Skip to Content

Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

11 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008

I skimmed through the Auction transcript from last week and I noticed a little about Table Talk- particularly in Citadels and Puerto Rico. I've got something more to say about Citadels as well, and I'll do so at the end of this post if I remember :)

Regarding Table Talk in Puerto Rico. Personally, I don't like it. In our games it felt (to me anyway) like one guy was playing the whole game by himself. We decided to eliminate it for that reason, so now we simply don't say things like "looks like the obvious choice for you is the Builder" each turn. Every once in a while something will happen like "Whatever you do, don't let that guy Craftsman or we're all screwed!" which isn't as bad- in some respects table talk is table talk, but in a way I see a difference between, say, my two examples above. I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but the first sucks while the second isn't so bad.

Perhaps for that reason, there wasn't much Table talk during our game of Citadels.

Speaking of Citadels, I played it again last night, and didn't like it quite as much. However, I believe that's because we had 5 players rather than 4. I have a feeling that game is good for 3 or 4 players, and bad for more (or less) players. I have not tried the expansion roles yet so that might change things.

- Seth

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

It's a fair point you make - in the right circumstances, table talk can make and break a game. PR is a good example: a lot of our talk is restricted to "well I can see what you *should* do", which is, of course, not a lot of help to the player trying to make their move :)
As for Citadels - I can't believe you considered it worse with 5 players. I generally don't like to play it with less than 5 and preferably six (or even 7 if we can swing it), simply because it forces players to make choices they'd rather not. If there are only four of you, then it's far too easy to avoid having to take, say, the Merchant or the Architect and getting Assassinated (or, conversely, too easy at the right moment.) It really sucks to be the last player and be handed a choice between say the Priest and the Magician, especially at a point in the game when everyone knows what you had to pick! And it's in these sort of games where table talk comes into its own as you find yourself playing almost a minigame of Werewolf/Mafia as you try to persuade the Assassin or the Thief that there are better targets... Still, I suppose it's horses for courses.

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

Oh geez! I lost my last game of Citadels (I was sure to be the King, finish first my last building and win all the possible points) to the guy who pointed out that the last player should, err must destroy my only 1 gold building (which was the only blue color) for 2 gold (I had the fortress or something) which was all he had left. The Warlord player had no conscience of this situation until it was pointed out several time.

I wasn't angry at all, but still, it sucked.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

hpox wrote:
Oh geez! I lost my last game of Citadels (I was sure to be the King, finish first my last building and win all the possible points) to the guy who pointed out that the last player should, err must destroy my only 1 gold building (which was the only blue color) for 2 gold (I had the fortress or something) which was all he had left. The Warlord player had no conscience of this situation until it was pointed out several time.

I wasn't angry at all, but still, it sucked.

The rules say once you have your eighth building, you can't be jacked by the Warlord.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

Yup, that is indeed the rule: once you have 8 the warlord can't touch you.

Personally I prefer Citadles with 6 or even 7 -- many more people to interact with, steal from, kill, etc. It spreads the love around a bit. :)

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

Have to back this one up - once you've built your eighth building, you can't be hit by the Warlord. Makes for some interestingly close decisions at the end.

Anonymous
Machiavellli

The version I bought of Citadels is called Machiavelli , and I wasnt aware there are any expensions out there.... or maybe on the horizon. Is only the name of the game different, or also the looks ? My friends and me played this game so heavily I need to buy a new set for all the cards are so worn out you cant see which character you are anymore. Would've been nicer if the cards were of a better quality. Does anyone have the same problem with the Citadels version of the game?

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

Unfortunately the Fantasy Flight Games edition, Citadels, does indeed suffer from that problem -- I heard of many folks finding wear after only 10 games or so. We put the role cards in CCG sleeves, however, and it's held up fine.

I've heard that the German version initially published by Hans im Gl├╝ck (entitled Ohne Furcht und Adel) didn't have this problem, but I'm pretty sure it's long out of print.

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

sedjtroll wrote:
The rules say once you have your eighth building, you can't be jacked by the Warlord.

I had seven buildings but I was King and next turn I just had to choose the first character to play and build a 3 points building.

The point is the player who was second "played (told what to do)" for the Warlord player to *his* best advantage (not the Warlord's) and won just because of that.

Table talk doesn't bother me that much when it's used to help a newbie but it clearly wasn't the case there.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

Ah, I see. Yes, agreed, that kind of table talk is quite annoying.

In general we only have "you should consider playing this way" table talk when the person is seriously screwing him/herself (and s/he isn't in the lead!). Even then we let people screw themselves sometimes -- it seems to be pretty circumstantial. I guess it tends only to be when someone is missing a very obvious move that will not only cost him/her the game but will probably put them in very, very, very last place.

Anonymous
Loving table talk.

Now I must say I've never played PR or Citidels but find that in *most games* I play table talk is what takes a good game into the "great game to play" level.

Mostly because table talk in my group isn't "helpful" or pointing out obvious moves, but a way to form "alliances" and do "back-stabbing". So that in most cases one has to wiegh what/why the person is telling someone else any information at all!

Now maybe w/PR and Citidel it's so solo an effort that one's decesions can't help or hinder others' that much (like I said, no clue), but in other games, that include any sort of auction, tile placement, battle I find table talk to be a must. "mind games" create a game within a game, but I realize this isn't always appropriate in every game.

Just my thoughts...

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Table Talk... I guess this is the right forum

I'm not a big fan of the whole alliances and backstabbing side of things unless that's really the goal of the game. I absolutely love that game-within-a-game concept when playing, say, Diplomacy or Illuminati: both games are very clearly designed for that kind of interaction.

It works well in Diplomacy not only because its very title tells you the game is about the art of diplomacy but also because the game is specifically designed such that no one can win it without participating in alliances. Illuminati also has a specific mechanism -- spending money to assist or harm a transaction -- that makes it clear that the game is about temporary alliances.

I would however despise it in games like Puerto Rico or Amun Re where any such play is entirely in the minds of the players and not, really, in the mind of the designer. I truly, truly hate alliances and backstabbing in that kind of game. I don't find it fun at all. Those kinds of games -- at least to me -- are about the intellectual challenge, not the social challenge.

Fortunately I've always (since college, anyway) gamed with people who feel that way, too.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut