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.

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.

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 Glück (entitled Ohne Furcht und Adel) didn't have this problem, but I'm pretty sure it's long out of print.

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.

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.