Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmmmm]

Alice, Bob and Chris are playing a game of Dominion.

Alice, while possessing Bob, makes him play Masquerade. She says to Chris, "I'll make Bob pass you a Province if you pass me a Duchy."

Is this kind of bargaining legal?
Is it against the spirit of the game?
Would you have a problem with it if it came up in a casual game?
What about a Tournament game?

[ipofanes]

Is this kind of bargaining legal?

Absolutely.

Is it against the spirit of the game?

Absolutely.

Would you have a problem with it if it came up in a casual game?

I'd think I'd throw a fake tantrum if I was Bob.

What about a Tournament game?

Never played tournaments.

[Jimmmmm]

Would you have a problem with it if it came up in a casual game?

I'd think I'd throw a fake tantrum if I was Bob.

Bob's probably on the verge of a tantrum anyway if he's being Possessed. Would you do it if the situation arose?

[Davio]

I think these "kingmaker" conundrums are not that big of deal. I mean, you could decide not to reveal Moat and have the game end on Curses and that would be political too.

In tournaments, it's up to the judge to decide whether this is collusion. If I were a judge and I would see this, I would warn both players and ban them if they wouldn't listen.

On the other hand, if I were Chris, I would agree and pass a Curse/Copper. 

[Jimmmmm]

I think these "kingmaker" conundrums are not that big of deal. I mean, you could decide not to reveal Moat and have the game end on Curses and that would be political too.

In tournaments, it's up to the judge to decide whether this is collusion. If I were a judge and I would see this, I would warn both players and ban them if they wouldn't listen.

The problem with that is, where do you draw the line? Would you ban people from Ambassadoring a Province when someone has a Lighthouse out? Like you say, there are many ways to get this sort of situation. What would you ban and what wouldn't you?

[Drab Emordnilap]

The problem with that is, where do you draw the line? Would you ban people from Ambassadoring a Province when someone has a Lighthouse out? Like you say, there are many ways to get this sort of situation. What would you ban and what wouldn't you?

I think if you're banning things, what you have to ban is the communication. You can't ban (legal) game actions in and of themselves. Edge cases everywhere, man.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if it's in a tournament, you play to win, and in a more than two player environment, that can mean working together with an 'opponent', even temporarily. The only solid way to fix that is to either play 2 player, or play teams. Plus, deals like this are unenforceable, so if you agree to this scheme, and then you don't get your promised Duchy, well, then sucks to be you.

Collusion before a game begins sits less well with me, but I don't see any way of preventing two players in a three player game from mutually taking actions that benefit them both at the expense of the third player. I guess you could ban talking?


EDIT: I forgot, the above is all assuming you're in a tournament. Otherwise, you go by your group's established social contract. If your group's contract doesn't cover situations like this, don't worry; it will shortly.

[Davio]

Meh, it's hard to jot down a clear rule about this, but I would just look at whether the "perpetrator" gains any strategic advantage by doing what he does. I mean, if Bob Ambassadors a Province which lets him win the game, but lets Chris come second as opposed to Alice with her Lighthouse, I won't blame Bob, nor Chris.

So it very much depends on the situation, I would err on the side of caution though, because I don't want to inadvertently influence the game too much. If someone does something silly because he just isn't that good at the game and it happens to help somebody else tremendously, that's just the way it is.

It's like Puerto Rico where it's a big advantage to sit to the left of a newbie.

But you also have to look at the type of tournament. If it's the most official and prestigious Dominion tournament this side of the universe, then yeah, no communication is probably the only solution. If it's something for laughs and giggles at your local club, then just let it be, man.

[Jimmmmm]

On the other hand, if I were Chris, I would agree and pass a Curse/Copper. 

Well there's that, and if you're playing cut-throat that's actually a really strategic decision: do you take one really good deal and give up the chance for any more, or do you take a good deal and hope more good deals come? At what point do you stop taking the good deals and take the really good deal?

It could be interesting bartering: "I don't have any Duchies this turn." "What about Golds?" "Nah I need my Gold this turn. I can give you a Baron." "Why would I want a Baron for? Got no Estates, remember?"

