Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

25

In a two-player situation I could see how this might be acceptable, but with more players I'd be very cautious. For instance, it may appear to you that player three is the foregone winner, but perhaps player two has a victory Development Card, along with a Road Building that could catapult him to longest road, if he can just get another brick to make one ...


16

I know you don't want answers that say, "Talk to them, and tell them that you think cheating is wrong", but, honestly, it's players distaste for direct confrontation that allows cheating to happen. Cheaters prosper only because we let them get away with it. If you see it happening and you can prove it, don't tolerate it. No one wants a cheater in their ...


13

I once, in a serious tournament, in the very last round won a game when I was down a whole queen (at one point in the game - by the time I won I had recovered the queen and much more). I had also before I eventually turned the position around to be clearly winning offered my opponent a draw, a draw which would have advanced him to a statewide individual ...


12

When playing games that are supposed to eliminate some of the players and then speed up, you can always play as teams. In my group games with that kind of mechanic do not work, we are simply either too competitive or too strategic to come to an entertaining experience for everyone. This lead us to play in teams so that if one 'player' loses there are ...


12

Make sure you know the policy on rares - will rares be re-drafted at the end? Do you keep all rares you draft? Is it a 'winner-chooses' system? Most of the time you'll keep what you draft, but not always. Talking about the cards you're drafting is generally frowned upon - reading signals and predicting what your opponents are drafting is a big part of the ...


10

3:1 trades are not unfair; they're bank rate. At which point the trading partner should simply trade with the bank, as that is a winning strategy. Anything better than 2:1 is better than dedicated port trades, and is only useful when you will gain more than your trade partner. My recommendations for curing both at once are straightforward, but brutal. And ...


10

As I see it, you have three options that aren't "stop playing with them". In all situations, you're going to have to accept that cheating might happen in the game. Add incentives not to cheat (such as the answer from Kevin about automatically losing the game, or a game appropriate penalty, such as stealing a card from the offending player) Change the ...


9

I would say that resignation is perfectly acceptable as long as 1) It was preceded by a good-faith effort to play optimally. 2) All parties who are affected by the resignation agree on its timeliness. The only times I feel a resignation is discourteous is when it negatively impacts people who were depending on your continued presence; for example, if ...


9

The games you are talking about are ones that possess a positive feedback loop for players who are in the lead, causing them to continue to be in the lead in an exponential way. This is generally considered bad game design for the exact reason you are implying. As such, you have two simple options: Stop playing these games, due to their flaw. Create ...


8

The idea behind playing in the upper right first is so that White doesn't have to reach far to play his first move. The corner immediately in front of him on his right is left open. So the third stone goes in the lower right corner, from Black's viewpoint. [Edit as per the comments: Move order for 9 stones] $$ --------------------------------------- $$| ...


8

It sounds like you're playing a less formal game, so I don't see a problem with asking the question. In a more formal setting each card would remain in front of the player that played it so the question wouldn't be necessary and most likely an irregularity.


7

Andrew raised some very good point on which I'd like to elaborate. I don't like the idea of declaring yourself the winner. In most games it is unlikely that you can do this with reasonable certainty. Thus it is presumptuous and - like Andrew explained - potentially unfair. I do however see some use in conceding a game under certain circumstances. ...


7

I would rather a player concede than that they make plays that are not in their best interest and thus play "kingmaker". I haven't played Catan lately so this may or may not be applicable there, but I personally would rather someone: Keep striving to improve their own score OR Stop playing entirely and let the rest of us finish the game Rather than see ...


7

Victor Mollo addressed this problem in one of his books (I forget which). His suggestion, if you wished to stop and think at your turn of play, was to place the card you plan to play face down on the table, announcing that you were playing that card, and then do your thinking. Provided your thinks don't take inordinately long, no-one will complain.


6

How about adding a new rule to the game you're playing. Let the cheater play a cheating position, either openly or hidden, with the agreed limitation that he or she can't possibly win; or else they must keep track of every cheat they do and get scored on how well they cheated with the possibility of wining that way. Most times it's not about defeating your ...


