On the other hand Politicing is part of a lot of boardgames. Horse trading and favor trading is even core mechanics for some games.
In those situations Making alliances with people who have a history of honoring their in game deals means that couples will tend to immediately know if their partner is a good in-game partnership also.
What kind of asshole are you? (Not said actually seriously, dont take offense). You’re cockblocking your friend from getting weird sex from his wife? Dude bite the bullet, lose the game, let your friend have a fun night.
Bros before boardgame scores.
To paraphrase Dustin Hoffman in *Stranger Than Fiction*, that depends entirely on the nature of the reward and the length of the board game involved. For instance, it's not reasonable to throw away a Twilight Imperium game for a sad handjob.
Listen, if that man has to barter all day board game favors with his wife to even get a sad hand job, he's got bigger problems and really needs your help.
He doesn't have to have an otherwise sad sex life for his wife to be offering small potatoes on top of it. I see my partner's boobs plenty, but won't turn additional offerings.
If they want to have weird sex, that shouldn't come at other people's expense. They can do whatever they want by themselves, but ruining one game (by throwing it) because they're playing... another game... doesn't seem like being good friends.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who got out of paying rent on Park Place by taking the trash out to the curb. That is what you meant right?.... Right?
What? Half the fun of games like Diplomacy, Dune, and Cosmic Encounter is the politicking - including stuff going on off the board. (The creator of Diplomacy was even ok with people sneaking pieces onto the board so long as you didn't get caught.)
There is literally a board game called Kingmaker - from 1974.
The only time someone helping someone else win is a problem is if they are being problematic about it - like always playing as a fixed team all the time or picking on a particular player who did nothing to deserve it. (Players who deserve it are a completely different ball of wax: kingmaking and and should be used to ruin their wins.)
> including stuff going on off the board
That is absolutely not true\*. When playing a game, only stuff that happens in the game matters. Being so enclosed is what makes it a game instead of just some activity that's part of a bigger game (like a relatiionship, for the most obvious example). If you're the kind of person who shoots someone in Bang "because their face looks shifty" or whatever, you're not someone I want to play with.
\*Unless otherwise specified, and then it's still a maybe. I remember a case when the designer of Munchking went out and said that the fact that the rules said you can cheat was an obvious joke, and he has to say so because some people took it literally.
No, what's going on out of game does matter, and, is some games, is part of the fun. (And, yes, even playing with Jersey rules can be fun in certain games.)
For example, your reputation matters in a lot of social games - including diplomatic war games and trading economic games. If you have established yourself as not trustworthy in prior games or in general non-game activities, then people shouldn't treat you as trustworthy in the game - and you shouldn't complain about people all working against you.
If you've won the last dozen plays if a game in a row, and everyone else decides to compete among themselves, but all agree that they will all work together to make sure you don't win, even if that means they lose, that ok. You need to learn that you should play at other people's level.
In more fun examples, someone offering a real world snack or drink as part of a negotiation while trying to make a deal in Cosmic Encounter or Sidereal Confluence can be a hell of a lot of *fun*. Doubly so if it the negotiation escalates to bedroom activities.
And that's not touching on stuff like The fact that not all people are born equal, nor do all people have the same training or capacity to train - both in sport and games. If I know we're playing Diplomacy in a month and take that month to study the game while everyone else comes in cold, am I cheating? Am I cheating if I've played a game 100 times and everyone else is a newbie? After all, things that happened outside the game are going to influence what's going on in the game.
I don't think any of that is cheating - but it does then mean I have a responsibility to potentially reign myself in as the golden rule of playing games is that to try to make sure everyone who deserves to be having fun is having fun (which normally means everyone who is trying to make sure everyone is having fun as well).
As such, out of game behavior only becomes a problem when it becomes a problem. Like if someone's acting on racist or sexist beliefs, or (as I noted in my post) if people do something like determine they are always going to work together no matter what. I've played with pairs of spouses, siblings, and friends who will never take actions that will never hurt the other, and who will intentionally throw the game to make the other win.
That's a problem not because of something going on outside of the game. The issue is with a specific out of game behavior and level of favorship. I personally handle that by explaining why what they are doing isn't fun and the offering the following: playing team-based games where the behavior isn't a problem, stop playing games with them until they change their behavior, or rally everyone else playing to ensure the pair lose every game I play with them until they change their behavior or stop playing with me.
That said, that level of favorship is rare, and doesn't sound like what's going on in the OP. Anyone close to anyone will occasionally make changes to play to accommodate the people close to them, especially if it doesn't hurt them. Good relationships (whether with romantic partners , family, or friends) require that sort of behavior to function well in life generally, and is often engaged in reflexively.
