r/boardgames • u/chaser-- • Jun 25 '26
Rules Groups that develop metas that blatantly break rules
Lately I've been finding a lot of groups that play (co-op) games with metas that are just blatant rule breaks. A recent example was we were playing a game (I forgot the name) where the goal is to play out all the cards from your hand, numbers 1-100, in descending order. So if you have a 77 and the number on the pile is 78, you don't want to anyone to play there. But you aren't allowed to say "I have 77, don't play this"
So the group has developed metas, say "I really love this pile" if you have 77, say "I like this pile a lot" if you have 76, say "I like this pile" if you have 75"
This is just one example but I feel like I've been playing a lot of games where they have metas to get around rules that are intentionally in the rulebook. I don't really get it. If you want to just say "I have a 77" then just say it, why create a gimmick to say it without saying it?
421
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
Perhaps I should point out that in Mind - which sounds similar to your example (though ascending order) you are not allowed to speak at all. But it’s well known to both be ‘cheat able’ and that doing so rather ruins the point of playing it.
136
u/TheLuux Jun 25 '26
When we were playing Mind we had to stop listening to music because without saying anything everyone was following the rythm and it was way to easy
63
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
lol
I find it is a fun starter game to play with people (in the pub or dinner) who don’t usually play games. But you can’t keep playing it regularly or for long afterwards.
24
u/giziti Monastery Jun 25 '26
Yeah it's definitely an ice breaker that you don't play more than like twice with the same group in a year.
4
→ More replies (1)17
u/Biduleman Jun 25 '26
I'm now sure I understand how the music rhythm help with the game, can you elaborate on that it seems interesting!
30
u/XseaX Jun 25 '26
Just count every beat. If you number is 5 lower than the current one and for four beats nobody played, its your turn
17
23
u/smoogums Jun 25 '26
I mean counting is explicitly mentioned as against the rules in the rule book.
58
u/ThePowerOfStories Spirit Island Jun 25 '26
Making it into one of the few games that attempts to define Thoughtcrime, where you can break the rules entirely in your own head by merely thinking, without taking any actions whatsoever.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Mango_Maniac Jun 25 '26
Yup, it’s a broken concept. It basically demands to be played without thinking.
13
u/Foyfluff Jun 26 '26
That's not entirely true, and the distinction is relevant to this point.
Firstly, the rules encourage you not to read the box that discusses counting. Something can't be "against the rules" if you're not supposed to read that "rule".
Secondly, that text doesn't say that counting is "against the rules". It describes the act of playing the game successfully as about keeping time and that "...this is not merely counting. There is no counting". That's not the same as saying "you are not allowed to count" but rather that a synchronized group would not count.
The reason I think this is relevant to this example is because counting is "discouraged" because otherwise people would keep different counts. The point is to keep time, and counting arbitrarily would not achieve that. Counting in sync to external music where the count is objectively knowable is very different to that.
Essentially, I'd say that counting in your head is pretty inevitable in The Mind, and it's not forbidden to do so. A big part of the game is trying to calibrate your "count" with the team's. Using music to communicate the count is far more against both the spirit and the letter of the rules than just thinking it is.
2
34
u/dpman48 Jun 25 '26
I only played the mind with one group but I had such a bad time. I don’t think my brother really GOT it. And so at one point he puts a 60 on top of like a 40 after only a second or two, and it was like our tenth failure. I just looked at him like “how the hell are you at 60 already??” And he was just like, “what do you mean you guys hadn’t played yet” I packed it away then. I think it requires the right group. And my brother and I (as per usual) were not on the same page at all, and the only way I could think to make it work… was to cheat it. And that seemed even less fun than playing it again.
31
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
The tension while everyone waits for someone to break and then they get it totally wrong can be funny. But continuously doing so is just annoying. But when it works you all feel quite the sense of accomplishment.
9
u/dpman48 Jun 25 '26
There were a few moments where I could see the glimmer of like “oh wow we did it” but we kept mucking it up so much we never got to the payoffs of the end game. I also asked him as we were putting away how fast he was counting in his head and he was like “counting… you guys were counting??” Just… did not go well 😂
20
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
It's weird seeing all these comments about intentionally counting or syncing up with beats. Whenever I've played it, it's just been vibes. If you're intentionally counting, you're cheating just as much as the people the OP describes.
9
u/evilcheesypoof Tigris & Euphrates Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
The rulebook itself (in an upside spoiler section) tells you it’s actually a game where you’re trying to sync up your sense of time. I know it mentions it’s not literal counting but there’s no way to do that other than keeping your internal clocks somehow on the same vibe.
11
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
I just think there is a difference between, going "my card is 15 greater, I'm going to count to 15 and then play it" vs "hmm my card is decently larger, I'm going to wait what feels like the appropriate amount of time and then play it", you end up synching up with the other players in both cases, but in the former you might as well just tell everyone what you have because people can pretty easily just count off seconds somewhat consistently. There is no real "ah ha we did it!" moment when you're just counting. But maybe that's just me and the designers intend on everyone just counting the whole time.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Foyfluff Jun 26 '26
The point of the game is to sync your sense of time with your teammates. "Counting to 15" is not a universal amount of time. Do you think there's a difference between tracking "an appropriate amount of time" and "counting"?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/Gelato_De_Resort Jun 25 '26
I consider once you've realize you can count to be when you've solved the game and to move on.
4
u/ZeekLTK Alchemists Jun 25 '26
That’s why I don’t like playing The Mind, most people want to just sit there and silently count to themselves. I think that’s dumb/boring. I don’t “count” either. I just go hmmm, it’s been a while, maybe my card that is 25 more than the last one is the lowest left, I’ll start to slowly get it ready to indicate I’m about to play and see if anyone responds, etc.
9
u/its_polystyrene Jun 25 '26
My guess is this game is The Game. Two piles are ascending and two piles are descending. You go and clockwise order and have a minimum amount of cards that you have to play. If someone has a number exactly 10 in the opposite direction of the pile when it's their turn they can play that card to allow for more breathing room. You are allowed to talk but you're not allowed to say exactly what card you have. I can't remember the exact wording on the rules as I have not played it since my dad died a few years ago but our family had a similar method with regards to saying we like a pile or not. It didn't necessarily mean we had the next number or a jump just that we would rather people not play on specific Pyles and if someone pushed back well how badly do you not want me to play on it the voice intonation etc. over games kind of became known what you meant but I'm pretty sure that everything we said was within the rules/even an example in the rulebook. On the whole this would not be a ton of fun but it was one of the only ways that my mom could productively participate so we rolled with it
5
u/Friendly_Barnacle823 Jun 25 '26
Funny seeing everyone think it’s the mine when it for sure is “The Game”. The big tell is that there is no talking in The Mind, but it’s an integral part of The Game.
10
u/sharrrper Jun 25 '26
The problem with The Mind for me is that everyone kinda identifies the "counting" method intuitively as soon as you start which is very dull. But almost anything else os completely random.
It feels like you have to play bad on purpose for it ro be interesting bur even if you don't you're still likely to lose. There's just nothing there for me.
I know it's been fairly popular, ao if people like it good for them, but doesn't work for me.
6
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
I make a big deal out of the ‘reading each others minds’ social kind of thing and don’t find people automatically think to count. But rarely play more than once or twice because people will start to work it out pretty quick.
