| |
BGonline.org Forums
Chouette Rules/ Consulting v. non-consulting
Posted By: Albert Steg In Response To: Chouette Rules/ Consulting v. non-consulting (phil simborg)
Date: Sunday, 1 May 2016, at 7:56 p.m.
I also find conversations bout variations in chouette rules interesting. One conclusion I have sort of reached is rule variations tend to develop out of a felt need for regulation that arises out of the particular constellation of personalities active in a chouette. Your proposal sounds very disagreeable to me -- but then, I don't have to put up with some of the players you apparently do.
For instance, in Las Vegas, playing under 'Boston Rules' on my board, a player from LA was scandalized and outraged that a Box player, having to take at least half the cubes when all three Team players offered an initial Double, might be allowed to drop the Captain and take the other two players (and therefore surrendering the Box). This, he insisted would encourage the Captain to victimize weaker players, while passing a superior Captain. Well, I guess . . . but in practice nobody in our Boston chouette would ever actually do that -- everyone in our group tends to want to keep the box and if they're going to pass someone, they'd pass someone on the outside. And none of our players feel insecure enough that they wouldn't be happy to play out a game against such a weak Box player, in a position that is apparently only a borderline take or even a pass. What's more, this player -- who became quite agitated and angry about it -- wasn't even reacting to a player actually trying to drop the Captain -- he just became aware of the rule when a Captain accepted two cubes before the third one had decided whether to cube or not. The Captain took all three cubes anyway. Sheesh.
I feel that with most chouettes in my current circle, allowing consultation only after a cube-turn strikes the just the right balance of individual play vs. conference play -- which really is a particularly good way for weaker players to improve their game. Also, coupled with the "take half the cubes" rule, the consultation rule makes for an intriguing tactical element where players must weigh (a) the genuinely "correct" cube action along with (b) his teammates likelihood of following along with another player's double and (c) the Box's proclivity for dropping one or more cubes out of fear or out of a desire to get a certain player out of consultation. This to me is part of the fun of a chouette.
But, in sympathy with Phil, I am happy, and perhaps fortunate, to be able to say that there has not been a regular Boston chouette player who behaves so disagreeably as what he is describing. I suppose if ewe had to endure such people, I might be tempted to alter the rules, but it seems to me a shame to spoil an otherwise ideal rule set that works very happily with reasonable players. In particular, I would hate to sacrifice the learning opportunities of newer/weaker players in order to negotiate the bad behavior of the jerks in the scene.
So, rather than change the rules to deal with this problem, I'd suggest trying to deal with the problem directly, and actually engage the players whose behavior you find problematic in a conversation about how their behavior is causing bad feelings and spoiling the game. Essentially, everyone needs to accept that as Captain, as player has a responsibility to 'hear' the views of all partners, and as member of the team, everyone needs to accept that the Captain decides. And if you aren't okay with that, you need to maybe find another game. You might be surprised to find that some of these 'problem players' can change their behavior is they're helped to change it.
Also, with the arrival of XG, even in its mobile version, it's possible for players at loggerheads to settle the matter with a bet. A picture is taken, that Captain says "I'm sorry, I'm making my play but I'm willing to make you a $10 bet (or as we increasingly do in Boston, an Equity Bet where the loser pays $1 per .01 of wrongness). So the arguer gets heard and has an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. Often these ultra-righteous people tend to be wrong more than they're right (something about rigidity of mind?) -- so betting might actually work to cure their over-assertiveness.
If we have occasionally had a problem in Boston, it has been with slowness of play -- and in our case, it is usually not a matter of heavy consultation, but of individuals going into deep-thinks, constantly counting, always identifying 3 plays and picking the best one, etc. *before* a cube was turned. This would especially seem to happen in larger chouettes where people seem to feel more self-conscious about their play, not wanting to "look wrong" -- and at some points our chouettes were grinding down to 4-5 games per hour, which is deathly slow. 7-8 games an hour seems about right, which is I think what we're seeing these days. (I like to get a brisk 8-10 games/hour in heads-up play).
When we get 6 players, we have a tradition of breaking into 2 chouettes, with player groups determined by dice. This gets everyone playing more.
Albert
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.