[Drab Emordnilap]

It could be interesting bartering: "I don't have any Duchies this turn." "What about Golds?" "Nah I need my Gold this turn. I can give you a Baron." "Why would I want a Baron for? Got no Estates, remember?"

All right, I'm going home tonight to write Catan: The Deckbuilding Game.

[Kirian]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the rules imply this is not legal, much as they imply that taking notes is not legal.  House rule it in if you want--I don't think the situation is going to come up much--but I think this would not be tournament legal.

[DWetzel]

Alice, Bob and Chris are playing a game of Dominion.

Alice, while possessing Bob, makes him play Masquerade. She says to Chris, "I'll make Bob pass you a Province if you pass me a Duchy."

Is this kind of bargaining legal?
Is it against the spirit of the game?
Would you have a problem with it if it came up in a casual game?
What about a Tournament game?

As long as Chris can lie and say "sure, I'll pass you a Duchy" and then pass a Curse instead, since it's all simultaneous. 

[zahlman]

I've only ever heard of Dominion tournaments being played with two-player games.

Or did you mean the Action card?

[loppo]

IRL tournaments are usually 3/4 player tournamnets. so this situation might come up eventually.

[Robz888]

I don't think this violates the rules, unless you're playing in a tournament that specifically prohibits this.

Of course, you can agree to pass one thing, but pass another instead. There's no enforcement of the agreement you made. So, I would definitely lie about what I was going to pass. That's what you should do, I think, if you want to win. Which makes this kind of agreement probably pretty difficult to pull of in reality, since everyone has incentive to lie.

[ednever]

Related question (that may provide some insight, and comes up way more commonly):

You are in a three-player game. One player plays Contraband. Player to his right (if I remember correctly) chooses a card to ban. Can the player to his left make a recommendation before the player on the right makes a decision?

I always thought the answer was "yes"
(But someone who is not one of the three players outside the game can NOT make a recommendation)

However when the event came up at US Nationals, Jay specifically told us that we could NOT do that (although he let the first time it happened go by, but he said not to do it again)


That suggests table talk is basically not allowed for these type of decisions.

One other note:
What would happen in that original case if the player who was supposed to pass a Duchy just didn't do it (or the person passing the province didn't)? I don't think there is any recourse. In tournament play, that is likely the right choice, since there is unlikely to be another case where it will come up again during the game (or even during the tournament).

Prisoner's Dilemma, no?

Ed

[Robz888]

I definitely think the other player could advise you on what to Contraband. In fact, when this comes up in Isotropic, I often type in the chat window about what should be prohibited.

You could have a house rule that no one may advise anyone else on their strategy, but I certainly wouldn't construe the basic rules to suggest that the game has to be played in strategic silence.

[() | (_) ^/]

I don't think this violates the rules, unless you're playing in a tournament that specifically prohibits this.

Of course, you can agree to pass one thing, but pass another instead. There's no enforcement of the agreement you made. So, I would definitely lie about what I was going to pass. That's what you should do, I think, if you want to win. Which makes this kind of agreement probably pretty difficult to pull of in reality, since everyone has incentive to lie.

WHAT?!?!?  Are you trying to imply that this isn't a situation that we have to explicitly worry about because people's self-interested behavior already fixes this problem without any top-down intervention from the powers-that-be?!?!?

That's crazy!  Heresy!  Perish the thought.  Definitely can't be true, especially as a general way of looking at human behavior in other contexts.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Are the rules of Dominion permissive, or restrictive? Do they say "You may play action cards during your Action Phase", or do they say "You may not play action cards during your Buy Phase, or your Clean-up Phase, or during other players' turns"?

[Kirian]

Are the rules of Dominion permissive, or restrictive? Do they say "You may play action cards during your Action Phase", or do they say "You may not play action cards during your Buy Phase, or your Clean-up Phase, or during other players' turns"?

In this specific case, both:

"Generally, a player can only play Action cards during the Action phase of his turn. However, Reaction cards are an exception to this rule as they can be used at other times."