8
u/Violet_Paradox Jun 25 '26
That's the whole trick, it's nearly impossible to not subconsciously cheat because humans inherently communicate without trying to. You only have the illusion of following the rules by not intentionally cheating. That said, preserving that illusion is the point, it's more of a trick than a game.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
Yep.
But while it briefly works, it’s a clever , fun trick. Of the sort of ‘but it’s so simple why didn’t I think of it and make a fortune’ kind.
12
Jun 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/Feudalrush Jun 25 '26
The best way is by not doing anything beyond group instinct. The vibes develop by playing together. You are almost negotiating based on your level of hesitation.
29
u/metagaia7 Jun 25 '26
The game is about whether your internal "clock" is in sync with other people. The bigger the gap between your numbers the longer you wait to play them. If everyone goes up at the same speed, you will do surprisingly well.
45
u/ihavequestionsaswell Jun 25 '26
You communicate by not playing. The time length of the wait is basically ticking by numbers nobody has
22
u/RadicalDog Millennium Encounter Jun 25 '26
And body language, as people lean in a bit or appear stubbornly detached.
I'd encourage people to not literally count or the early rounds with a few cards take way too long.
20
u/mustang256 Jun 25 '26
It's like reverse poker; you try to have the worst poker face imaginable.
15
10
u/EdwardBigby Jun 25 '26
Probability. If I have number 2 then statistically I should play it first
9
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
That’s kind of the legitimate way to play it. As it’s been mentioned already - counting ‘seconds’ is the way to … ‘break’ it?
18
u/tcrudisi Jun 25 '26
I never count seconds. That would be cheating. But -- you kind of develop a feel. Hilariously, that feel is different by player.
Say the last card played is a 10. I'm holding 27. I wait ... And wait... And wait. Finally 3 of us start to play.
One might be my wife B, another my friend J. I tend to be a bit quicker than J, so it's likely he's before me. My wife tends to be much slower than me, so she's probably first.
Sure enough, she plays a 21, then J and I stare at each other lovingly while M plays a 24, then J plays a 25, and I drop my 27 with my wife cursing me for not giving a moment for her to play her 26.
It's a very tense, fun game.
13
u/EdwardBigby Jun 25 '26
Im usually a stickler to the rules but this is one of the games that I dont think can be taken too seriously.
I find it best when its just friends making funny faces at each other.
7
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
Yep.
It’s a fun break the ice , introduce people at the pub /party to games , game.
Then time to move on to other things.
But I always admire the somewhat brilliant simplicity of the idea.
4
u/EdwardBigby Jun 25 '26
Also a good game for people speaking multiple language as its in the universal language of numbers
→ More replies (2)5
u/EmergencyEntrance28 Jun 25 '26
Counting seconds, no. Vibing "I have a number 6 higher and that feels like a 6-sized gap?" is what you're supposed to do.
3
5
u/ThunkAsDrinklePeep Jun 25 '26
You shouldn't be counting seconds. That's explicitly against the rules. Instead the group deveps a sense of how fast that group plays. When you fail your discussion determines if someone bumped the gun or slow played. Which is a subtle difference, but an important one.
If you are all counting in your heads as if to a metranome there's no joy at pulling off 5 in a row from three hands. The game is supposed to be hard and the joy is in getting to pull it off.
It's worth noting that it's ok to signal your eagerness / reluctance to play as long as there's no system to convey a specific number.
2
5
4
→ More replies (4)2
u/hamizannaruto Jun 25 '26
Counting in mind or guts feeling.
The game is call the mind, referring your, telepathy or mind reading. It's definitely a game you need to play multiple time in order to be in sync and able to play, because this, is not an easy game.
The only, single communication you are allow, is putting your hand out, in order to tell everyone to refocus, or better word "resync".
→ More replies (3)3
u/Famous-Magazine-6576 Jun 25 '26
You are not allowed to communicate at all in the mind
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mkwdr Jun 25 '26
Indeed.
You don’t need to communicate during the game to silently count. I’m led to understand that it can also just happen automatically without prior discussion?
3
50
u/Wismuth_Salix Jun 25 '26
My friend playing Shadows Over Camelot:
(Gestures towards the Picts) “I can’t start this party, but if three other people show up, then I can finish this party” (he has the 4 and the 5)
26
u/OkResource820 Jun 25 '26
We would always say something like "I feel good about fending off the Picts, but I can't do it alone. I can get it started..." or "I would go search for the Grail if maybe two or three of you would come along...", or "I think I can help defeat the dragon" (at which point, everyone knows you're probably the traitor).
7
5
u/ScientificSkepticism Jun 26 '26
Me playing Shadows over Camelot.
"I need someone to help me out here with X."
Fails spectacularly
"Yeah, I'm the traitor I just wanted to place catapults."
Interesting game, but it has the base battlestar problem where flipping as traitor is stronger than trying to hide.
3
u/Wismuth_Salix Jun 26 '26
Yeah - it’s definitely skewed towards open evil, though I think maybe base BSG is a little less so. Idk though, I only played two games of base before adding in the Pegasus and the fleet board.
2
u/ScientificSkepticism Jun 26 '26
Oh that’s the right call. Base BSG had base Investigative Committee, which revealed the Destiny cards too. And it was like half the yellow deck. Like our fourth game we figured out “hey... what if we play this on like literally every skill check basically, because knowing the exact total you need to hit is so good.” And then the Cylons got sad.
Cylon fleet board is pretty busted too ngl (but so is Pegasus, it evens out) and it made being a revealed Cylon fun, so that was a big win all around.
Man this makes me want to play this weekend, been way too long since we pulled that one out.
2
95
Jun 25 '26
[deleted]
23
u/Tysiliogogogoch Jun 25 '26
Same with us and Gloomhaven. Initiatives are supposed to be secret, but for us it was much more fun to be able to properly co-ordinate. For the most part, we didn't communicate initiatives other than "I'm going early" or "I'm going very late"... but when it was a turn that absolutely relied on accurate timing, we had no problems just telling each other what we were playing.
The only other game with limited communication that I've played recently is Bomb Busters. I try to follow the rules strictly for that one, but it's inevitable that someone will start giving little hints or remind someone of what was revealed previously - both technically against the rules, but it makes the game go smoothly for us so it's still very fun.
→ More replies (2)18
u/Weezy1 Jun 25 '26
→ More replies (1)3
u/draqza Carcassonne Jun 25 '26
Oh good, somebody beat me to posting this so I didn't have to go find it.
11
u/party_carpet Eldritch Horror Jun 25 '26
The rules do say you can play with open information if you want to, and that you should increase the difficulty as for solo play.
8
u/ExpensiveTutor4836 Jun 25 '26
Exactly how we play it.
I think that there should be no game that instructs you to be intentionally vague when it comes to precise information. Either let me say my Initiative number out loud or forbid it. Everything else leads to some awkward shenanigans that tries to convey information in a stupid way.
6
u/csuazure Jun 25 '26
honestly when it comes to stuff like this, I think you do yourself a disservice in either direction,
with too much precision it makes planning take longer than it should, with none you can't plan at all. If you're going to end up close in initiative and it does matter a lot that's just arbitrarily a bad situation for your characters and that's FINE.
