Aaron Lawn: Talking Around My Game?

What’s the appropriate level of tabletalk for most board games?⁽¹⁾

It’s a hard question.  When you are in an auction game, do you announce how you are valuing the item?  For a game like Modern Art, it is in the Auctioneer’s best interest to talk up the item they are selling by pointing out how much it could be worth.  After all, they get more money if the bidding goes up!  But in other auction games doing an out-loud evaluation of how much the item is worth might be considered poor manners.⁽²⁾

Other times the amount of table talk can completely change the tenor of a game.  Carcassonne is a game that works with many different groups of people because of the variety of table talk that can be allowed.  Some groups love to have everyone offer advice on where a tile will fit; other groups play in studied silence.  There’s no right way to play, but often the amount of talk will affect your enjoyment of the game.

One distinction that I make is between options tabletalk and strategic tabletalk.  Option tabletalk is the discussion of what could be done, not why it should be done.  Like the Carcassonne example, this is all about pointing out how something works.  This is bad when other players want to figure it out for themselves, but is great when learning a particularly obtuse game.  I find that I mostly use option table talk with my regular groups to alert other players when they have done something of which I can take disastrous advantage.⁽³⁾

Strategic tabletalk is the more difficult beast.  When is it appropriate to discuss strategy?  There’s an old adage about having the new player sit between two experienced players and learn by getting advice from both of them—but I have to say that in my experience that only makes the game take about three times as long and thoroughly confuses the new player.  Other times seemingly harmless strategic talk will kill a decent game dead.  This is especially true with games that get the label fragile.  One of the worst gaming experiences of my life was playing a game of Taj Mahal with two new players and three experienced.  Not a single hand went by without some sort of strategic commentary from the old hands.⁽⁴⁾ It was not fun for anyone.  Even pre-game strategic pep-talks sometimes annoy me.  I don’t want to hear what you think about the strategy—I want to find out myself.  But I have no problem making mistakes and getting crushed.⁽⁵⁾ Other people aren’t like me and want to know what to do or not do.

Finally, tabletalk can make other problems even worse, such as kingmaking.  It’s one thing to quietly realize that you’ve got to do something that won’t let you win but will give the game to someone else.  It’s another thing when the talk between players points out that Joe can’t win, but he can either hose Bob or Sue… Who’s it going to be?  No matter what Joe chooses, it’s going to feel bad because everyone knows he chose the winner.⁽⁶⁾

There’s really no answer.  Group dynamics are such that long term groups find a level of talk that feels right.  It’s hardest when you game with many groups, or when you travel to a convention and play games with folks you don’t know—what level of talk do they approve of?  There’s really no way to know.

Which is probably why we’ve all sort of complacently agreed to the “less talk” option.  It isn’t optimal, and this isn’t to say that silence rules, but before you give other players advice: simply ask the table if it’s okay.  Sometimes it is, and sometimes the person you are trying to help will tell you that they don’t want your help.

---

⁽¹⁾I’m leaving out negotiation games, from Diplomacy to Traders of Genoa to Intrige.  These games require constant haggling and often hinge upon the idea that no player will be remiss in pointing out the direct benefits that another is achieving.  I’m also leaving out the whole sub-genre of primarily “take-that” card games.  Games like Munchkin require that every non-winner coordinate to pile on the leader—you win only by being able to survive what the rest of the player can fling at you.  It’s actually not very sporting to win because nobody noticed.

⁽²⁾Ah, manners.  This is really what this is about isn’t it?  Manners.  Maybe we need a Miss Manners of board games.  Rule #1: Always know when it is your turn.  Rule #2: Don’t constantly remind other players when it is their turn.

⁽³⁾Like when they leave a stack of gold open in Roads and Boats.  Mine!  All mine!

⁽⁴⁾Myself included.  Sob.  I hate myself.

⁽⁵⁾Also known as “being contrary”.

⁽⁶⁾I actually think this is the real problem with kingmaking.  Quiet kingmaking isn’t usually a problem.  Kingmaking feels icky when the whole table knows what is going on and actively discusses who Joe is going to kick out of contention for victory—especially when Joe takes 15 minutes to decide.

© 2008 Aaron Lawn

---

Comments:

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

The most important thing is to make sure everyone has a common understanding of how much table talk is allowed.  I tend to prefer minimal table talk, except in games that are obviously designed for table talk.  Aaron points out that it’s easy for table talk to degenerate into “everyone try to manipulate the new player.” This is almost always a bad idea. Posted by Eric Brosius on Feb 7, 2008 at 07:42 AM | #

The question is never one of how much table talk, but one of changing the amount of tabletalk mid-game. Its when one player starts pointing out the winning actions of another (and that other player is of the opinion that if the situation was reversed they would not be pointing out the same issues) that tempers will flare. The table talk escalates. I see different levels of table talk as an advantage. You can get 2 games for 1 if sometimes you play it with no table talk and other times you open it up to “skies the limit” table talk (playing a game each way is what I like).  State what style you are playing when reviewing the rules though! Posted by Ray Petersen on Feb 7, 2008 at 10:34 AM | #

Last night I was playing Race for the Galaxy with friends. In what became the final round, player A states “I’m developing” to the another player who was also shooting for a tableau of 12 cards. The other player withdrew the card he was going to play, to grab his Settle card. Both of them lost regardless, but it didn’t make either one of them look good to the other players and spectators. (The person who responded to the call looked weak, the person who called it looked like a poor loser.) Do others have house-rules on that kind of thing? Posted by Jimmer Sivertsen on Feb 7, 2008 at 08:57 PM | #

Jimmer, my house rule on that situation would be that Player B has to leave his card down. The worst table talk for me is by someone who isn’t even playing. I’ve experienced players who come over to watch a game, then proceed to razz players for their poor showing. “Oh, who’s red? Red isn’t doing so well, hunh?” Stick a sock in it, buddy! Posted by W. Eric Martin on Feb 8, 2008 at 01:37 PM | #

I’m prone to too much table talk, mostly since I am frequently teaching a new game to other players.  I have to disclose that I often perform well in negotiation games so talking gives me an advantage. As such, I’m currently am working on talking less (especially if it isn’t a new game).  The one downside is that I’m a social gamer and enjoy the social interaction. As to talking to players who are in a game I’m not even a part of… horrors!  I hope I would never do that! Posted by Matt J. Carlson on Feb 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM | #

< Back Home