Musings on… Kibitzing (#27)

Edited By David Fair
February 24, 2006

Tom Vasel:

Just how much is acceptable as far as trying to steer play in a group? For example, revealing hidden but trackable information that could influence other players’ decisions...a 5-player Tower of Babel game (where most disks can be built due to an abundance of cards) and someone attempts to build a white “6�...Is it OK to say, “That will be his third disk, we all have to include our trade cards to try and keep him from getting it�? Or in a game of Mare Nostrum, pointing out how a particular trading choice would allow Egypt to get an extra tax card whereas another choice will deny it to them.

Paul Sauberer:

I believe that in-game kibitzing (as opposed to sticking your nose in a game in which you are not a player) falls under two general areas.

First is one that blunders into the “open/closed holdings� debate. If an opponent is ready to build his 4th white token in Tower of Babel and the other players are unaware of that fact, is it OK to say, “He’s trying to build his fourth token for an extra 10 points and we all have to play our trade cards to prevent him from doing it?� I feel that if you are playing with closed holdings (and whether or not the answer to that larger questionis a good thing is entirely a matter of personal preference), you have to suck it up and live with the possibility that other players will not track the same info as you and you may get hosed by that fact. To reveal information is the worst of both worlds. You end up with partially open holdings and the part that is open is controlled by the player who has done the best job of tracking. That can skew the results drastically as he will likely only reveal that which is to his benefit. The old adage, “A half truth is the worst kind of lie� would apply here, just in a different context than it usually appears.

The other situation this question can arise would be the “If you do this, then he will do that� type of kibitzing. The temptation is to correct an opponent’s deficiency in strategy or tactics rather than knowledge. Puerto Rico is a classic where this can arise. Is it OK to say, as the player to your left reached for the Craftsman, “If you do that, then he is going to Captain and get a buttload more VPs than the rest of us, maybe a buttload and a half?� I’m not sure. Mare Nostrum is another game where it can arise, in the trading phase. Is it proper to suggest freezing Egypt out of trading as much as possible to prevent him from accumulating a bunch of tax cards? It can certainly be frustrating to sit still and have a game thrown to a particular player based on poor play by another if you saw it coming and know that they would not have done it if they had only known. On the other hand, how much do you want to prevent someone else from playing their own game, even if you suffer? Then, there is the possibility that the “mistake� isn’t really a mistake at all and you just don’t see the game the same way. Maybe the move will throw the game, but it will also gain the player a lock on second place.

How do I react in these situations? I am pretty sure that I am not consistent and will do what I do based on the group I am playing with. Some prefer having “stupid� moves pointed out, others don’t. Also, in our group, it seems that different dynamics will appear in different games at different times. Sometimes we will kibitz ‘til the cows come home and other times we will bite our tongues until they bleed. Maybe there is really no best answer. I do know that I usually prefer to have someone point out to me when I am about to make a newbie mistake that would wildly swing a game.

Shannon Appelcline:

I find kibitizing to be a very difficult topic, because the line where it’s appropriate is a bit vague, and it’s also different for different players. I’d classify kibitzing into a few more categories than Paul did.

First, you have hidden information revelation, which is revealing information the other players never knew, such as the cards in your hand. I’d say that’s never appropriate--not explicitly, nor by implication (e.g., “If you led Spades, I think we’d be OK there.�)

Second, we have open information revelation, which is what Paul mentioned, where open information then gets hidden and then you later want to talk about it. He says you should “suck it up�, but I’d disagree because there’s no actual authority behind the person revealing the information. He can’t guarantee that what he says is true and, heck, he could even be bluffing. The other players have to agree with whether his assessment is correct or not. So, he paints it as pretty black & white, but I say, “It depends�. Players opposed to “negative kibitzing�, which I’ll get back to in a second, will be opposed here, but otherwise it should be OK.

(And the fact that I almost always play with players who are very casual in how much open-to-hidden information they remember definitely influences my take on this.)