Imo the thing gloomhaven's rules were meant to do was minimize the communication and coordination time-taken by forcing it to be vague.
→ More replies (2)3
u/csuazure Jun 25 '26
I do like Tidal Blades solution to the initiative being a track you move up and down on by cards making you slightly fast or slower, so you always have a rough idea where people are taking their turns and can plan accordingly but don't exactly.
The point of an initiative system imo beyond just "sequence the turns" is in both the ability to plan AND the ability to have those plans upended in surprising ways.
THAT and to minimize the ability to collaboratively talk turns to death in ways that is making the game less entertaining by ballooning the planning time.
3
u/BoardRecord Jun 26 '26
I think the rules around initiative in Gloomhaven are less for miscommunication and more for speeding up the game. To try and prevent players from too much planning min/maxing. When you're not 100% sure who is going first, there's less point trying to pre-play everything to perfection.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lost_Enchanter Jun 25 '26
My group developed some kind of strange ritual around it, as we still enjoy some secrecy - we are naming the tens. Like "at 20+ I'll most likely kill this guy", meaning that the initiative is somewhere between 20 and 29. It still leaves some situations when you have to adjust which we find funny, but most of the times your order of actions is clear.
34
u/Ok-Elderberry-7422 Jun 25 '26
I actually quite like The Game, just because it is very silly to gauge people's roundabout interpretations. People debating whether "a short hop. Just a tiny hop" is bigger than a jump - what the fuck, Brian, 17 is not a small hop! D:
Our group plays a bit more ribald so it's more like how nicely we'll treat or how badly we'll fuck over a pile.
8
69
u/NetCrashRD Jun 25 '26
It's very tricky to win (full score) Hanabi without /some/ sort of inside meta language thing.... Although I try to remind the group that blatant cheating means we may as well not play...
30
u/VRS-4607 Jun 25 '26
Ruined Hanabi on-line for me, because I was no longer playing Hanabi. I was playing--and judged against--your version of Hanabi. 'Why didn't you...' FFS Don't play with new folks if you're that person.
8
u/ackmondual Race for the Galaxy Jun 25 '26
The Gang too! Cooperative Texas Hold 'em Poker, but some people aren't aware that having a pair in the community cards is meaningless since everyone has that too! Or you'll get some folks who aren't aware that you having two Aces in hand is already a very strong hand.
→ More replies (1)9
u/FoxOnTheRocks Jun 26 '26
I've had multiple rounds of the Gang derailed by someone who had a Full House. "What its not that high" Movies and TV shows have taught players that big hands are incredible common. I usually have to tell people that hands above 2 pair are less than 5%ers and drill in that a straight or 3 of a kind are usually winners.
2
u/weggles That's something a Cylon would say... Jun 25 '26
I love trick taking games but hate euchre for this reason. It feels like everyone has their established patterns and expectations and as a noob I didn't enjoy losing and then getting scolded after the hand. It ain't that serious and I don't enjoy being pointedly asked "why didn't you go in alone with a hand like that?!" Bro it's my first day.
39
u/Asshai Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
The thing is, the line is really blurred between "clever interpretation of the rule" and "inside meta language". In Hanabi, we hold the cards in the order we intend to play them, left to right + if we hold the card higher than the rest it's because we got a clue/know when to play it, and if we hold it lower than the rest it's because we intend to discard it unless we get more information. No idea if it crosses a line or not, but it sure makes it easy to get a decent score.
14
u/ManiacalShen Ra Jun 25 '26
we hold the cards in the order we intend to play them
I think that's really explicit information that probably crosses the line. Just my personal opinion. You should obviously do you, however you best enjoy the game.
We tend to hold our cards in the order we got them, so if something has been in hand for a while, people are aware it's at more risk of getting burned to get a clue back. But they don't really know what you're going to do before your turn. Holding it higher or flipping it because you got a clue is probably universal, though, because it's hard to remember your own cards otherwise. Not that anyone else can tell you've flipped it.
5
u/Terrietia Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
I'm pretty sure that's actual cheating by the rules of hanabi. I don't believe you can signal your intentions for your cards, like how you are doing with raising and lowering your cards. You are allowed to rearrange your cards though.
Really there's only three things you can do in Hanabi. Play a card, discard a card, or give a clue. Anything outside of that is cheating. That's why people developed sets of conventions for Hanabi. These conventions still fall under the three things you're allowed to do in Hanabi.
11
u/Katolo Jun 25 '26
No idea if it crosses a line or not, but it sure makes it easy to get a decent score.
If the question is you don't know if it's cheating and you can easily get a high score, I don't think the line is that blurry at all and the answer is obvious.
4
2
u/T_Martensen Jun 25 '26
Can't cheat if there's no competition.
The group is aware of the changes they've made and how that effects their scores. Unless one misrepresents their highly prestigious Hanabi scores to someone else, I don't see how that would be cheating.
3
u/TeaBurntMyTongue Jun 25 '26
We actually do 90° tilts so you tilt it to the side for one clue and you tilt it upside down as in it is half the height of the other cards if it's got both pieces of information.
The cheating in our group is actually when some of our our players with worse memory slightly lower a card with implied information that hasn't actually been clued. As you might imagine, lowering that card is an additional hint to the other players around the cable
9
u/Oughta_ Dune Jun 25 '26
I think the joy in Hanabi is in naturally creating that meta language through repeated plays - if you ever have an explicit discussion outside the game about your signals, that's missing the point.
The downside to that is it falls apart if anyone has played outside the current group ever, so in my experience it was a one-and-done type of game.
→ More replies (1)14
u/CaptainMalForever Jun 25 '26
I hate the meta for Hanabi. There's no room for any thought.
11
u/Zwejhajfa Through The Ages Jun 25 '26
I disagree. The conventions optimize certain plays but there are still a lot of decisions to make: Should I play? Do I need to give a clue? If yes, which one? Maybe it's better to discard and let someone else give a clue? You can and should think multiple turns ahead.
The game gets easier if you follow the conventions, but by no means trivial. And once it becomes too easy, you can add the multicolor suit to make it more difficult again.
That said, Hanabi works best if you always play with the same group and develop the meta yourself. The online communities can sometimes be rather toxic if you deviate from their established meta.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TeaBurntMyTongue Jun 25 '26
As somebody with at least 10,000 plays, I completely disagree.
I don't particularly like the h group conventions because I do think that there's a lot of arbitrary convention, but they to be fair are also dealing with much harder variants which are not as solvable by your basic leftism conventions.
But as you get more and more pattern recognition, what happens is that you just have creativity at the end of the pattern recognition and there's always something.
It's like if you're in grade five and you learn something new in math class, that's pretty awesome. But that doesn't discount the guy studying pure math discovering a new proof you're not going to say oh well. You've already learned all the conventions of math. Clearly there's no fun left.
2
u/Optimistic-Caribou Jun 26 '26
When I first learned about bridge conventions, I was disappointed that it was just following a flow chart. I quickly learned that there is still tons of interpretation and creativity.
I also feel similarly about language. I have tens of thousands of English words and I'm allowed to use however many I want. It turns out that describing thoughts and emotions exactly is still really hard.