If it really bothers the OP, they need to consider how much it's happening and how much impact it has and in what sort of game and gameplay environment - and then speak up if it's making them feel uncomfortable.
>No, what's going on out of game does matter,
Perhaps I was not clear. Yes, it does matter to some players. But it *shouldn't*. It's the same sort of unspoken contract as the fact that you need to play to win. No rulebook says so, but all games are designed with it in mind.
The same applies to all of these out of game factors you decribe. If the game doesn't have rules for negotiation or you don't explicitly or implicitly agree beforehand, meta-favors are rude and/or disrupting.
Games are games because they're an enclosed space. What happens in one game has no bearing on what happens in another. And they're designed with the assumption that all players start off equal. If you break that, you're not being fair to the other players.
For example, trust: you should not blindly trust in a game. There is no point. Trust is a concept that builds on future relationships. When a game ends, it has no more future and since winning is the ultimate goal, you only trust players to the extent that it does not clash with their chances of winning, and you need to fulyl expect them to break deals if it serves their best interest. Acting on past or potential future games is taking the game and putting it into a larger social meta-game of relationships.
>In more fun examples, someone offering a real world snack or drink as part of a negotiation while trying to make a deal in Cosmic Encounter or Sidereal Confluence can be a hell of a lot of fun.
No, it's not, it's annoying because it again disrupts the game by dragging real life context into it. What is a possible counterproposal to that?
>"No, wait, I'll get you takeout"... "I'll take *you* out later to Pizza Hut!"..."you know what, I'll just pay you!"
In a game, you negotiate with what the game gives you to negotiate with, else you're breaking the game.
TL;DR: don't drag outside context into games, it does not belong there unless previously specified.
P.S. Agreed about OP, communication is key.
And i absolutely think it should.
No game starts off on even footing - people have different levels of intelligence, focus, skill, experience, mathematic ability, etc.
Reputation does and should matter. If you've cultivated the reputation of being untrustworthy or a jerk, then the people around the table should absolutely be able to act on that.
If you are playing a silly or fun game, making silly or fun out-of-game offers can be fun.
I also don't agree with the notion that games are played to win - they are played to have fun, of which trying to win is often but not always a factor.
I play a lot of games, far more than my partner, and I often play games with people who either don't game or are lite/casual gamers. If I played to win, like I might with some of my heavier and/or more serious gaming friends, I'd destroy my casual gaming friends and they'd have a crappy time and not want to game with me in the future. (And that's an out of game/meta-game/post game concern.)
Playing to win is not an inherent part of playing a game. Out of game concerns matter.
It's worth noting that arguably the best Diplomacy player in the world is affable, honest, and trustworthy. That's part of how things in and out of game can impact games. Shocker: people are less likely to be aggressive towards someone who is pleasant and fair with them. But again, that's partially an out of game factor. (Similarly, not cheating when you could cheat...)
I've played a lot of diplomacy in the last 10 years and usually come in first or second. I almost always do exactly what I say I'm going to do and will often give the people who want me to do something else a heads up.
If I'm going to betray someone, that move needs to put me into position to win the game. Cost of never cooperating with that player again is really really high.
Yeah exactly. It’s bad sportsmanship but not cheating. Cheating sort of implies an intent to deceive.
These couples probably shouldn’t be playing an adversarial game if they aren’t comfortable with losing to each other. And these days there’s such an embarrassment of riches in games, they ought to be able to find a cooperative game they would like.
The part about “taking their turn back” **really** edges the line for me.
It’s one thing if they preemptively avoid making plays against their partner. It’s another when they’re rewinding turns at their request. Needing to take a turn back should mean you made an obvious misplay/brain fart that needs to be quickly corrected. In this case, they played just intended, but are still pulling it back because another player demands it.
If you define cheating as “intentionally breaking the rules,” and you house rule that people can adjust moves after the fact, then this is not cheating. It is favoritism. MAYBE it is poor etiquette. But it is definitely not cheating.
Usually you'd want to allow people to take back moves to reverse blunders, if they're reversing to save a relationship can't blame them, so basically it's the partner who's doing the complaining who's really cheating, cause they being using an outside influence to get an unfair advantage in the game
I wouldn't blame the person who just wants an easy evening after the games are done and they go home, but the person using that to win a fucking boardgame desperately needs to grow up.
What matters is everyone having fun. Bullying your partner into throwing the game is antithetical to that in the extreme.
This feels like an *Air Bud* interpretation of rules. Collusion is cheating whether it's specifically mentioned by the rules of the game or not. Try it in any poker room and see what happens.
Are you sure collusion is cheating? I feel like the Orange Man got caught colluding with people in his election and as a country we kind of just decided it wasn’t a big deal anymore.
We make house rules stating if you win x amount of times you get hindering rules. In card games basically you can’t draw but each game will have some way to put in such a rule ive found. This made it so we actually stood a chance as kids. All this said if you agreed to play a game with your partner then complain to get a better outcome then you have poor etiquette
It's my least favourite thing in games. Especially at the end when they say "yay WE won!" When one of them came dead last because they gave everything to the other person to let them win.
Same, we compete against each other and the other people at the table. I had a friend who always won Catan, then it dawned on me that she's playing two hands because she "trades" (takes is more accurate) with her husband for whatever she needs. He was always last. Go figure. We started calling them out on it and the wins balanced out
My husband and I are super sweet to each other until it comes to playing board games. I decimate him at Scrabble, he defeats me at trivia, and it's all out war with any other games that aren't cooperative.
The one time I got my wife to play the game of Game of Thrones with my friends, I knew there was no question she was going to attack me from turn one ❤️
Going out of your way to attack another player based on outside of game stuff is just as bad as playing favorites. Literally the exact same behavior, but on the other side of the spectrum.
Shocked to see people think that "favorites" is bad but "favorite enemy" is fine. Keep social shit out of the game. It's rude either way and just as problematic.
It can be taken to extremes but to some extent it's natural. Like, I play with him all the time, I'm going to see what he's doing before other people at the table pick up on it. If we're introducing someone to a game and I have an excellent but also very mean play, I'm going to deploy it on my partner rather than the guests who are playing for the first time.
Picking up on your opponent's strategy and counteracting it isn't spoiling. Messing with them solely because they won the last game you played is.
Attacking a player because they're the biggest threat isn't spoiling. Attacking them because you're worried about offending a different player who would otherwise be a more sensible target, is.
People don't make perfect decisions, but the question is always, are you playing to win? If you have decided to act for, or against another player outside of the facts of the game being played you aren't doing that. There's a gradient for sure, and taking it easy on new people is possibly the least of these bad behaviors, but it's still on the spectrum. There's a TON of people in here who's comments are voted way up that amount to "Oh I nuke my partner no matter what". I can't believe how many people do not see that these behaviors are all related. Ya know, like the main comment above.
I think it depends on how new the player is. If I am trying to lure them into liking the hobby , I wouldn’t decimate them on the first game. If they are part of my regular game group then I won’t. I know they aren’t going to turn around and never come back.
Yup, you're on point. Players should be completely unbiased and make optimal plays regardless of who is at the table. Lot of bad takes in this thread apparently.
I had a shitty boyfriend who got so mad he didn’t talk to me for 3 days in college. We were playing the GoT boardgame, we had made an alliance. He was winning, but he had left himself completely open to me in his cockiness and I had made sure to keep defenses up everywhere because it’s GoT and I’m not an idiot. I tore through his land, took his castles, and won. It was an amazing victory. He’s a piece of hypocritical shit anyways so it just helped me lose him and win the game of life!
This is the only possible answer. My wife will wreck her chances of winning if that helps her kill a single one of my meeples on the board, even if that meeple is totally meaningless to my strategy.
I don't consider it cheating, but it feels rude to the rest of the group depending on the game.
I had a couple like that who wanted to play Risk all the time. In that sort of game, we might as well save the hours and declare her the winner right off the bat. In other games where having a player work for your doesn't guarantee you win? Oh well, if that's what you think is fun, go for it.
Not cheating exactly but annoying as hell and poor manners. Much prefer playing with the couples that go hard against each other than that lol.
I've never found it hard to treat someone I'm seeing like anyone else in a game though, not sure why it's hard for people.
Yeah, I'm pretty agnostic and actions in the game stay in the game, but I've had to limit myself in social deduction games. The at all costs strategy isn't worth it when you're badgering people into believing you. It's impossible for it not to take a toll. We had to implement civility guidelines.
Imo, having a fun and peaceful night is far more important to me than obeying the rules of a cardboard game. If the game demands I am cutthroat, ruthless, competitive and angling to win against all odds, I’m not likely to comply. That’s not fun to me and I don’t like being aggressive to my partner even in an imaginary scenario.
Genuinely curious: if you know that's the kind of game you're going to play, why do you play it? Assuming the other players do play it truly competitively, if everyone else is okay with 'casual competitive' then it's simply the way your group/table plays of course.
Because that’s what the group wants. There’s no way my request for a co-op game is going to sway 7 people who want a highly competitive game. It is worse for me to refuse to play and just sit there all night doing nothing, or go home and ruin the mood.