Third, we have positive kibitzing, which is similar to the Puerto Rico example that Paul gave. You’re suggesting a better strategy to someone. I think that some games, such as Carcassonne, make this extremely appropriate. If nothing else, it helps cut down analysis paralysis and downtime both. And, it always seems almost unfair to me if I let an opponent make a move that’s very bad without saying anything, because it could be a result of their misunderstanding the rules. I think positive kibitzing is usually OK unless either: it’s slowing down the game; or someone says that they don’t want any more advice.

Fourth, we have negative kibitzing, which usually revolves around trying to convince players to take down another player, typically the leader. Generally, this is part of the core negotiation of any multiplayer game which allows players to impact each others’ scores. As such, I think it’s entirely fine, but again with a few caveats. First, I think it behooves you to be honest in this type of kibitzing. Saying that someone else is ahead when you know that’s not true, and when it’s fairly provably not true, but where that might not be immediately obvious, is uncool. In general I think lying to convince other players of something is uncool. Second, I think you have to respect the desires of the other players in the game. If there’s someone who’s really opposed to this sort of thing, you should think about it, and if a few of the players are, you should definitely shut up. After all, the main goal of any game is for everyone to have fun.

Fifth, we have third-party kibitzing, which involves an outside player saying something about your game. My usual reaction here is, “Watch if you want to, but otherwise shut up.� I’m usually not too happy about someone leaning over my table and talking while I’m trying to play.

As I said, many possibilities, and many different answers.

Jason Little:

I think Shannon does a good job of breaking down table talk and kibitzing into a variety of different types… But for me, the short answer is simply “it all depends on the group.â€? It’s kind of a cop out, but it tends to be true in my gaming circles.

With some gamers, mentioning anything above and beyond strictly turn-related fact information is discouraged, while other gamers expect free wheeling, open conversations complete with gossip, strategy information, partial disclosure of secret information, leader targeting, etc.

Different strokes for different folks. I’m usually willing and able to modify my kibitz-ability to the current group mentality, but some things seem to be more off limits than others—such as disclosing cards in hand or things that other people cannot possibly discover on their own. Other than that, just about anything goes within certain groups.

I think table talk is a key part of a group’s social contract of gaming—the often unwritten rules of conduct that a particular group follows when they decide to get together. Aside from table talk, this social contract involves a group’s level of competitiveness, how to handle cheating, slow players, late comers, cancellations… any and all behavior that can impact a group’s enjoyment of getting together for gaming.

Larry Levy:

I agree, Shannon’s classifications are excellent. So I’ll follow his lead and comment on each of them. These aren’t absolutes, of course, just the way I like to play (and the way our group usually plays).

• Hidden Information Revelation: Certainly uncool in a traditional card game. It might be okay in another type of game, but I can’t really think of one where it would be alright. So for now, I’ll just say this is inappropriate.
• Open Information Revelation: In most cases, I’d say this is fine. The ultimate factor is that the player isn’t required to tell the truth and the rest of the table knows this. So caveat emptor, but I’d say it’s perfectly acceptable to tell other players what you’ve been tracking.
• Positive Kibitzing (“you may not want to do that...�): Always. It’s just considered polite form in our group not to let someone make an egregious error due to a brain cramp. Of course, if having the player retract his move helps you out, so much the better. But it isn’t uncommon for players to hurt themselves by pointing out just how awful an opponent’s move is.
• Negative Kibitzing (“he’s winning!�): Always. This can get a bit tiresome if overused, but our players are usually experienced enough to be able to tell an exaggeration from what is likely to be true. This can occasionally lead to hard feelings if a player feels picked upon (particularly if they really aren’t winning), but I don’t think anyone would ever suggest eliminating this. It’s just part of the metagame.
• Third-party Kibitzing: Not cool, unless cleared with the other players. More common is to state an opinion after the move has taken place, where it can’t affect play.