6

In general, king making is contentious. In my mind, it's best reserved for when it will allow ending a game "Now-ish" in order to either facilitate a different, more generally enjoyable game, or to allow players to leave. There are a few other conditions where I find it less than unacceptable. These basically boil down to "not letting A have a runaway ...


6

I believe that cases 1-3 are all ethical, but these are simple problems that should have been solved at the end of some earlier trick (In duplicate bridge, after all the cards to a trick have been faced, players should indicate that they are thinking about the hand by keeping their card face up. Play does not proceed until all players have turned their cards ...


5

I believe that a player should be allowed to concede, if it doesn't affect the game, or if it affects the game in a POSITIVE way. In a two-player game, that's easy. Conceding shortens the game without changing the result, and is an act of good sportsmanship. In a multiplayer game, it gets trickier. That's because the conceding player may have assets that ...


5

When I used to play a lot of Euchre the side that didn't call trump would often toss in their cards after taking one trick conceding the rest of the tricks to the caller. Sometimes all it would take is to show the left bower after the right had been played on the first trick. Each group has to decide what they are comfortable with, but I think the more you ...


5

It really depends on the circumstances. Are you in a tournament? Who is your opponent? How much time do you have? What will you learn from it? I would usually keep fighting if I lost a minor piece just to learn something from fighting a losing position, unless I was in an intense tournament and needed some rest. If I was down a Queen, I probably ...


5

Incorporate the cheating into the game. I don't know how well this ports to all games, but when I was in the Army, we use to play with a house rule in Spades that if you got caught reneging, the hand was immediately over, the reneging team lost their bid and the other team automatically made theirs. Before that, there was constant fighting between the two ...


5

I'm not sure that in a home game, the situations you describe are similar. When you review the previous trick, you're seeing all four cards at once, with no indication as to who played what (although of course you know who won the trick because they're about to lead to the next). When you ask about a specific card on the current trick, I think you are ...


5

Every tournament has its own specific rules, but I've never seen one that hasn't required the use of the latest/greatest rules sets available, both for the game itself and the army. There are often additional restrictions, e.g. banned items or characters, troop limits etc, as well as model requirements (minimal painting requirements, no use of non-GW models, ...


5

Make the first eliminated player be "the banker." When more than one player is eliminated, they should start another game. Like the banker in Monopoly, they'll hand out all cards/tokens, make change, and manipulate pieces that aren't controlled by a player directly. It's not that fun, but it keeps them participating, and they can heckle all-the-while. ...


4

Tom Sloper, an apparently very experienced American player, writes about etiquette. It turns out that "One person's bad etiquette is another person's official rule" - so you have to adapt. There is a huge difference between tournament play and casual games with friends. Also, you need to consider house rules. In the end, there is a definite answer to your ...


4

In games I play where 2 of the players are very experienced and 1-2 players are less experienced/cutthroat, then much advice is freely given/taken and that pretty much solves it. For example, let's say my 6 year old son really needs a brick to build a settlement and he has an unneeded sheep and 2 ores. I may offer him the brick for 2 ores and a sheep but ...


4

We let players who lose team up with other players. As more players get eliminated our teams get larger and the game gets more intense. As a bonus this preserves all the mechanics of the original game.


3

If they merely like lying, and not cheating, then a card game called "bullshit" or cheat where you put the cards face down, and state what cards you're putting down. If someone suspects the person's lying, they can claim that the person's lying. They might do this because one player has said they're discarding "three tens" when they themselves have two ...


3

Do you value strategic decision-making and technically-precise play? If so, my advice is that it's not worth it to play with cheaters, because their "game within the game" gets in the way of actually experiencing the game. It's possible to play serious and deep games against cheaters within a tournament structure, but that involves tights rules for managing ...


3

Here are a few ideas, although overall I disagree with the premise of the question, as you'll see toward the end. "Unfair" trades are the benefit of getting a resource other people want. I don't see how it's a problem. Just turn down the trade. As far as trading eating up time, one option would be to just put a 30-second limit on trading on each player's ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible