"Multiplayer game protocols." Topic

A friend suggests, no giving advice to the other player- assuming all are reasonably experienced with the rules.

If you look at gaming as a social activity, this question answers itself. In my group, if someone is doing something that the rules will punish them for, the opponent generally points it out and lets them reconsider. If you are doing something tactically stupid, we stand aside and let you make a mistake. Those line can get blurred sometimes, but our aim is to have a good game with good company. We tend to err on the side of everyone having a good time.

I played in a game of Column, Line and Square a long time ago. That is a game with lots of gotchas in the rules. The experienced players had stacked the game so that all noobs were on one side. The game was a total wipe and not much fun for the noobs. None of us ever painted a figure for that set of rules, and avoided it whenever it came up at the club.

Gaming is about having friendly competition and having fun, IMHO.

Wargaming is not a competition sport, it is a social activity.

Of course you should give advice to the other player if he does something that would otherwise spoil the game experience.

But it is indeed a grey zone, ranging from an obvious rule oversight, to not having understood the victory conditions correctly, to tactical "mistakes".

E.g. in my group, we point each other to things such as "Didn't you forgot to move those troops?" or "You know the scenario says you should hold that bridge, right?" or "Remember in these rules going in square doesn't help you that much."

But whether someone wants to deploy with or without reserves, or left or right, … that is completely his choice.

I have enjoyed games where teams can talk among themselves only during the other team's moves.

So if the other team is dithering you get more conference time.

However any house rules like this really do need players to be experienced with the game rules. And the game-sequence of some rules are hard to make fit with the idea.

The games were lotsa fun though.

David F Brown

I demand players only communicate to players not adjacent to them, in a manner consistent with the game period…trumpets, flags or heliograph 😜

we have 2 sorts of gane. The normal one and the "grudge Match". In a normal game its sweeness and light. In a "Grudge Match" its even players and its a full test of skill. Nobody should have rime or spare capacity to chatter or help. It not anti social its just a top end game. Many iof the games I play with my Co Author sre of this form. Ots about understandinfg how it might be done. Manuals and rules only go so fat. The test is actual tactics, no help as oversight is FOG of WAR.

I can understand how a specific scenario may be crafted to prevent such talk but, as noted above, I expect at a game. I view such conversations as an ADC saying, "general, sir, did you notice the enemy cavalry brigade advancing on our left?"

I will write limited kibitzing into a scenario when it is appropriate to the period and adds to the flavor of the game. E.g. I often do this for my Roman era naval scenarios – it is historically appropriate and adds to the period flavor when another squadron of ships moves in on your target, etc. That said, I am seldom tyrannical about enforcing this as that just leads to an unhealthy atmosphere around the table since players are not usually looking to gain some advantage, but just engaging in gamer talk.

tbh I'd much rather have the players function as a command team than stand around mute. Even if the do come up with some cunning plan (which is half ht efun), I still expect the toys on the tabletop to behave as their historical counterparts and not respond telepathically.

You don't need any rules for this stuff, just sensible players. I find giving out 'style points' for culturally appropriate game play helps a great deal too.

For some reason, they seem to find being give a cheap plastic poker chip hugely motivating. Thank you John Salt for that idea.

Can they cash the poker chips in after the game?

+1 Phil Dutre.

You play to win – otherwise its just a moving diorama – but not ONLY to win. A little gentlemanly sportsmanship goes a long, long way. And is contagious.

The problem can be one dominant player dictating to the others on his team. i played a team game at COW one year where a player took my troops away from me as he "knew what should be done!" Left the game at that point. Shame as it was an interesting game set in Mexico.

We usually have a GM running it, so the same approaches used for running an RPG: Make sure every player is engaged, prod a shy player and make sure that "alpha nerd" players shout down other players.

Wargaming is not a competition sport, it is a social activity.

I do not see these two types of activity as mutually exclusive.

assuming all are reasonably experienced with the rules.

We don't really play a lot of games where the rules are the major determinant of the challenge. It is often enjoyable to learn by working through strategic and tactical challenges where you are not entirely comfortable or experienced.

Of course, the other players' style of play will have a big impact on how the situation unfolds, and thus your familiarity with the situation you face.

The problem can be one dominant player dictating to the others on his team

We don't see a lot of this.

appropriate to the period and adds to the flavor of the game

just sensible players. I find giving out 'style points' for culturally appropriate game

We generally applaud this and try to keep the meta-game discussion separate from the in-game persona interchanges. But we don't require it.

Generally, players don't have a hard time discussing whether more or less "table talk" is appropriate and flexing with the flow of the game at the time.

"Can they cash the poker chips in after the game?"

For post game bragging rights, absolutely.

'Tell me why you think you've won' is the best bit.

We don't usually kibitz, but if we have a newbie to the rules I'll offer "you could do this and that may happen, or this with the chance of that." Then leave it up to them. I can't assume they understand all of their options. No one has even complained.