Morgan Dontanville:

Gaming is a social activity. In my mind, there are two distinctly different kinds of games, those that require your attention while it isn’t your turn and those that don’t. The first usually lean more toward my tastes, the second are usually categorized as party games (although there are some exceptions in the party game category when all turns are simultaneous, like Boggle; which is why I like Boggle).

Party games are popular because you can continue the party as normal, and occasionally take a break from it to play your turn. It is common to talk about something other than the game during a party game.

The games that I prefer (and probably most anyone participating and/or reading Musings on...) require your attention while it is not your turn. At the root of these games, though, is that they are a social activity. If the game requires you to be at attention and be social, you can bet you will probably talk about the game while you are playing it. I’m not a big fan of silent games, they just aren’t social enough for me.

The nature of this leads me to expect that people are going to kibitz. Frankly, as long as someone doesn’t reveal their hidden information, I could care less. If someone is counting cards and reveals what I should have, I don’t mind, chances are it will put us all on the same field and works to their own disadvantage. Plus, then I can whine all I want.

By the way, I’m horrible at games, I usually can only win by kibitzing.

Wei-Hwa Huang

Shannon wrote: “First, you have hidden information revelation, which is revealing information the other players never knew, such as the cards in your hand. I’d say that’s never appropriate--not explicitly, nor by implication (e.g., “If you led Spades, I think we’d be OK there.�)� Oh my gosh, it’s NEVER appropriate? Man, I didn’t know. And all this time I’ve been just teaching people the rules to new games and stuff. Oh, and how about when the game has already started, and I realize I forgot to mention a rule? I guess the other players will just have to suck it up then, since it’s never appropriate for me to mention it.

Kidding aside, my point is that there is one good reason to reveal information the other players don’t know, and that reason is instruction. I’ll come back to this in a bit.

So far, Shannon and Paul have broken down kibitzing into by different scenarios, based on what information is being revealed. I think that it is also useful to look at this from a different viewpoint, which is to ask: “What is the motivation behind the kibitzing?�

My thoughts are that there are four main motivations:
1. Instruction, where the goal is to teach or to learn; (I could separate these two goals, but I think that most people who are in the business of one are in the business of the other.)
2. Selfishness, where the goal is to improve one’s own position in the game;
3. Altruism, where the goal is to improve someone else’s position in the game;
4. Socializing, where the goal is to say something just for the sake of saying something.
Not all of these motivations are necessarily exclusive; it’s certainly possible for a particular comment to be motivated by any subset of the four, and in fact this is what tends to cause disagreement about kibitizing.

For instance, let’s take the hypothetical case of me telling Shannon about a move that he can make.
1. Perhaps my goal is Instruction—I think that Shannon might not understand the rules enough to know that he can make the move, so I want to make sure he learns that the move is available. Or maybe I’m not sure of the rules myself, so I point out the possible move in the hopes that some other player will correct me and point out how I’ve misinterpreted the rules.
2. Perhaps my goal is Selfishness—If Shannon makes the move, it will improve my own position, and pointing out the move can only increase the chance that he will make it.
3. Perhaps my goal is Altruism—If Shannon makes the move, it will help himself (and possibly hurt me), and maybe engender some good will from Shannon. Or perhaps it will help another player in the game.
4. Perhaps my goal is Socialization—I’m tired that everyone is being so silent and am just saying something that I think everyone knows, just so there can be some conversation in the air.

There are certainly combinations. For instance, if the move is good for Shannon, and I expect my mentioning to garner good will that will later be used in the game, then it is a combination of Altruism and Selfishness. If, instead, I expect my mentioning to garner good will that will later be used outside the game, then it is a combination of Altruism and Socialization. If I don’t care whether any good will is generated at all, then it is pure Altruism (which for some people is a rather alien concept).