That said, the rules are generally interpreted as restrictive in the sense that only things written in the rules are allowed.  This has come up multiple times when it comes to point counting.  Sure, the rules don't say you can't sit there with a sheet of paper and count points as you play.  The rules also don't say you can't play a card face-down and claim it's a Village, or that you can't look at the other players' hands.  But I know of no other card games that allow any of those unless it's specifically stated in the rules (Bullshit, for playing face-down; 3-5-7 poker, for seeing other players' hands), or overruled by a specific card (e.g., Possession for seeing another player's hand, and I'm sure there's at least one in Magic).

Similarly, most games don't allow table talk or politics unless specifically allowed in the rules--even Intrigue (not the Dominion expansion), which is all about bribing your opponents and convincing them not to screw you over, has specific rules for table talk.

In other words, plenty of rules are implied by convention, including those against bargaining for points.  More stringently, the game designer has stated that Dominion is designed to be as free of politics as possible, which also implies that bargaining during a Masquerade play is not allowed.

Now, again, what you do at home may be different, so long as the other players agree.  But in tournament play, bargaining over Possessed Masquerades, giving "advice" on Contraband or Possession, giving or asking for strategy advice, are not allowed by the rules as written, and therefore are not allowed during play.

[Drab Emordnilap]

That said, the rules are generally interpreted as restrictive in the sense that only things written in the rules are allowed.

Pedantry: I think you're inverting the meanings I'm using; a permissive ruleset would tell you what things you're permitted to do; a restrictive one would tell you which things you aren't allowed to do.

Actual response: I feel that the answer to the "point counter" debate should be the same as the answer to "table talk" -- either the rules don't say you can't, so you can, or the tules don't say you can, so you can't.

[Kirian]

That said, the rules are generally interpreted as restrictive in the sense that only things written in the rules are allowed.

Pedantry: I think you're inverting the meanings I'm using; a permissive ruleset would tell you what things you're permitted to do; a restrictive one would tell you which things you aren't allowed to do.

Actual response: I feel that the answer to the "point counter" debate should be the same as the answer to "table talk" -- either the rules don't say you can't, so you can, or the tules don't say you can, so you can't.

Ah, yes, I was thinking of things the other way around.

[Jimmmmm]

Now, again, what you do at home may be different, so long as the other players agree.  But in tournament play, bargaining over Possessed Masquerades, giving "advice" on Contraband or Possession, giving or asking for strategy advice, are not allowed by the rules as written, and therefore are not allowed during play.

Yeah, I don't know. As far as I know the rules don't mention any communication between players. I'm sure you're not meant to assume that all communication is banned? Is it against the official rules to give tips to new players throughout the game?

[WanderingWinder]

Now, again, what you do at home may be different, so long as the other players agree.  But in tournament play, bargaining over Possessed Masquerades, giving "advice" on Contraband or Possession, giving or asking for strategy advice, are not allowed by the rules as written, and therefore are not allowed during play.

Yeah, I don't know. As far as I know the rules don't mention any communication between players. I'm sure you're not meant to assume that all communication is banned? Is it against the official rules to give tips to new players throughout the game?

Yes, anything game-related that is not allowed in the rules is de facto prohibited. Technically this means giving advice, too, but you know, in a casual setting, you can do whatever you want.
I would actually be pretty upset if anyone gave advice to a newbie opponent of mine in a serious tournament - let them play for themselves, or casually.

[Davio]

What?

When someone has $1 to spend, I can't look all snug and say "Hey, you can always buy a Curse!" (Yeah, I'm not mentioning Copper) And no Bridges or Highways or Quarries, you pedantics! Shoo, shoo!

I always believe that strategic advice should be limited, but un-strategic advice: The more, the better!
Depends on the setting of course.

Usually with beginners I go over all the options and explain that buying money is never really bad, but that's it.

[WanderingWinder]

Depends on the setting of course.

This.
And if you're playing the game on a huge sheet of plywood....

Depends on the board. 

[Kirian]

What?

When someone has $1 to spend, I can't look all snug and say "Hey, you can always buy a Curse!" (Yeah, I'm not mentioning Copper) And no Bridges or Highways or Quarries, you pedantics! Shoo, shoo!

