I hope you understand my point that it is still an official tournament with RNRS points at stake, and as such should still be treated the same as a higher level tournament.
I do understand, but I would argue that RNRS points are being gained just as much from people not saying anything as there are from people being manipulative. Since both extremes exist, I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt to those who are willing to honestly assist the novice players.
-
When this issue came up in a game this weekend, where someone in a multi game wanted to play doms but the soul got surrendered to fast, there was no chance of the person who won the soul winning, but they still wanted to play that particular rescue. They have that right, just as much as those in battle, to add their doms during battle resolution.
That's not the issue here. The battle isn't even allowed to move to resolution until all players agree they're done playing things. The only way for any sort of "table-talk" rule to make sense is if people weren't allowed to talk period during a multiplayer game. Since that's ridiculous, and any sort of graduated rule would be like what I described before, I prefer no rule against it whatsoever.
Not to mention, letting negotiation be a skill in Multi will mean that one has to be skilled to win #flamefuel
-
Not to mention, letting negotiation be a skill in Multi will mean that one has to be skilled to win #flamefuel
More importantly, this game is intended to bring fun and fellowship. I don't see how either is accomplished if everyone is silent.
-
I fail to see how fun and fellowship is accomplished when older players deliberately coach inexperienced players to perform actions that win the experienced player the game, especially through tricks and deception. I have participated in tournaments in 3 states now and have seen veteran players being underhanded in almost all of them, And I am sure I would see it if I came to many more around the country. When a newer player is finally understanding the game doing better and about to win, only to lose because of table talk by a veteran that causes him to lose the game. Ask that kid how much he feels like that was fun and fellowship. Maybe in some areas the veteran players are selfless and kind. But up in the parts I roll in I see RLK's get frustrated and quit because of table talk. Any one who think Unrestricted table talk. MY current lost player count is at 3 out of a group of usually only 7 people. Some one explain to me again how unrestricted talk is a good thing.
(Dayne I will pm you about the multi clinic idea)
-
Where was the host while this was happening?
-
I am assuming since no one replied or +1/-1'd that my post is tl:dr; and thereby ignored. Remind me to not post about things with actual points again. i will resume posting nothing but memes that get deleted quickly.
-
If they left because of table-talk in Multi, there's probably a bigger issue. Multi isn't like any other category, and new players should be informed about that fact going in. If you go in expecting diplomacy and huge amounts of luck, you're much less likely to be disgruntled when they inevitably show up. If someone teaches new players that table-talk is illegal, and it isn't, they're going to be frustrated when they get to a tournament and it happens.
-
I am assuming since no one replied or +1/-1'd that my post is tl:dr; and thereby ignored.
You posted?
;)
Your points did not change my mind because I am foremost a host who tries to bring in new players. I also seem to reach very young players. Your points are more relevant to older players who have general TCG experience. I think 9-year-olds need coaching at the opportune times so that they can learn in context, since not everyone learns in retrospect.
-
Than teach them in casual games where you can't end up costing someone a tournament based on when you decide to teach.
-
Where was the host while this was happening?
Host's cannot be every where at once. The most predominant case at my tournaments was when I was at one of the 5 other tables than where the event occured (States so I was swamped), trying to make sure that table talk wasn't wasn't happening there as well ( I had warned several people already), When I find out after the fact that a former Tournament host came into a multi-player game and played at least one hand for their child. RLK's don't often know they can call for a judge in that situation, especially when an adult is telling them that is alright. I was livid but I can do nothing after the fact(other than watch them like a hawk when they attend my tournaments). Another incident at a regionals where I saw two older players trying to get a younger player to block when it was apparent to my cursory glance that it would set one of them up for the win. I should have said something but it wasn't my tournament and was afraid to step on toes. The host was playing in a category, and the appointed "judge" was off talking to some one else. There comes a point where the host shouldn't have to hover over every multiplayer game to make sure teens and adults don't take advantage of RLK's. If players are unable to show the basic restraint needed to not be manipulative than by all means I am in support of dropping the hammer in the rules.