There’s also some reverse psychology situations. For instance, one type of kibitz I do (perhaps a lot more than I should) is that I will suggest a move to another player, and then go on in detail on how that move will benefit me, or possibly suggest a move where it is clear that I benefit. (Example: “Hey, how about you trade me six of your cards for a sheep?�) So, on the surface, I appear to be motivated by Selfishness, but since I know that the player will clearly not play the move, I’m actually motivated by some of the other three.

I think that figuring out what sort of kibitzing is or is not appropriate is better addressed towards figuring out what motives are appropriate in the game and gaming group. Some games tend to dictate the proper motives. For example, the game Diplomacy strongly (but implicitly) suggests that all conversation be motivated by Selfishness. Having Instruction tends to slow down the game. Pure Socialization also slows down the game. Pure Altruism does worse than slowing down the game—it actually “breaksâ€? the game! “Here, let me just retreat on this front. Go ahead, take the supply center.â€? Altruism+Selfishness combos tend to do really well, though.

A party game, on the other hand, tends to implicitly encourage Socialization. Ever tried playing one as a silent strategy game, where everyone is just trying to win, and quell all the small talk? One quickly discovers that the game tends to “break� in those situations!

Player groups also have preferences. For instance, I know of two player groups which have very different attitudes towards Instruction—one group doesn’t care about statements made during the game, while another group prefer that everyone take their lumps on learning the game, and will only speak up with an explicit rule is being violated, and even then to give as little information as possible. As short as just saying “Noâ€? and nothing else when an illegal move is attempted.

I have a personal preference curve, as well. I don’t like Selfishness, I like Instruction and am uncomfortable when it is considered inappropriate, my preference for Socialization varies with my mood, and I like Altruism but don’t mind if it is considered inappropriate.

Hence, Diplomacy is a game that I tend to avoid, for example. I also tend to avoid game tournaments, because those tend to discourage Instruction, and frown upon Altruism (but can’t do anything about it).

Other people in this thread have been mentioning that there’s an unwritten, unspecified “social contract� that tends to bind groups and games, and kibitizing problems we observe are what happens when these contracts are violated. I find that when looking at Shannon’s list of kibitizing broken down by format, I often have a hard time figuring out whether I consider it permissible, and want to know the motives. For example, take negative kibitizing (“He’s winning!�) Is this motivated by:
• Instruction? (“You guys probably don’t know this, but this other player is very close to winning.�)
• Selfishness? (“I want to win, so all you guys should stop him so that I’ll have a chance.�)
• Altruism? (“You guys aren’t going to be able to win unless we all work together to stop him.�)
• Socialization? (“Oh, look, he’s winning. We all knew that, but I felt I had to say something.�)

My feeling towards whether it’s appropriate is heavily based on which one(s) of those it is.

I think by breaking down the kibitizing by motives (and not by format), like I’ve done here, is probably a good start towards actually describing this “social contract�.

Of course, my motive for steering the conversation in this direction is motivated by Instruction (I want to learn more about social dynamics, and I want you to hear my thoughts and learn something from them) and by Selfishness (I find the analysis based on kibitzing formats to be non-utile and therefore I want to talk about something else).

However, through some Altruism, I’ll now point out that even if this approach is successful in coming up with a way to figure out what is and isn’t appropriate, in practice it is nearly impossible to enforce in a rigid rule structure, mostly because people can always keep their motives secret if they want. For instance, let’s suppose you want to allow negative kibitzing when it’s motivated by Instruction or Socialization, but not when it’s motivated by Selfishness or Altruism. Guess what, you can’t do that without some sort of honor-bound system! It is often much easier for groups to ban certain formats of kibitizing (“no negative kibitizing here, please.�) than it is to get niggly about motives when situations arise (“I wasn’t being selfish, really I wasn’t!�) So the discussion on kibitz formats is perhaps, in the long run, much more pragmatic.