I always believe that strategic advice should be limited, but un-strategic advice: The more, the better!
Depends on the setting of course.

I suppose as long as the sarcasm is obvious, that's... OK, but not good in a tournament setting.  It's kinda akin to Bobby Fischer blowing cigar smoke in his opponents' faces: distracting and unproductive.  In addition, because you're distracting someone, and because (as discussed elsewhere) time controls are all but impossible in Dominion, you're slowing down the game.

[ehunt]

The Contraband/Envoy issue is the interesting one to me. I guess the default ruling is consistent with the "you can't tell them what to pick." It's interesting, because on the "point counter" debate my intuition is strongly that it's obviously not ok to use a point counter and here it goes the other way.

[Davio]

What?

When someone has $1 to spend, I can't look all snug and say "Hey, you can always buy a Curse!" (Yeah, I'm not mentioning Copper) And no Bridges or Highways or Quarries, you pedantics! Shoo, shoo!

I always believe that strategic advice should be limited, but un-strategic advice: The more, the better!
Depends on the setting of course.

I suppose as long as the sarcasm is obvious, that's... OK, but not good in a tournament setting.  It's kinda akin to Bobby Fischer blowing cigar smoke in his opponents' faces: distracting and unproductive.  In addition, because you're distracting someone, and because (as discussed elsewhere) time controls are all but impossible in Dominion, you're slowing down the game.

As I said: Depends on the setting.
I don't usually hassle strangers.

And in tournaments I'm usually quite timid. If there's a rule argued on which I'm sure about I still call over an official. Once someone tried to tell me I couldn't Throne Room cards I didn't have in my hand at the start of my turn. 

[() | (_) ^/]

...
And in tournaments I'm usually quite timid. If there's a rule argued on which I'm sure about I still call over an official. Once someone tried to tell me I couldn't Throne Room cards I didn't have in my hand at the start of my turn. 

How did he know?  I mean, of course there are cases where your hand might be made public at the outset (Menagerie, Shanty Town, prior opponent's Cutpurse/Bureaucrat, etc. etc.) or what you are drawing might be public (Farming Village, Scrying Pool, etc. etc.).  But I'm asking in this particular case, how did he know that the target was not in your hand at the start of the turn?  Watching the backs of the cards to see which are the ones you have been holding versus have drawn?

[Drab Emordnilap]

How did he know?  I mean, of course there are cases where your hand might be made public at the outset (Menagerie, Shanty Town, prior opponent's Cutpurse/Bureaucrat, etc. etc.) or what you are drawing might be public (Farming Village, Scrying Pool, etc. etc.).  But I'm asking in this particular case, how did he know that the target was not in your hand at the start of the turn?  Watching the backs of the cards to see which are the ones you have been holding versus have drawn?

Clearly someone missed the rule where Throne Room has to be the first action you play on your turn. It's in the official Dominion Tournament errata.

I mean, it's like you're saying that you can use Chapel to trash all your Copper. It's common sense that that card is for getting rid of curses. You have to understand, this game is unbalanced by design. That's why we have official Tournament Rules to make things fairer to everyone. Can you imagine if you could play Throne Room any time you wanted during your turn? I mean, that's just one step away from playing Throne Room on other people's turns. I'm going to Throne Room a Militia right after you play 4 Smithies and make you discard all those cards you just drew! Then what good would Smithy be? It's only good in the first place when you can chain them into each other, since if you don't use the Tournament rule about comboing cards of the same name, you'd need way too many Villages to play them, and there's only 2.5 or less Villages per person! (Depending on whether your division plays 4, 5, or 6 players.)

Plus, can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if someone could play a Throne Room... ON a Throne Room? You could play Militia FOUR TIMES.

[Davio]

...
And in tournaments I'm usually quite timid. If there's a rule argued on which I'm sure about I still call over an official. Once someone tried to tell me I couldn't Throne Room cards I didn't have in my hand at the start of my turn. 