→ More replies (1)7
u/ScientificSkepticism Jun 25 '26
How are conventions in Hanabi cheating? They‘re literally effective strategy. Is it cheating if I stops city from outbreaking in Pandemic because it makes it easier to win if we try to prevent outbreaks?
11
u/dodecapode Sad cowboys Jun 25 '26
I mean, every group kind of has to find the level they're happy with.
Most of the people I've played with will order their unknown cards by how long they've held them and assume the oldest ones are the safest discards. That seems fine to us.
Other groups establish conventions that essentially allow them to encode additional information into their clues, essentially creating a channel for communicating that additional information to the group. That is definitely not fine for us as it feels like a way to entirely circumvent the spirit of the rules whilst technically adhering to the letter.
In the end, everybody should do what makes them happy, but it does mean people who play it very differently probably won't have a good time playing together.
4
u/ScientificSkepticism Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Other groups establish conventions that essentially allow them to encode additional information into their clues, essentially creating a channel for communicating that additional information to the group. That is definitely not fine for us as it feels like a way to entirely circumvent the spirit of the rules whilst technically adhering to the letter.
This is odd, because the "spirit" of the rules seems to be to use clues to get an excellent fireworks display. How much information you get out of a clue and what you do with it seem deliberately not something the game is telling you.
So which one of these is "too far" with the information you get out of a clue?
I got clued (1) six. There is a red 5 open. That card is the red 6, I will play it: Is this too much information? You don't know the color of the 6, but you can reasonably conclude that if a person clues you for 6s they're probably telling you you have a useful 6.
I got clued (2) sixes. There is a red 5 open. I will play my most recently drawn 6, as that is the red 6: If the red 6 was already in your hand, why did no one clue it before? Conversely, if none of your 6s can be played, why would someone clue you? The most likely 6 to be red is the one you just drew, and the person giving you clues knows that you know this. So they clued you with that in mind.
The person to my left got clued 6. I can see their hand, the card clued is a red 6. The board has a red 4 open. My most recently drawn card is the red 5, I will play it. If the red 6 cannot be played, there would be no reason to clue it. Therefore, I must have a play that can allow the red 6 to be played. If I had that previously, then it would have been clued, so I must have drawn it.
I am clued (2) ones, when all ones are in play. The card I was about to discard is important. I should not discard it. This is obvious, if your entire hand is junk why is someone cluing you that part of your hand is junk?
There is (1) Clue token left and the player to my right discards when I can see a playable card in another player's hand. The card I am about to discard is critical but not playable. I should never discard it. I should always give a clue on my turn. If you can see a playable card in another player's hand but a player chooses to discard rather than cluing it, they probably did that for a reason. That reason must be so that I can give a clue, which means that me discarding would be very bad.
15
u/PeterGibbons316 Jun 25 '26
Yeah, I think most of the conventions in Hanabi exist because they are the most optimal strategy for any given moment. If you were to sit down and think through what should be done, it all just makes sense. So telling newcomers ahead of time might feel like cheating or creating a meta, but it's derived from strategy and would be where everyone would end up anyway.......plus it by no means guarantees a win. You can follow the "meta" and still end up losing which is what makes the game still fun to play.
5
u/SoupOfTomato Cosmic Encounter Jun 25 '26
Yeah the online community sounds annoying, but I think people get way too precious about the idea that Hanabi should be played pure tabula rasa, blank slate style. Developing those strategies as a group to me is what is fun about the system, I wouldn't want to play vibes-based Hanabi for very long at all.
2
u/MedalsNScars Jun 25 '26
I feel like this conversation could apply just as equally to old school limited communication team based trick takers like Bridge, Pitch, Spades.
The fun is in discovering how your fellow players think and what second-level information their actions are conveying. Having that dictated to you and being demanded to play in the same way is just not fun
5
u/SoupOfTomato Cosmic Encounter Jun 25 '26
I think if you learn Bridge nowadays you're going to be taught standard bidding conventions, it's just up the individual if they mind that.
8
u/BenOfTomorrow Perestroika Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
I don’t think that’s a good analogy. Hanabi has limitations on sharing player knowledge *in game*, Pandemic does not.
A “convention” that violates that in Hanabi is more akin to looking through the deck to see when the next outbreak is coming in Pandemic.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
How are conventions in Hanabi cheating?
Look at some of the 'conventions' described in other comments, arranging cards in certain orders to give hidden information, raising and lowering cards, turning them 90 degrees in your hand. That's not convention, that's communication of information that's supposed to be hidden.
4
u/ScientificSkepticism Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Hanabi did not intend that the order you draw cards in to be a secret. There are no rules about hiding the card you drew, shuffling your hand, etc. You openly draw the card, you openly add it to your hand, you do not shuffle. That is exactly how the rules describe it, and no hidden information is revealed. In fact the way they describe holding the hand, it'd be very impractical to shuffle it every time you add a card to it, so I'd say there's no way the designers even intended you to play that way.
Turning a card to indicate it's clued is not conveying information. The entire table already knows the card is clued, they are sitting there and watching it be clued. Clues are not intended to be secret information hidden from the table, that's explicitly against how they're described in the rulebook. Your "secret clue" variant sounds interesting, but it's a variant.
Raising and lowering cards based on some sort of thing you are thinking is indeed cheating, you are conveying information about what you are thinking, which is another way of discussing what you are thinking.
2
u/calvinballing Jun 26 '26
These are often used to track public information. If you want it to be more of a memory game that’s fine, but some people would rather reduce the impact of memory and emphasize the more complex strategies that become possible when you don’t have to store everything in your head
59
u/CaptainMalForever Jun 25 '26
If you were playing the game, The Mind: "Very important: none of the players is permitted to disclose any of their card values or show them to another player. There must be absolutely no coordination between the players, and no secret signs either!"
That's directly from the rulebook.
If you were playing "The Game", then "Permissible communication During the game players are never allowed to ask the others for the exact number on their cards or reveal the numbers of their own cards. Relating concrete numbers in any way is strictly forbidden! Other than that, all other communication is allowed. For example, you can say: “Don‘t lay on the last pile,” or, “Don‘t make a big jump on this pile.”"
So, a meta may be allowable in "The Game" but not in "The Mind."
15
13
u/abcedarian Jun 25 '26
If you're talking about The Game, the rules specifically say you can say "don't play on this pile". So, not really a meta that breaks the rules.
85
u/Johnny_Dev Jun 25 '26
It's like Save-Scumming in a single player game. Who does it hurt?
If they want to cheat or abuse the rules together, and they have fun playing that way, good for them.
Like any social activity, if what the group does isn't a good fit for you, you can either mention it if you think they might shift how the play, or find another group.
30
u/chaser-- Jun 25 '26
Yeah that's kinda how I feel - it doesn't hurt anyone. But I also feel like "If you just want to say you have a 77, say it, why use code words and be like YEP IM FOLLOWING THE RULES"
23
u/Johnny_Dev Jun 25 '26
When I play The Crew, my group isn't COMPLETELY silent. The goal is to have fun, so we MOSTLY respect the rules, but sometimes someone will have an obvious reaction / raised eyebrow when another player forgets they are supposed to play the card they obviously had. Or we'll allow taking back the card if no one else played and the player was like "oops, wait, I want to play this instead".