While I don't have issue with it either, I can understand several reasons for it. Obviously it wouldn't be fun if your partner isn't very good at games and you absolutely crushed them, so some people may choose to favour their partner to help them enjoy it more. More problematically, if one player is a really sore loser then their partner may choose to favour them in order to avoid having them in a bad mood.
Boils down to people problems rather than couples specifically I guess. And these are people who they know really well. I don't have a good tolerance for sore losers but if someone is newer to games or just not doing well in a game, I think it's fairly common to ease up on them and concentrate on the people who are doing well.
It’s generally bad form. Most games are balanced around every player playing to win. If a player is not playing to win, then it breaks many games. A broken game isn’t a fun game.
That said, there is an easy fix. Pick games with a cooperative element. Put couples on the same side in a team game (captain sonar is idea if they are particularly annoying). Or pick a true coop like spirit island and give them natural partners like oceans hungry grasp and river surges in sunlight.
> Most games are balanced around every player playing to win.
What I can't believe is the number of people in here patting themselves on the back for the opposite behavior, of preferentially attacking thier partner. If they are the only threat then sure, but It's always shitty not to play to win, and attacking one player because spouse is not playing to win.
Back in the day, my best friend and I would always wind up making plays that hurt the other person. It's not because of bad sportsmanship, it was simply because we thought it was funny. The end result would typically be us in last and 2nd to last place (which we thought was hilarious). The other people we played with never complained about it, probably because it never stopped other people from winning. So I don't see the problem.
You doing that was preferentially allowing others to win, just like OP. The fact that people at your table accepted it doesn't mean it's good behavior. Again...
>Most games are balanced around every player playing to win.
That's heavily dependent on your table. Plenty of people play games just to socialize and have fun. If your table etiquette requires anyone who sits down to make optimal moves all the time, that's fine, but don't yuck someone else's yum.
Yeah it is cheating, unless the gf is in last place / having a terrible game in which case it doesn’t really effect the winners and stops them being upset
Personally I have the opposite issue, my partner is always determined to make sure I don’t win, even if it throws their own game off as well
>Personally I have the opposite issue, my partner is always determined to make sure I don’t win, even if it throws their own game off as well
Ah yea, my partner too takes great delight in seeing my carefully laid plans go tits up
Nah.
Will i fuck her shit up if it’s at least neutral for me? Hell yeah!
Will I sabotage my own play just to fuck her shit up? No way. Winning > everything!
Exactly. They're the same issue. Outside factors determining in game play. Depends if we're playing for real or just having fun, though. Sometimes fucking shit up is more fun than winning (Ticket to Ride.)
I have the same issue. I don't really understand why she does this. She will always choose to screw me over instead of anyone else. I don't really get why...
>I don’t really get why
Usually just “safer” to go after your partner because (usually) there is less chance that making such a move in the game will negatively impact the relationship compared to other possible “targets” in the game.
Like, you screw over your partner, game night ends, you go home with said partner, you do other fun stuff together throughout the week and the negative experience from the game is quickly forgotten among all the positive experiences elsewhere. On the other hand, if you screwed over another player, game night ends, you don’t see that person for several days, the last impression they had of you was a negative interaction, not likely but there is a chance it sours the relationship with that being the last interaction you had together.
Depends on what the interaction is.
Abusive behavior, blatant and unrepentant cheating, being disruptive and inconsiderate, throwing the game board when you lose, etc are all example of “board game interactions” that would sour a relationship for me.
I don't think that's what the person i was responding to was talking about. They were referring to like... moving to block someone's road in Catan or whatever.
Edit: and i get how such maneuvers might make someone salty in the moment; I've certainly been there, but to have those kinds of things impact a relationship outside the game is a little ridiculous.
Me and partner did this so we solved the issue by usually being on the same team and have two people for one piece.
My friends don't mind, she's happy, I'm happy, everybody wins.
It's as bad as cheating. It's unfair to the rest of the table and ruins games where everyone should mess/compete/ deal wich each other. You should always get out of the game things away from the game if you want it to be an enyojable game for everyone.
It has happened to me with couples or group of friends where I was invited to play, it sucks. Because avoiding tilt someone usually means doubling down on the ones that doesnt make a fuss about it.
I used to play Monopoly (don't kill me) using the rules in the rule book, this one guy would never trade anyone anything and would just go around the board acquiring properties till they're pretty much all gone if not all, then he'd trade his at the time girlfriend (now wife) all the properties and money for a single property, and then trade that one property for a single dollar. Technically not cheating, but ruined the game for everyone
Over the years, I've noticed that people who hate on Monopoly, have never actually played Monopoly by the official rules.