-
If they left because of table-talk in Multi, there's probably a bigger issue. Multi isn't like any other category, and new players should be informed about that fact going in. If you go in expecting diplomacy and huge amounts of luck, you're much less likely to be disgruntled when they inevitably show up. If someone teaches new players that table-talk is illegal, and it isn't, they're going to be frustrated when they get to a tournament and it happens.
According to Rob, tournaments are supposed to be about fun and fellowship. I would be greatly impressed to find a RLK that even after being told to expect "Diplomacy"(Manipulation) and "luck" would shy because children are naturally optimistic. And when they get the inevitable backstab or they get drawn into losing some one the game, and the more "mature" Christians yell at them for it(which they will because the vast majority of redemption players I have met are ridiculously over competitive) , I doubt they will have had fun and fellowship. If they cannot have that why should I waste my time, my money to host the tournament?
-
Than teach them in casual games where you can't end up costing someone a tournament based on when you decide to teach.
Casual games do not present every possible scenario. Besides, 9-year-olds can't just hop in the car and come over to my house for casual play. Balancing schedules of several different families of multiple children is hard enough for me to even sneak in tournaments. We do the best we can.
Host's cannot be every where at once.
You had originally said 7 players, which is only two tables. That's why I was confused. ;)
The most predominant case at my tournaments was .... States ... Another incident at a regionals....
I see that you have had my types of experiences. This is why I will never attend or host a Natz. This is also the reason that I have no problem with having different rules for States and up, since that is where the win-at-any-cost players show up.
-
Host's cannot be every where at once.
You had originally said 7 players, which is only two tables. That's why I was confused. ;)
have lost players from my regular playgroup
For the record I am not ripping on the people who come to my tournaments, with the exception of a few players over the years I have met several great and wonderful people. Unfortunately it only takes or to cause a problem.
Elders can we:
1. Get some official guidance on table talk.
2. Get that official guidance added to the host guide?
Once that is accomplished I will lock this thread.
-
And when they get the inevitable backstab or they get drawn into losing some one the game, and the more "mature" Christians yell at them for it
This doesn't sound like a problem with table-talking. Granted I don't play Multi, but I've never been at a tournament where this kind of thing happened within earshot. If it did, the other players would be quick to call the yelling player down and encourage the new player. Getting tricked is part of the learning curve that kids will eventually have to learn. Banning table-talk to prevent it is like making movies illegal because some of them have bad things in them. It's all about expectations and player behavior. If young kids know they're going to be manipulated, it won't sting as hard when it happens, rather than expecting not to be and then being stabbed in the back. People are a lot more understanding of being lied to (situationally, I'm not condoning actual lying) in the course of a game that everyone is trying to win than when their "mentor" taught them to expect nothing of the sort. The only way that could be accurate is a rule on total silence; otherwise, manipulation will happen.
-
I fail to see how fun and fellowship is accomplished when older players deliberately coach inexperienced players to perform actions that win the experienced player the game, especially through tricks and deception...Maybe in some areas the veteran players are selfless and kind.
Just to throw in an experience from a tournament here yesterday...I was playing T1-mp at a table with 3 experienced players and 1 RLK. At one point in the game, the RLK had the chance to negate 1 player's fortress, and asked me what I recommended. It was local tournament, and the only people playing were all from my local playgroup. I pointed out facts such as the fact that 2 players had Wall of Protection out that was prohibiting his banding defense from being able to use their characters. I also pointed out that a player had Pithom which would cause him to lose cards off the top of his deck if he used dominants. And finally I pointed out that a couple players had Storehouse out that allowed them to avoid throwing away enhancements if their hand was too full. In the end, I basically recommended that he cancel one of the fortresses in my territory (which he did). And for you cynics who think that was all part of my sneaky plan to win anyway, I ended up losing that game. But I felt like everyone in the game had a fun time, and the RLK learned an important thought process for how to make decisions like that the next time.