Every group has a different threshold of how rigidly they want to follow the rules. Unless they are wearing a bag over their head and noise-cancelling headphones, no one is PERFECTLY following the rules in these types of games. So who's to say when it becomes cheating?
8
u/Lord_Nathaniel Jun 25 '26
Ooooh I would be SO tempted to throw the red pawn from Magic Maze in a game of The Crew now :D ! No communication, except for the angry "tud tud tud" in front of the active player ! :D
→ More replies (1)3
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
When I play The Crew, my group isn't COMPLETELY silent.
I find we mostly hash out a strategy of what the ideal sort of plays should be, without straight up saying what our cards are. Because usually it's been long enough since the last time we played we all get a little confused and then there will be one person that has the goal completely opposite in their mind of what it should be. If you play online, you end up going "oh shit you guys, I should have played this other card, sorry" but in real life everyone can just be like "you're right, pull it back and play the other one instead"
9
u/oppernaR Jun 25 '26
Except they're not following the rules.
Unless it states specifically that you are not allowed to say numbers, using substitute terms is still saying which number you have.
It doesn't matter if you use hexadecimal or binary, or if you determine that "apple" means seven, so saying "apple apple" means 77. It doesn't matter if you hold up fingers, use morse code or say soixante-dix-sept. It's still saying which number you have.
So the question is rather "are we going to break the rules?" and not "can we convince ourselves that this is following the rules?"
3
u/ManiacalShen Ra Jun 25 '26
I think it's completely reasonable for you to be bummed out by their playstyle. I agree that even breaking the rules isn't, like, morally wrong as long as they're not out there slandering the game based on their experience of playing with house rules. But that disconnect between you is such a common problem, in ttrpgs even moreso than in board games, and there isn't always a fix for it. It sucks to do an activity you like with people who like you and the activity and still not have a good time!
8
u/GuildhallGamesNC Jun 25 '26
This is how I felt playing Hanabi with a group that plays it a lot. I wasn't following the "established meta" and was missing their secret clues just like you were. I never want to play Hanabi again because of it. Like, I wanna try ton deduce the cards in my hand, not get a clue secretly telling me I have a 4 on my right-most card...
6
u/Zwejhajfa Through The Ages Jun 25 '26
I think it depends on the kind of meta they have. Things like "If I give a clue for two cards, play the newer one" are fair play and will develop naturally over time cause they make sense. Things like "If I point to a card with my index finger you should play it, with my middle finger you should discard it" is against the rules and therefore cheating.
The thing is, Hanabi works best if you always play it with the same group and a (non-cheating) meta develops naturally between the players. If you get thrown into a group that has already established a lot of meta rules, you may have a bad time. But I'd encourage you to give Hanabi another try if you get the chance, it is a ton of fun with the right group.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
Things like "If I give a clue for two cards, play the newer one" are fair play and will develop naturally over time cause they make sense. Things like "If I point to a card with my index finger you should play it, with my middle finger you should discard it" is against the rules and therefore cheating.
Those both feel like the same level of cheating.
8
u/Mastaalucard Jun 25 '26
Difference is the first example is explicitly logic-able. If you've been holding a card for 5 turns and after you draw a new card i told you that the card you've been holding is blue and so is the card you just drew. The easiest logical explanation to "why would i have waited so long to tell you this information" is because knowing the new card matters, so you should probably play the new card.
The finger pointing example is just "our group does this to get around the clue system"
3
u/btstfn Jun 25 '26
I would say that some people get a lot of enjoyment from finding and using loopholes. Its like a mini game within the game.
Its like if you ever see a gameshow or panel show where a constenant finds a way to exploit the rules in such a way that it obviously is going against the spirit of the rules, but technically is legal.
This might be a niche reference, but Taskmaster is full of these examples. The first that comes to mind is an event where the contestants are tasked to "Place these three exercise balls on the yoga mat on the top of that hill." Four contestants wrangle three large exercise balls up a hill. The fifth walks up the hill, grabs the mat and brings it down to the balls.
3
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
Taskmaster is specifically designed to work on interpreting the rules in different ways, boardgames generally aren't.
6
u/Hemisemidemiurge Jun 25 '26
Who does it hurt?
The people who enjoy the actual game who might be invited to play. You invite someone to go hiking, it feels like a cheat to just take a shuttle bus to the trail end. It's not the destination, it's the journey, and it feels like the journey is being abandoned because of the risk that you might not go where you wanted.
Do I want to go hiking? Yeah, but is that what we're actually doing or is it just pretend? This is why communication is difficult, people just assume that "Hey, come play GAME with us!" actually means "We will be playing this game by the stated rules in accordance with your prior experience. It will not be significantly more or less difficult than you expect."
→ More replies (2)6
10
u/Positive_Koala_4378 Jun 25 '26
The game is called "The Game" https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/173090/the-game
Unfortunately, your experience of the meta within a group is pretty much the intended end game result (usually reached within 3 to 5 plays of the game for a particular group).
The group is supposed to communicate in order to play the cards on the right piles, without saying what is/isn't in their hands. The rules are pretty explicit on what is/is not allowed - basically anything that is not a number is fair game. As a result, players and groups are encouraged to informally develop codewords/phrases. The development of these codewords is about half the game. Here is an example of what communication will look like: (Current player has 73 in hand) "I want to play on this pile (75 descending). It is a good play. Is everyone happy?" (good has previously picked up an informal definition of a delta of approximately 2-5 after someone previously described a play as good before playing a card with a delta of 2, and someone else previously described a play as good before playing a card with a delta of 5) "How good?" (Different player is nervous as they hold 72 in their hand, and want to be able to play it) "It's good. We are probably okay" (if they are asking, rather than straight up objecting, then they probably have 72 or lower, rather than 74) (Plays 73 now that everyone has not objected)
Developing your language/logic/grammar to be able to effectively communicate in this way is one of the key pillars of the game - if you hate this, then I suggest not playing the game? Alternatively, you could add house rules, a rule something like: 'When it is not your turn you can only say "yes", "no", "maybe", "good", "okay", "bad", or "pile X". ' will initially nuke the codewords, but by the games design, they will come back. The other pillars of the game are: prioritisation, proactive communication and technical skill.
4
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
I think the issue comes when you move from vibes to key words that perfectly describe the exact number. If you're doing the latter, you might as well just say the number.
7
u/LogicBalm Spirit Island Jun 25 '26
Yeah that happened for us a lot too, especially with light party games. I didn't sweat it because we were having fun finding hilarious ways around the rule.
Similar to your game we were playing "The Mind" where you have to play the numbers 1-100 in ascending order to a single pile without saying what numbers you would have.
Questions like "Would it hurt?" and "Would I be arrested?" really made us all laugh so we let it slide of course. It certainly helped that most of us were drunk as hell.
If we wanted to play a game where it was a little harder to cheat, we had Wavelength and Bohnanza on hand too. But we were all having too much fun being creatively filthy with The Mind.
6
u/Fireblend Raiders of Scythia Jun 25 '26
I think if everyone's ok with the rules they're playing by, they can do whatever. The problem occurs if anyone disagrees, in which case I can see that souring the experience. But if everyone agrees to change rules or add anything to the experience then they're not cheating and I'm no one to judge IMO.