Rick Young:

Wow Wei! What an insightful set of ideas you have presented. It leaves me feeling not much more need be said on the subject. I’ll accept the groundwork on the topic has been well and truly laid and simply offer a couple of personal observations.

Kibitzing is an integral part of the experience of boardgaming, and is one of the big reasons I find playing games on the computer unrewarding compared to face to face play. Bridge is one of the few gaming experiences that specifically excludes kibitzing; all others nearly require it or the game suffers. All of the motivations that Wei ably detailed have been part of my own experience as a gamer.

The libertarian concept of “enlightened self interest� seems to apply here in spades. The better each of us becomes as players enriches the gaming experience for all of us, so we will point out good or bad lines of play so that the level of play from each of us benefits. Our group experience is that our kibitzing starts out as “educational,� either to teach or to learn, and transitions to the other forms as experience dictates. Each successive game becomes a more advanced form of a tutorial where the object is to try to have the level of play progress in a relatively even fashion. Individual skills vary so the inherently better players probably do more “helping� than being helped.

At some point inevitably the gloves begin to come off. The trick is to recognize when the transition is taking place or is complete so that the appropriate filters kick in to assess the quality (or motive) behind the “advice� now being offered. Gaming personality stereotypes start to emerge at this point also.

We have one player who is always helpful and will continue to be even past the “tutorial� stage but we are fully aware that self-interest is the basic motivation so the “catch� or “trap� is always assumed to be lurking nearby. Another of our players seldom offers advice but is always available to dissect the advice of others in no uncertain terms. Yet another turns his kibitzing to the job of deflecting attention away from himself and onto others.

The group dynamic is vital to our enjoyment. The kind of kibitzing that we mercifully only rarely see is “whining.� Whining about being picked on, ganged up on, ignored, or betrayed. Or worse than whining is the form of kibitzing which amounts to a player ragging on his table mates to play faster or whatever. Luckily we don’t see a lot of that type of commentary from our players. On the other hand, good natured banter is encouraged and seems to come easily so I would say that we are currently blessed with a very compatible and enjoyable circle of gamers.

Paul Sauberer:

I have to admit that this topic has broadened a lot from what I was originally thinking of. I didn’t really think about equating kibitzing with table talk. Personally, I view them as different things. Table talk is more of a welcome discussion and part of the game, if the game calls for it and/or the group enjoys it. It doesn’t have to have a purpose of affecting the outcome of the game (but might). Kibitzing has more of a goal of steering the game in a certain way or to a certain player. I may be explaining poorly, but I think the difference would be that table talk involves saying, “The game situation is this and you can do x and y which will result in that� while kibitzing would be “The game situation is this and unless you do x, he will lock up the win.� I’m not sure where I would put comments from someone outside the game. I guess it would be kibitzing as it will impact the game in an artificial way.

Larry Levy:

Despite my heritage, my knowledge of Yiddish isn’t particularly great. But I’m pretty sure that the word “kibitzing� (which has a Yiddish origin) refers to onlookers commenting on a game, sometimes in an unwanted way. The term is an old one and is usually associated with card games. It certainly is not restricted to designer games or anything like that. I think the word used to have negative connotations, but now it seems to have a more or less neutral feel. But I’ve never heard it applied to the players of the game. In fact, people watching a game are often referred to as “kibbitzers� whether they are commenting on the action or not.

Musings On… is a roundhouse forum discussion on games and topics related to gaming. if you are interested in participating in future discussions, please email David Fair at dafair followed by the at sign and gmail.com.

© 2006 Rick Thornquist

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

I just wanted to mention that, beginning with this column, the editing effort, which had been so ably carried out by Tom and Melissa Vasel, is now being done by David Fair.  Based on this example, I’d say the results are seamless.  Excellent job, David, and thanks for volunteering to take on this responsibility.  Thanks as well to our retiring editors Tom and Melissa. Posted by Larry Levy on Feb 25, 2006 at 12:25 PM | #

< Back Home