Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

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 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 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.

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. 

Quote from: Korunks on April 21, 2012, 10:24:29 PM

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.

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.

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.

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 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”

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 11:34:07 AM

“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).

Quote from: Chris on April 22, 2012, 12:04:06 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 11:34:07 AM

“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

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.

Quote from: lp670sv on April 22, 2012, 12:28:53 PM

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.