Miscellaneous > Other Games
Codenames etiquette
Kuildeous:
What is your stance on etiquette for Codenames?
I saw someone try to justify that it's okay to give invalid clues as long as the other team doesn't catch you. If they don't catch it, then it's a valid clue.
For example, let's say that someone uses the clue LOVE to try to get someone to say GLOVE. Not allowed by the rules, but the opposing team may not realize that's what's happening until later in the game. The spymaster gets away with it!
I feel that this is poor sportsman and is exploiting a rule that is intended for accidental invalid clues, such as saying SHOE for HORSESHOE.
Just making sure I'm not alone in my mini-outrage.
ThetaSigma12:
"If they don't catch you, it's valid" is a crap rationalisation, I think that's pretty obvious. That being said, if people agree on it beforehand it's cool. And I'm personally lenient on some of the rules in games like this, LOVE for GLOVE doesn't sound that bad to me, I wouldn't mind in some contexts.
Also, this reminds me of a question that came up when playing Taboo recently, if somebody says "United States" when "United Nations" is under taboo, is that legal? I was arguing that it wasn't and I'm pretty sure I was right, but I'm curious if anybody else disagrees with me.
GendoIkari:
Worth noting that rhyming clues are mentioned in the rulebook as an optional rule you can play with.
So I had written up this whole thing about how this is an example of clearly cheating, because unless you are playing a game where bluffing is built into the mechanics, you can't ever "hope to get away" with doing something that isn't normally allowed.
But then I double checked the Codenames rulebook, and... it seems that those people are technically correct.
--- Quote ---If a spymaster gives an invalid clue, the
team's turn ends immediately. As an additional
penalty, the other team's spymaster may cover
one of his or her words with an agent card
before giving the next clue.
But if no one notices that a clue is invalid, it
counts as valid.
--- End quote ---
So they are playing within the rules when they try to give an invalid clue... if it were completely outside of the rules, then you wouldn't have a penalty for it; games don't generally need to give rules for what to do when you don't do what the rules tell you to do.
That being said, that sounds like adding a very un-fun meta game on top of the rest of Codenames, and it's not a way that I would want to play, nor would I want to play with people who do play that way.
So really, it's just something that needs to be discussed and agreed upon at the start. They aren't cheating when they do it, but it doesn't seem like the rules are intending for that to be used as part of a strategy. Plus, it's an extremely risky strategy anyway; you should be getting caught much more often than not, and the penalty for getting caught is really bad.
*Edit* I just noticed that you referred to "exploiting a rule", so you already knew what I quoted. I agree with you, the rule seems to be intended to deal with accidents; not to be used as a strategy. Again, I wouldn't allow such a thing in my games.
Puerto Rico actually has the same problem; the rule book says how to handle the situation when you later realize that you forgot to load the ship at the end of the Mayor phase. This opens the door for people to purposefully "forget" because they want the alternate outcome. Such rules are bad and shouldn't be in rulebooks. The proper rule for "what do I do when the rule wasn't followed" should always be up to the people playing the game to handle as best they can without screwing things up.
Kuildeous:
The discussion that prompted this was someone was asking if it was legal to say THINK, 4 as a clue to encourage the team to think back on the last 4 clues (or words or whatever he was trying to do; it was a really bad and awkward clue anyway). So very much an invalid clue since the spymaster was intending to convey a meaning not related directly to the words.
But how would the other team know? Say he was saying THNK, 2. Then I challenge it because he's not referring to the words. Only he is because he wanted to have the team guess GROUP and IDIOM. He has to explain that for me to be satisfied and now the game is at a weird state. Some of these clues might not get caught as invalid until later.
I'd much rather play the game where an invalid clue was an honest mistake than worry that the other guy is going to try to pull one over on me.
Sorry to invoke the name of the blasphemy, but Monopoly has a similar rule in that if you land on a space and owe rent, you don't have to pay rent if the next person rolls the dice. Seems awfully easy to screw another player over by snatching the dice and rolling them before that player notices. And how has modern gaming changed me? I feel like if I were to play Monopoly again, I would instantly hand over my rent money before the owner realized I landed there because that rule is awful anyway.
Watno:
--- Quote from: GendoIkari on July 02, 2018, 02:41:51 pm ---But then I double checked the Codenames rulebook, and... it seems that those people are technically correct.
--- Quote ---If a spymaster gives an invalid clue, the
team's turn ends immediately. As an additional
penalty, the other team's spymaster may cover
one of his or her words with an agent card
before giving the next clue.
But if no one notices that a clue is invalid, it
counts as valid.
--- End quote ---
So they are playing within the rules when they try to give an invalid clue... if it were completely outside of the rules, then you wouldn't have a penalty for it; games don't generally need to give rules for what to do when you don't do what the rules tell you to do.
--- End quote ---
Well more technically, they are allowed to give an invalid clue intentionally, but then their turn immedaitely ends. The part where "no one notices" clearly doesn't apply.
Btw, i guess this is a good place to mention that we're looking for one more to continue PBF codenames: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14888.msg759980#msg759980
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version