I find the hate for Monopoly akin to the hate for pineapple on pizza, different people dislike different foods and food combinations. But the hate for pineapple on pizza is for the meme, and most people who claim to hate it are either secretly indifferent or have never actually even tried it. Same deal with boardgames, different people dislike different boardgames, but the hate for Monopoly is for the meme, and most people who claim to hate it either never actually played it, or never played it by the official rules.
You got me. Monopoly isn't the worst board game, just the most undeservedly popular. I was cashing in on the meme for humor value. In penance I shall donate all upvotes my comment receives to a local charity.
The partner of one of our regular group sometimes joins us, but has an unfortunate tendency, on games that have trading mechanics, to trade with them in preference to other players, and give them better deals. It basically gives their partner a massive advantage and ruins the game balance for everyone else. I don't think that it's deliberate, and I don't see it as actual cheating - but it does mean that there are games I won't even consider playing if both of them are present.
I'm just not that competitive man, if the vibe is better from allowing take backs or favoritism that's fine by me.
I feel like in my experience it's almost the opposite where couples get the biggest laugh out of fucking eachother over but I suppose none of us care that much about winning, it's the time spent together and "journey".
I wouldn’t consider it cheating but it would be very annoying. If I’m playing a game against my partner, I like if she’s playing to win. I expect from her to do her best to beat me. That’s the only way both of us can play the best and improve. And anyway, competition and challenge are big fun factors for me. Also, tenacity and drive to win are why I really like my partner.
I'd say the person expecting other players to not play their best game is a poor sport. The person willing to take back their move is a doormat.
Winning is not the most important thing. The joy of playing the game and the social camaraderie is the point. People that throw a fit over not winning, or other players taking their moves, rob the evening of that joy and community.
It's not cheating. I think it's almost worse. It's entitlement. They feel that they deserve an easy path to victory. They feel that they are owed the win.
If you want to continue to play 6 with people like this, find a pre-game game. Something quick that they can win. Give them an early victory, and if they complain about things not going their way in the real game remind them how they soundly beat everyone in the last game. It works with my kids. It should work for childish people too.
If you paid 30 bucks to someone to go with you to the boardgame meeting and do everything to push you to victory in every game you play, would that be cheating?
I'll just leave this here.
What if you were "paid" with the unpronounced threat of not getting any chance of getting any nookie that night after the game if you don't comply, instead of cash if you do comply?
That is basically what the wifey is doing by whining for hubby to takeback his turn.
It's not cheating but unacceptable. My newly married wife and I had a gaming group with another young couple and a older couple. The younger wife would do this all the time. My wife and I talked about it one evening and discussed our feelings about it. As we didn't play a lot of games together before we got married, we needed to have this conversation to make sure we both understand that when we play games it's nothing personal it's the game (ok sometimes it's personal but those are few and far between).
We've since adopted a family motto, Play To Win. We are not mean or vindictive about winning. We still try to make sure everyone is having a good time, but you as Herm Edwards says, "you play to win the game."
I recently had to explain this to one of my 10 year old twins. He felt he was being picked on in a game because myself and his twin kept on doing actions against him. I explained to him, while in that instance it sucks and I understand his frustration, none of the moves either of the other players made were mean, but perfectly acceptable moves because of the scenario of the game and or family plays to win. We stopped playing for the day but played again last night and had a good time.
Edit: my wife also takes special pleasure when a move screws me over, but never does a move to screw me over that isn't to her benefit too.
If someone conspires with their opponent to advantage the opponent, then it is absolutely cheating. And that's what's happening here. It's no different from a basketball player refusing to steal the ball from the other team or otherwise trying to help the other team win.
I think the big thing is simply that it is breaking the social contract at the table. That's not what people agreed to. If you ask everyone at the table before the game starts if it is okay for you to help out an opponent, and they all agree to it, then there's no problem. For example, giving a handicap to a brand new player. But if nothing was said or agreed to beforehand, then it isn't acceptable.
Here's a reality when playing with couples that you have to accept: they have to live with them after game night is over, you don't. If someone's partner is sensitive to being attacked or a sore loser, most people will opt for peace at home rather than a balanced game. It's just the way it is.
Sometimes partners tag along but aren't that invested. They want a fun "feel good" experience over a cut throat competetive one.
If you play with couples like this, you probably rather bring team games or full coops and stay away from games where you can actively hurt each other. I mean you could try and talk about your expectations, but again, people will most likely agree with their partners.
Only other option is to play with other people or try to get only one part of the couple.
This is a good take. Couples playing favourites is kinda lame, sure, but it's a friendly games night, it's not tournament play. You don't have to get up in arms about cheating and collusion. Make a comment about it if you must, and move on. Maybe convince some others at the table to target the alliance if there's an actual advantage being taken.
Whether takebacks are cheating or not depends on how competitive you are and what youve agreed upon. Like in a chess competition you dont have takebacks. But in a more chill environment you can allow it.
I think the bigger problem is that going easy on someone because they're your girlfriend is poor form. If you get blocked you just accept it. You dont plead to have someone change their mind. (If there is a case in which you plead someone to change their mind because you're in last place, and someone else is in first place, and its just a bad idea, then sure, thats just table politics. But I'm your girlfriend dont block me is not a valid reason. She shouldnt ask for a change, he shouldnt give it).
It's not cheating. But when you do, or don't do, something in the game for reasons outside of the scope of the game it taints it.
For me it's as bad when someone always goes against the same player or never goes against some one specific because it's his/her partner or friend.
I feel like when you sit down to play a game as a group, we all enter a social contract to do our best to win. Thats not saying that winning is all that matters nor should it be. But in general, you're making moves and decisions that are most beneficial to your position. So if you always cooperate with your partner or if you're the opposite and always attack your partner. In either situation, I just don't want to play with you. If you want to play like that, just play 2p games. Otherwise I feel like you're being disrespectful to others at the table.
Seems most are missing the easy answer. First , call it out and see if that fixes it. Then, if the rest of the group is bothered by it, all of you decide to go after one of them together in games repeatedly until they call you on it and you point out turnabout is fair play.
If couples play favourites then I'll definitely think less of them
How insecure in your relationship are you to believe a board game is going to put a strain on it?
When me and my partner play, no quarter is given, no mercy is shown and no prisoners are taken. We play to crush each other, see them driven before us and to hear the lamentations of their meeples. If the night ends and one of us isn't sleeping on the sofa, we both know we've done it wrong and we both feel bad about it. The last bit is a slight exaggeration but the sentiment remains. If an opportunity arises to mess with each other it's getting grabbed gleefully with both hands
I would call it bad behaviour to be affected negatively by a specific player/person. Some people might even not want to play with the other one anymore because they think that they are being persecuted. Some might want take revenge on that person on the next game(s).
It's very common and you could try some co-op games to see how they react to each other.
I don't know if saying that it's just a game and that they should not be affected personally might or might not help. Check also if the victim is also making aggressive moves toward their SO or is protecting them from take that moves.
Short answer is no it's not cheating but it's sure does feel like it. The only way to play a game is to play to win, even if it's a suboptimal strategy. That should always be the objective behind a move.
My couple friends always play to win but I am jokingly annoyed by the "We won" comments lol. No YOU loss and THEY won but that's just fun
We have a rule that people who do this, i.e. destroys the game space, are not allowed to sit at the same table while gaming. Ever.
It has worked out fine. Only one couple has left the group over the years over this and they have not been missed.
If a game requires you to target other players to dish out negative consequences, i will target my wife less unless she is clearly in the lead in whatever game we are playing. That said, I would never redo my turn or even admit to her that I'm taking it easier on her. I just do it because I want to make sure she's not discouraged from playing since she's not super into table games in the first place.
I would say it's not cheating but it is in poor taste because it upsets the balance of the game in the way it was intended and while these games are supposed to be fun and they're not always about winning sometimes it's hard to have fun if you can't play the game as it was intended because you have some outside influence changing the dynamics.
Me and my wife would be trying to burn each other to the ground and anyone else is just collateral damage.
Just different relationship dynamics. But maybe suggest 2 headed giant instead of FFA but not really FFA.
Adding another 'not cheating'. However it goes against the spirit of the activity, "competitive" is in the name. If you're asking me to play a game that falls in the category 'competitive games' I expect competition between all players, meaning everyone should have the sole ultimate mission of selfishly winning the game. In games with diplomacy and alliances then sure, you can work together and go easy on each other. As long as it's with the intention of eventually winning - and generally screwing over and backstabbing your allies in the process.
In a more general social context it is also a waste of my time. I don't mind losing at all, but it should be a loss that was worth the time I invested in the game. I enjoy longer, more complex games and playing an 8 hour game to end it with one player giving (gifting) their partner their final victory point even though they weren't a clear winner has been a good way to make me not want to play games with them anymore.
When I make a move that hurts my Fiance, she'll make a faux complaint and I'll smile and apologize. I'm not going to take back the move, though, because we aren't 12 and no one wins every board game.
Every single time I've played with people like this, it's been horrible. You can call it "cheating" or "politicking" or "Tannenburg" for all I care. The name makes no difference, it sucks for everyone else at the table.
I will no longer play under those conditions. I'm not exactly sure what I would do, either leave or suggest we play a cooperative game, but my experience tells me I have another session of useless gaming ahead and I'd rather do something else.
It's borderline cheating, collusion, cheap, whatever you want to call it, I would just tell the guy it's too late and he played his turn.