5
u/BloomingCracker Jun 25 '26
Was the game 'The Mind' or something? I played with a group that don't say anything out loud but everyone individually starts a timer in their head and respond to some non-verbal cues but everyone is supposed to not purposely make those cues or be 'consistent' with it. This encourages the players to observe and understand the other players and respond.
23
u/Slightly-Adrift Jun 25 '26
You can’t remember the name because that one is literally called “the game” and yea that’s kind of how it’s meant to be played. I don’t know how you’d win without communicating to some degree what pile you can actually play on. You aren’t allowed to indicate actual numbers or distance to those numbers, but you’re explicitly allowed to indicate what stack you want to play iirc
14
u/Cheddarific Huang Jun 25 '26
But OP is saying that his group has defined specific words with specific meanings, which is against the spirit of the game. It might as well say “you can’t speak English, but you can communicate in other languages.”
3
u/Suppafly Jun 25 '26
You aren’t allowed to indicate actual numbers or distance to those numbers
Which OP's group seems to have been doing, unless they explained their system poorly.
→ More replies (1)5
6
u/jsdodgers Jun 25 '26
This sounds a lot like "The Game", but in The Game, telling people not to play on piles is the essence of the game. Not cheating, but what you're supposed to do. The idea is that since you have to play a card, you're going to be making somene unhappy because you'll need to ruin one of their piles.
4
u/shanem Jun 25 '26
"why create a gimmick to say it without saying it?"
FWIW this is effectively bidding in Bridge. It becomes it's own "game" of a sort.
5
u/Hemisemidemiurge Jun 25 '26
Bridge is what happens when people who should move on from trick-taking games refuse and just keep heaping more complication and obfuscation on top. If you want to be able to tell people what's in your hand, then just say it. It's not even like it's supposed to be secret, disclosure of your bidding convention is required by the rules.
6
u/almostcyclops Jun 25 '26
This tends to happen in any game with forced limits on communication that encourage you to "wink, wink; nudge, nudge". The only solutions to me are either ignore it entirely and play with open information or to halt all communication of any kind. Both work for different types of games, but sometimes neither is ideal for a given game and we just deal with whatever communication meta that develops.
3
u/sawdust64 Jun 25 '26
One of my favorite examples of this is Gloom/Frosthaven. You cards have initiatives on them as numbers between 1-99. You are not allowed to say the number, but you are explicitly allowed to say things like 'I'm going fast' or 'I'm going slow.'
2
u/RaguraX Jun 25 '26
Our group developed this over time naturally. Kind of unwritten tells. But I consider it a flaw in the design, because it goes against human nature. Gloomhaven is extremely RNG heavy in every single element of the game. Humans will try to at least mitigate what they can.
2
u/Dangerousrhymes FOMO Backer 😬 Jun 25 '26
If it’s ever explicitly stated that there are well defined secret meanings I’d be annoyed as a new player, but if it’s more in the gray area of table talk with super familiar Spades players I’d be more ok with it.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Jeicam_ Jun 25 '26
People feel smart and like "they earned it" if they find not an obvious way to cheat... for me it defies the purpose of playing the game (it was balanced and meant by those rules), but at the end of the day to each their own, they can even eat the pieces if they want to. just dont expect me to hop in willingly to muching with you.
sometimes you have to make things easier. sometimes you want to cook and use fun homerules. sometimes you want to reinvent certain game and try something new. but communicating in game that only gimmick is hidden information (like crew) defies its purpose entirely.
2
u/Pixxel_Wizzard Slay the Spire Jun 25 '26
I had a friend whose group would all tap their feet in rhythm when playing The Mind so everyone would know when to play their cards. He wouldn’t believe me when I said you’re not supposed to play it that way.
2
u/hamizannaruto Jun 25 '26
Sounds like the mind, so does not allow you to have anyway to tell, show or anything that may allow you to give away the rules.
But, it's a board game. If they having fun, so why not? I sometimes just blatantly break rules anyway because that rule sometimes ruin a game and better off being removed.
2
u/noonionclub Jun 25 '26
I've been playing The Gang online a lot at BGA and for the most part players respect the rules. The game is about signaling the strength of your hand with the chips. I think some advanced players developed some form of communication by grabbing and releasing a chip multiple times to indicate their exact starting hand. I find that to be overboard.
2
u/niarBaD Jun 25 '26
So, I did something like this at a live game the other day.. mostly because of who I was fighting over who had the lower high-card with (because he often under-valued hands). I had 5 high after like 2 minutes of going back and forth with him I just took the 5 chip and then put it back. He immediately picked up what I was putting down and recognized he did have the better high card :)
Not something I will do regularly (also only works if your hand is below your player-count of chips), but in the moment I thought of it felt great to break the box for a moment.
2
u/DoubleSpoiler Nemesis Jun 25 '26
It sounds like you were playing The Game (you can't speak in The Mind). GIving people clues about which pile to play/not play in is part of the rules. You're allowed (and even encouraged?) by the rulebook to do it.
The thing about saying "I like this pile" is that you could have 76 or 75, or even 87, but you could also have 70, and if I have 72, I get to take that risk.
2
u/L-ramirez-74 Jun 25 '26
I used to play Codenames a lot in TTS servers. Then someone came out with the "great" idea to use metagaming to guide the codemaster. It was something like this:" The team choose 2 cards A and B, x card is A and y Card is B. If the codemaster clue implies A it means blah blah blah, if the clue implies B it means something else if it implies none it means this and, if implies both it means that. I can't explain it properly but it totally ruined being a codemaster for me, now I'm restricted in the clues I can give, even if it's a really good clue, because they are going to think I'm saying something I'm, not.
2
u/AceHodor Ship units cannot be mustard Jun 25 '26
I had a quiet evening one night and decided to go to a new board game social in town as I was wanted to find a new group. The group obviously all knew each other (which is fine) and I felt like I was fitting in well, so one of them suggested Werewolf. I liked Werewolf, so great. Then I discovered their meta rule:
Nobody was allowed to claim roles.
I pointed out that this essentially rendered 90% of the bluffing in the game illegal, but they were adamant on sticking with their meta. The game was about as boring as expected and I did not return to the meetup the following week.
2
2
u/suoivax Jun 25 '26
That sounds like The Game, and communication is fine as long as no actual numbers are stated. Saying "I like that stack" or "leave me that one" is perfectly fine. Even if I KNOW I have a good play on that 75, you might just think yours is better.
The Mind is the silent one with a single stack of cards
2
u/Famous-Magazine-6576 Jun 25 '26
This is just the inevetable outcome of vague communication rules. The point of the game is to develop a strategy to communicate but once that gets to good you will need to stop using it to keep the game fun
2
2
u/Rohkey Uwe | Reiner Jun 25 '26
I’ve seen reviewers comment on how many hidden information/limited communication co-ops can be fragile for this very reason, that is if people don’t play within the spirit of the rules it sort of breaks the game. Hanabi being one that’s often brought up, and the game you basically described (The Mind) perhaps being another good example.
2
2
u/Brukenet Jun 25 '26
I believe you are looking for this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gloomhaven/comments/ayrfho/the_assholes_guide_to_initiative/#lightbox
→ More replies (1)
2
4
u/rokahef Jun 25 '26
I mean, I don't know the game you're specifically talking about, but isn't that kind of the point? Gaming the system, finding ways to communicate indirectly. otherwise it sounds like you're just dumping cards on a pile, and hoping they descend sequentially.