How did he know?  I mean, of course there are cases where your hand might be made public at the outset (Menagerie, Shanty Town, prior opponent's Cutpurse/Bureaucrat, etc. etc.) or what you are drawing might be public (Farming Village, Scrying Pool, etc. etc.).  But I'm asking in this particular case, how did he know that the target was not in your hand at the start of the turn?  Watching the backs of the cards to see which are the ones you have been holding versus have drawn?

Shanty Town.

[Drab Emordnilap]

...
And in tournaments I'm usually quite timid. If there's a rule argued on which I'm sure about I still call over an official. Once someone tried to tell me I couldn't Throne Room cards I didn't have in my hand at the start of my turn. 

How did he know?  I mean, of course there are cases where your hand might be made public at the outset (Menagerie, Shanty Town, prior opponent's Cutpurse/Bureaucrat, etc. etc.) or what you are drawing might be public (Farming Village, Scrying Pool, etc. etc.).  But I'm asking in this particular case, how did he know that the target was not in your hand at the start of the turn?  Watching the backs of the cards to see which are the ones you have been holding versus have drawn?

Shanty Town.

[() | (_) ^/]

...
And in tournaments I'm usually quite timid. If there's a rule argued on which I'm sure about I still call over an official. Once someone tried to tell me I couldn't Throne Room cards I didn't have in my hand at the start of my turn. 

How did he know?  I mean, of course there are cases where your hand might be made public at the outset (Menagerie, Shanty Town, prior opponent's Cutpurse/Bureaucrat, etc. etc.) or what you are drawing might be public (Farming Village, Scrying Pool, etc. etc.).  But I'm asking in this particular case, how did he know that the target was not in your hand at the start of the turn?  Watching the backs of the cards to see which are the ones you have been holding versus have drawn?

Shanty Town.

Dnab Eborderlinenap: Davio was answering my question, not correcting me or adding to the list.

Davio: Thanks!  Pretty crazy.  And his was a good observation, too, even though his contention was obviously erroneous.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Reading comprehension is tech. 

[clb]

The Contraband/Envoy issue is the interesting one to me. I guess the default ruling is consistent with the "you can't tell them what to pick." It's interesting, because on the "point counter" debate my intuition is strongly that it's obviously not ok to use a point counter and here it goes the other way.

I remember reading that it is acceptable for other people at the table to provide input to this decision. I will have to go and look for the source. Where does the default ruling you mention come from?

[Kirian]

The Contraband/Envoy issue is the interesting one to me. I guess the default ruling is consistent with the "you can't tell them what to pick." It's interesting, because on the "point counter" debate my intuition is strongly that it's obviously not ok to use a point counter and here it goes the other way.

I remember reading that it is acceptable for other people at the table to provide input to this decision. I will have to go and look for the source. Where does the default ruling you mention come from?

The default ruling is that anything not specifically permitted is disallowed.

[soulnet]

When someone has $1 to spend, I can't look all snug and say "Hey, you can always buy a Curse!" (Yeah, I'm not mentioning Copper) And no Bridges or Highways or Quarries, you pedantics! Shoo, shoo!

Princess. Remember this was specifically about Tournament play.

The problem with Shooing pedantry is that you actually attract it.

I can't stop, someone please correct me soon!

[GendoIkari]

When someone has $1 to spend, I can't look all snug and say "Hey, you can always buy a Curse!" (Yeah, I'm not mentioning Copper) And no Bridges or Highways or Quarries, you pedantics! Shoo, shoo!

Princess. Remember this was specifically about Tournament play.

The problem with Shooing pedantry is that you actually attract it.

I can't stop, someone please correct me soon!

"Shooing" should not have been capitalized.

[Davio]

When someone has $1 to spend, I can't look all snug and say "Hey, you can always buy a Curse!" (Yeah, I'm not mentioning Copper) And no Bridges or Highways or Quarries, you pedantics! Shoo, shoo!

Princess. Remember this was specifically about Tournament play.

The problem with Shooing pedantry is that you actually attract it.

I can't stop, someone please correct me soon!

Yeah, it was a double bluff, but better to be shood than shoed.

[zahlman]

Yeah, it was a double bluff, but better to be shood than shoed.

Hey, now; I thought we were talking about Princess, not Trusty Steed...