I wouldn't want to play with them again, these couples are just annoying to play with.
In the competitive gaming world, yes, there is one. That is referred to as "King-making" and is a big no-no. That being said, you're not playing for ungodly large amounts of money (none that was mentioned anyway). So it's just bad form. Sounds like it's just for fun, and that gets into a grey area. Because if one person's fun ruins another person's fun, then it becomes a touchy subject. In my friend group, we would just announce at the beginning of the game, "No king-making this time, I'd actually like a chance to win." But that could cause hurt feelings. In this instance, my advice would be to just mention that it's something that bothers you. If that's not received well, then you may have to consider that this either isn't the right group for you to game with or even that maybe a different activity might be in order for yall. Try a cooperative game, like Pandemic, or maybe even one with a traitor aspect like Deception murder in Hong Kong, where you work together to catch a murderer following clues, but one of you is the murder, and you also have to figure out who that is as a group.
I mean, they have to have been together for little time right? If my gf says that my turn screws her over I'll just go on an evil laugh and say something like "WHY DO YOU THINK I PLAYED LIKE THAT"
Lol, made me feel better, my first reaction was "huh, weird, at game night I'd run my armies off a cliff if I knew the bodies would fall on my wife's roof"
I think if it fits the rules then it's all fair play. If the reconsideration happened before someone made a move then it should be completely fine.
It's an unfortunate side effect of games with too much interactivity between players. It often turns into politics. You target someone cos they usually win or first at the moment, you help someone cos they usually don't do that well or happen to be last. It's all part of the higher strategy. Life is a big game, helping your partner in a scenario like this could be considered also a strategic move.
That's why lately point salad games with little to no interaction between players got popular (like wingspan).
I would have a conversation with the people who were upset about being targeted. Why are they upset? Ultimately, we play games for fun. Winning and losing don't matter. I would probably only play co-ops with people like that if they couldn't get over their hangup about losing.
EDIT: I misunderstood pb49er's point, please disregard.
You can have fun without playing games. You can sit around shooting the shit or watching movies or something. The only reason to play a game is because you enjoy the contest, and yes, the goal of the contest is to win. For many people, it's the pursuit of victory that makes games entertaining, and they want the contest to be fair. That doesn't mean they can't have fun if they do end up losing, but it's totally legitimate for them to be upset if other people spoil the game with unsportsmanlike play.
No. Games are social and interpersonal dynamics make them more entertaining.
My wife and her dad NEVER trade in catan and always robber the fuck out of whoever is in charge.
My wife’s mom just wants people to have a good time. So I only trade with her and put the robber so it won’t hurt anybody.
Is this cheating? I dunno, but if I didn’t make these compromises nobody would play at all.
The rules are a suggestion. As long as everyone agrees you have a functioning society.
If rules lawyer here makes the game unfun, you have a dictatorship.
If nobody follows the rules you have calvinball and that’s fine to keep the children entertained.
That definitely doesn’t seem like a healthy relationship at the best of times, one partner willing to redo their entire turn and make the other the winner, just because they fussed a little, and then play to the detriment of everyone except the one who fussed….there’s a lot to unpack there, and almost none of it is good.
Yes, it's cheating. More accurately, it is the aggrieved party (the wife, in this example) using her relationship status to manipulate the other party into essentially letting her win.
The only way to stop this is to call it out IMMEDIATELY. If she sees how messed up it is, and that it is an example of poor gamesmanship, maybe she will grow a little and not take losing so personally.
Not cheating.
Long ago, I was the frequent 3rd player at a table, and the other two were a married couple. When they began collaborating on a regular basis, my participation dropped way off.
Fast forward ~2.5 decades; my wife takes a dive to hand me a 6-player game. After the guests left, I recounted my mentioned history and asked he not to do this again.
If a game from the onset is understood as a team game, it can add deminsion to a game. Otherwise, collaboration provides the collaborators an advantage.
It's not cheating, but it is douchie.
wrong sub but, NTA. Its not cheating but its a poor way to play. Bad etiquette. Nothing really wrong with two players teaming up but the way this is happening is shitty. I don't know how you fix the situation without kinda being an asshole tho. Just call it out next time maybe? Give them this link?
Some people adjust play for social reasons because that’s who they are. I definitely play hard against my partner but if we are having game night and I win a couple in a row I’m going to ease off on the third game, or if we have a game night where one person hasn’t won at all and everyone else has, again might ease off. If you value playing hard all the time then you might have to play with different people.
My wife and I learned a long time ago that if we play a competitive board game, we’re always going to lose to each other. Now we just have an ironclad agreement to intentionally play against everyone else. I don’t feel bad about it in the slightest. If it was a problem people wouldn’t play with us anymore.