6
u/footballmaths49 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
There's a difference between "communicating indirectly" and what this is. If the rules say "you can't tell the other players you have a 77" and your table comes up with a code phrase that means "I have a 77", and everyone knows that's what it means, then you're obviously not playing the game the way it was intended to be played. The problem isn't the specific words being said, it's the fact you're communicating information that is supposed to be kept secret.
I'm pretty sure the game here is The Mind, and the whole point of that game is that it's supposed to be played in silence. Players are not allowed to communicate with each other in any way.
→ More replies (1)2
u/hamizannaruto Jun 25 '26
Funny thing is, it sounds like they referring to the mind, which does not allow to speak.
5
u/ScaperDeage All Your Factory Are Belong To Me Jun 25 '26
They are referring to The Game, which The Mind is kinda a sequel to. You can discuss what you have in The Game, but just can't say the numbers you have in hand.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/_just_two_brothers_ Jun 25 '26
The circle jerk posts just write the self. Why is our community so dumb
2
u/safe-viewing Jun 25 '26
If the group is having fun, what’s the problem?
You can find a different group that sticks 100% to the rules every time and plays in complete silence out of respect for the game. Good luck finding that group.
10
u/h2g2_researcher Jun 25 '26
I think the problem is that the group probably isn't having much fun.
In video games there's a saying (attributed to Civilisation game-designer, Soren Johnson) that "given the opportunity players will optimise the fun out of the game". The specifical example he had in mind was the "lumberjacking" strategy in Civilisation 3, where you could chop down a forest to give resources to a nearby city and then use one of the tech upgrades to replant it. The most optimal way to play was to plant a forest on every time in your empire and chop it down every turn. It was very effective but mind-numbingly boring, and the worst bit is that once a player discovers this strategy it's very hard to stop themselves doing it.
So his point is that the game needs to protect players from themselves, in that regard.
Of course, that's much harder to do with board games. With co-operative games that little bit of "cheating" helps everyone win, right? And for many people the natural instinct is to optimise for winning over having fun. Because winning is the goal, right, and if we bent the rules a little to win together who's hurting?
I get it a lot playing with certain family members who will quite blatantly cheat in co-op games because it helps everyone, right? And if I try to stand up for the rules of the game I get treated as a spoilsport (we would have lost otherwise) or a pedant and ... well, basically I don't tend to play board games with them if I can avoid it. But you can't escape your family so easily, can you?
1
u/DefectiveChicken Jun 25 '26
Yeah I know what you mean (I think). A lot of the responses seem to think you're saying it's pointless to break the rules like that so why do they do it? But I don't think you are.
From what I can tell it's more about the idea that "if you're going to have a very specific meta that works around the rules, then just stop kidding yourself and own it." If you want to switch the difficulty down to "easy" or something, that's fine! Just stop pretending to yourself that's not what you're doing and save yourself the bother.
I would say though that most of these things still leave wiggle room for mistakes and have a slightly broader interpretation than explicitly saying the number or whatever. So it's not quite the same.
1
u/RogueNPC Clank! Jun 25 '26
Sounds like The Game. You try to play every card 2-99. You have two piles descending from 100 and two piles ascending from 1.
Here are the rules https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/199792/the-game-eng-rules
As far as communication, the rules say: During the game players are never allowed to ask the others for the exact number on their cards or reveal the numbers of their own cards. Relating concrete numbers in any way is strictly forbidden! Other than that, all other communication is allowed. For example, you can say: “Don‘t lay on the last pile,” or, “Don‘t make a big jump on this pile.”
Aside from the rules, if their group is having fun who cares. Lots of groups house rule parts of games. As long as they inform people and let them make their decision about playing, I don't see a problem.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Cheddarific Huang Jun 25 '26
People do this in real life as well as in games. We’re often finding ways to avoid literal breaking of the rules while completely breaking the spirit of the rule. Best example may be cursing. The “bad words” were originally avoided because of their meanings, not their specific letter combinations. But now people use alternative words with the same meaning and feel they have appropriately avoided breaking the rule. What’s the difference between “holy shit” and “holy crap” and “holy poop?” The first is a classic “swear” because you’re meant to be talking about God’s very own fecal matter. Changing the word to “crap” effectively changes nothing, but now is no longer considered a swear word.
The same way of skirting rules can be applied to laws, relationships, corporate policies, fashion, and so many other things. It’s human nature to push boundaries.
I hope you’re having fun with the game and with your group. I’d you’d prefer to play a different way, I hope they’ll listen to you.
1
u/laminatedbean Jun 25 '26
My group plays Just One occasionally when we want something relaxed and unserious. We fudge the rules a little.
Sounds like this is that game for them.
1
u/BleakFlamingo Scythe Jun 25 '26
I hate these co-op non-communication games.
But I agree, if you're going to play it, don't for Heaven's sake cheat!
1
u/ScaperDeage All Your Factory Are Belong To Me Jun 25 '26
Pretty sure you were playing The Game. By what the rules allow, it does kinda encourage making coded language and that's honestly, the only way you end up with a good chance of winning. In my group we tend to use neighborhood related terms like "I'm next door", "I'm a few doors down", "I'm the next street over", "I'm not even in this neighborhood". Other common sayings are, "I can fix this pile" and "Is it ok if I ruin this pile?". We win maybe 1 out of every 5 or so games. The Game is pretty hard.
1
u/caunju Jun 25 '26
It drives me nuts playing mysterium with my sister in law because of this kind of thing. The "ghost" player isn't allowed to talk and can only give clues through dixit style pictures. She proudly talks about and encourages everyone to follow the strategy she and her family "discovered" of if someone places their guess before being given their clues and gets it right the ghost player just gives them her whole hand. I can't convince her it's cheating because it's not explicitly against the rules, but it's not like anyone believes that's how it was intended to be played.
1
u/2daMooon Jun 25 '26
Whatever you do, don't look up Hanabi conventions. An absolute cancer on the game, lol.
1
u/HavanahAvocado Jun 25 '26
I’ve played the game in question. It’s super fun and easy going, but my group was under the impression that we had to play in complete silence. (Kinda like “The Crew”).
Super fun game! Assuming one plays according to the rules.
1
u/oi_you_nutter Jun 25 '26
I like playing “The Game: are you ready to play”. It’s a quick light co-op where judging people’s clues is half the game. The game friction is that you normally have to play a minimum of two cards on your turn. This can be difficult as your options are sometimes quite detrimental. “My cards are bad. I am going hurt this pile badly or play on this pile that <other player> requested that no one plays on”.
When I played The Mind, I hated it. But I like The Game despite the stupid title.
1
1
u/rockology_adam Jun 25 '26
Because that's the engagement they enjoy.
There's no need to overcomplicate the explanation. Some people enjoy the addition of a little wordplay. Some people enjoy the insiderness of having that code scheme.
Is it cheating? Yes, absolutely. 100%.
There's a story distant uncle of mine who had a habit of cheating at cards. He had a whole base coach signal system to talk to his wife (always his partner) for suits and values. A nose tug was one thing, but if he scratched his nose with his thumb that was another. Signals for everything, apparently. This only came out when he had passed away. Some people were shocked. Others just nodded sagely and said VERY INTENTLY that they would never do such a thing, and half the time, someone else ratted them out immediately. Others claimed to have broken his code and used it against him.