-
If a rule is made, can we restrict it to States or higher? I know that when I play in my local group table talk is half the fun of a MP game. I will add, though, that all of my players are familiar with one another and we all take it in stride.
Host's cannot be every where at once. The most predominant case at my tournaments was when I was at one of the 5 other tables than where the event occured (States so I was swamped), trying to make sure that table talk wasn't wasn't happening there as well ( I had warned several people already), When I find out after the fact that a former Tournament host came into a multi-player game and played at least one hand for their child. RLK's don't often know they can call for a judge in that situation, especially when an adult is telling them that is alright. I was livid but I can do nothing after the fact(other than watch them like a hawk when they attend my tournaments).
You couldn't void the win (if they won) or disqualify them from the rest of the games for blatant cheating?
-
Host's cannot be every where at once. The most predominant case at my tournaments was when I was at one of the 5 other tables than where the event occured (States so I was swamped), trying to make sure that table talk wasn't wasn't happening there as well ( I had warned several people already), When I find out after the fact that a former Tournament host came into a multi-player game and played at least one hand for their child. RLK's don't often know they can call for a judge in that situation, especially when an adult is telling them that is alright. I was livid but I can do nothing after the fact(other than watch them like a hawk when they attend my tournaments).
You couldn't void the win (if they won) or disqualify them from the rest of the games for blatant cheating?
Thing is they didn't win, they almost won because of it. But it never should have happened.\
I fail to see how fun and fellowship is accomplished when older players deliberately coach inexperienced players to perform actions that win the experienced player the game, especially through tricks and deception...Maybe in some areas the veteran players are selfless and kind.
Just to throw in an experience from a tournament here yesterday...I was playing T1-mp at a table with 3 experienced players and 1 RLK. At one point in the game, the RLK had the chance to negate 1 player's fortress, and asked me what I recommended. It was local tournament, and the only people playing were all from my local playgroup. I pointed out facts such as the fact that 2 players had Wall of Protection out that was prohibiting his banding defense from being able to use their characters. I also pointed out that a player had Pithom which would cause him to lose cards off the top of his deck if he used dominants. And finally I pointed out that a couple players had Storehouse out that allowed them to avoid throwing away enhancements if their hand was too full. In the end, I basically recommended that he cancel one of the fortresses in my territory (which he did). And for you cynics who think that was all part of my sneaky plan to win anyway, I ended up losing that game. But I felt like everyone in the game had a fun time, and the RLK learned an important thought process for how to make decisions like that the next time.
And how dd the other experienced players feel about your assistance? Just because it worked out well in your tourney with your experience does not mean that it will work out universally well.
-
And how dd the other experienced players feel about your assistance? Just because it worked out well in your tourney with your experience does not mean that it will work out universally well.
They were fine with it. But I agree that my positive experiences don't discount other's negative experiences.
-
If a rule is made, can we restrict it to States or higher? I know that when I play in my local group table talk is half the fun of a MP game. I will add, though, that all of my players are familiar with one another and we all take it in stride.
This. I personally like table talk, it helps RLKs, keeps REPs attentive, and adds an element of diplomacy to the game that I find most exciting. There have been instances of abusing table talk however, so I understand the desire to make rules about what's allowed and what's not. Perhaps some loose rules could be made that apply to state/regional/national tournaments but not to district/local tournaments that way RLKs can still benefit at low level tournaments and the REPs who dislike table talk can have the rules they want for the tournaments that really matter.
-
What does RLK mean?
-
What does RLK mean?
Random little kid. I think the phrase was developed by Tim Maly in describing a significant demographic in the Twin Cities, MN playgroup.
-
I think we should make the rules for State, Regional, and Nationals and leave it optional for host's to use them at their own tournament. That would allow hosts who have significant table talk issues to have an official set of rules to use, but allow others the flexibility to allow it some table talk if it is not an issue for them. But at this point what are the rules?