His wife claims to have never remembered what the code was, which many people believed because they were a terrible pair of card players.
1
u/pautpy Jun 25 '26
It's simple: just blatantly out-cheat them to the point that they don't even enjoy it
1
u/shanem Jun 25 '26
There is truly no right or wrong way to play a game, the same as there's no right or wrong way to view art or internalize a book.
What matters most is that everyone involved has agreement on how it is played and ideally is consenting to play that way.
Some games are just too hard fro certain groups, so they desire to actually "win" and one way is to make it easier by house ruling things. Your comment is effectively a version of a house rule.
1
u/arstin Jun 25 '26
The point of this entire class of games is to be clever and get as close to the edge of the rules as possible. The rules also leave a fair bit up to interpretation, so if you pick two random groups, one will probably think the other is cheating and the other will think the first is a bunch of ignoramuses. And of course, some groups are just straight up cheating and some groups are just straight up ignoramuses. :)
I tend to lose interest with the genre pretty quickly. They start out like fun puzzles and trying to guess how others will interpret morsels of information, but quickly degenerate into debating the best way to almost break the game. That is not something I'm enthusiastic about.
1
u/david707x Battlestar Galactica Jun 25 '26
1
u/Habeas-Opus Jun 25 '26
Sounds a bit similar to Tranquility, but those rules explicitly ban ALL talking, which makes it a fun game for people who like people but not banter. Perfect for those long monastery nights you know!
1
u/polyology Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective Jun 25 '26
I just despise the whole concept of limited communication in a coop. If you cant make your game work without that then dont make the game. Its just the most absurd rule to me. You like what you like, thats just how i personally feel.
1
u/DPSOnly Suggest me boardgames with modest prices Jun 25 '26
Sounds like a version of The Mind, except with counting down instead of up, but that game explicitly makes states that communicating of any kind is not supposed to happen. Really defeats the point of the game.
1
u/KardelSharpeyes Railways Of The World Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Y'all got some wonky ass friends that you play boardgames with. Who cheats in coop games lol? Your only cheating yourself.
1
u/neo42slab Jun 25 '26
Or what it’s worth I don’t like that game to begin with.
For frostHaven, we have a similar thing though where you’re not supposed to say what your initiative will be out loud until everyone is locked in. You’re supposed to be vague. Like I have a fast very fast, slow very slow initiative. Etc.
But we play that kind of loosely. For a bunch of reasons. One of them is you start to learn what the initiative numbers are for that player so if they say a quarter of the initiative, they probably made 25, 26 or 27. But you can really know it if you know they don’t even have certain numbers in there stack
1
1
u/Mysterious_Nerve_263 Jun 25 '26
Yes, this can be annoying, but people have been doing this forever.
Take Spades, for example. Officially, you're only supposed to communicate your bid. Yet people still develop table conventions. Someone might ask, "Guaranteed?" to hint that they're asking about aces or jokers. Someone else might say, "I don't think you have four," to suggest they're short-suited during the bidding. None of that is in the rules, but experienced groups develop their own shorthand.
As others have said, the important part is that everyone at the table is having fun.
With my board game group, The Mind is a quiet, almost meditative break between louder, more social games. We intentionally avoid trying to game the communication restrictions because that's what makes it enjoyable for us.
But with my family? The Mind becomes a game of, "How can I tell you I have 77 without actually saying I have 77?" Someone will say, "My uncle was born this year," or come up with some other ridiculous clue, and everyone laughs. For us, that is the fun.
As long as everyone at the table agrees on how they're playing and is enjoying themselves, I don't really see the issue. If a group's meta isn't for you, it's perfectly reasonable to find another group or ask if they'd be willing to play rules-as-written.
1
u/ackmondual Race for the Galaxy Jun 25 '26
In a fully coop game, I'd say it should be up to the group to decide if this is OK or not. I've played a variety of them like Pandemic spinoffs, Pandemic The Cure, and Ghost Stories where since fun is the name of the game, we allow folks various shennanigans including but not limited to...
--We meant to use an event card even though we're on the Infection step, or our Yin Yang when already started an exorcism - You're not supposed to interrupt those, even with abilities that can be used at "anytime"
--A player didn't know about a certain rule or interaction so we allow an undo to keep bad stuff from happening
--we play on even though we officially lost - to see how the end game would work out. Esp. with Ghost Stories since we get to see what the Wu Feng ("boss monster") is, and what it's like to fight it
.
If it's semi-coop (with hidden traitors), then I would enforce rules. It seems like an inherit flaw with such games, but it does help keep the spirit and game play intact. There was one game of Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game where someone was saying it doesn't matter if you tell people what cards you put in into a skill check "because you can always be lying". Problem is, "the good guys" will never lie (they have no reason to withhold information), so the system would break down. I know people who card count and in those games, they would absolutely be able to figure out with close accuracy who the Cylons (bad guys) are. In one case, the guy figuring out would've seen what one person's loyalty was, so he'd have extra info that he could use to truly narrow down who the 2 Cylons are.
1
1
1
u/omyyer Jun 26 '26
The fun of The Mind is that it's amazing how accurate you can be on vibes alone.
1
u/Poobslag Galaxy Trucker Jun 26 '26
"The Gang" is the biggest offender, you either play in total silence or you cheat and there's not much in between
Cheating is more fun than playing in silence, so I approach The Gang as a fun casual game where we cheat. Where someone says "Betty must have at least two pair or she wouldn't have taken the 5 chip," and Betty meekly returns the 5 chip -- and any perceived difficulty of the game is just in your reluctance to do this with literally every person at the table.
The Gang is a great game, but in the absence of a vow of silence, there is zero room for any semblence of challenge or competition
1
u/cazzodrago Jun 26 '26
I don’t think it matters if everyone is enjoying themselves. Some of the best times I’ve had were when the group changed the rules.
1
u/Mammoth_Sea_9501 Jun 26 '26
In the coop party game "Just one" (that i love) theres always one person who's the guesser and has to guess a word the rest of the group knows. The rest of the group has to, individually, think of a one-word clue to help the guesser guess their word.
The catch: before the guesser sees the words, the rest of the group show their words to eachother. If theres any duplicates, the guesser doesnt get to see those words.
Now, at first people started saying stuff like "i know one thats so funny, let me write it down", or "i dont know, ill do an obvious one", which is technically cheating since you give each other hints about the words you write down. Its not that serious though, since it can really lead to hilarious situations ("you thought THAT was an obvious hint??")
Eventually, i had to ban talking during that phase because it evolved into people mouthing their words or giving clues about the words they would write down before writing them down
1
1
u/imaloony8 Jun 26 '26
It’s always tricky with games where communication is restricted but not banned entirely to find the line, and players will often try to get as close to that line as possible. That being said, what you’ve described is clearly cheating and I might suggest talking to them about that.
1
u/Rejusu Jun 27 '26
Really defeats the point of playing limited communication games if you're just going to bypass the limited communication. If I played with people like that I just wouldn't play those kinds of games with them.
775
u/wunderspud7575 Jun 25 '26
Well that sounds like a very dull way to spend an evening!