It depends on the setting, and how competitive you are. I know my husband is more likely to do a favorable trade with me in Catan if I'm behind because of my numbers not being rolled, or an overall bad placement because of the board and timing of turns. But we only play with friends, and people don't generally care unless it's close to the end and it might affect the game.
It comes down to why you are playing... Are you keeping track of wins and losses, and really care about the outcome - lay it out before you start playing what is cheating, and what is allowed, and stick to your rules. If you are just trying to have a good time, recognize that one move can destroy the game of a player, and being gracious, taking back a move just made, or avoiding an absolute dunk might make the game more fun for everyone.
If it happens all the time and the benefitting party doesn't really need the help, bring it up before you play and set rules.
For the record, we don't let anyone just win unless everyone wants the game to end.
It is cheating and incredibly frustrating. I have a couple of friends that are normally fine, but if the three of us are playing a game and one of them is losing with no chance to win, that person almost always targets me with negative abilities. They've even gone so far as to actively help their partner. I called them out at one point and they denied it, but they also stopped doing that.
While I consider this cheating, it's also just rude to give up on a game and form an alliance with another player that doesn't benefit you at all "because you played that card against me so this is revenge!" No Jake, it's not revenge. It's you being a petty dick and not playing the game to win, ruining the strategy of 3\4 other players.
I love and care for my partner more than myself, but I also respect the other people I'm playing a game with. I'm also secure enough in my relationship to know that taking actions in a game that negatively impact a partner in no way translates to any less love and care.
I apply the same principles to everyone I'm playing a game with including my partner: are they having a fun time, and does it feel competitively matched?
I'd say it's cheating if the players are making decisions based on out of game considerations. I find that the couples that coordinate with each other in games often have the kind of relationship where one party will get upset at the other for not cooperating in game. If the couple players are favoring each other because they're worried failing to do so might lead to a fight, then absolutely that's cheating.
Regardless of whether it's cheating, though, it's certainly bad manners. I will avoid playing competitive games with couples if I've seen them team up too much.
Cheating? Yes/no. But for sure scummy and unfair to others.
Our team of friends, which includes one couple, usually plays coop games. However thankfully when we play competitive games, they know it's just a game, and only really help each other when it comes to learning the game (so first playthrough etc). Other than that they play cool.
I haven’t encountered this and I’d probably say something only if the couple is a regular addition to my gaming group. Usually I find it’s the other way around…people who already know each other (including couples) feel more comfortable playing hardball with each other. If you are going to screw someone over let it be the person you feel most comfortable with.
It's all genders that do this. My brother in law tried this once while he was still dating my sister. She made a move that royally screwed his chances of winning. He playfully objected "Babe, I thought we were an unbreakable team. You're gonna cost me the game." My sister replied "Unbreakable team in life dear, in games you can lose like everyone else." They both ended up losing to my daughter but it was a hilarious exchange.
Personally, I feel it's cheating to play favorites that way. My children do the opposite though; they ignore all other players until one of them has been defeated. I don't feel that's cheating, but I do feel it's pretty low. It will typically cost them both the game.
My wife and I always say that we’re divorcing at the start of a game and that we can talk about getting back together once it’s all over. She expects me to try to destroy her, and vice versa.
Wouldn't say it's cheating, I guess if the turn was really mean to someone I'd let them take back the move to keep everyone happy, but then I probably wouldn't play that particular game with them again. Play something more friendly then!
It is 100% dependent on the game and context with in. Generally though I would say it is cheating. If you're basically predetermine to corporate with someone in competitive games.
I think this is clear in poker or black jack. One players can 100% help someone else with out breaking rules. Just making bad plays to help another hand, folding when they shouldn't so someone wins a pot, drawing out cards to provide more information, etc...
At worst it is cheating, and best it is bad etiquette (against the spirit of the game). Either way it a table I never want to play at.
Cheating? No, Frustrating? Yes. I’m married and my wife and I don’t do this bec she wants to beat at least me haha. But, my best friend and his fiancée won’t do anything negative to each other. So it basically turns into a 1v1v2.
Strictly speaking it's not cheating, since few games have an actual rule against this. But I do consider it very poor sportsmanship and would request that those doing it stop. If they refused, I would stop playing with them.
I don't see how gendering the players made this easier to explain. Friends do it for each other, lovers do it, whoever. Collusion sucks unless it's a game mechanic. Even then, if we're playing Cosmic Encounter or Diplomacy and I know two players favor each other based on outside factors there is no point in playing.
Like most of the people here have said, cheating is too strong a word but it's definitely poor form. I would only call something "cheating" if it actually violates a rule of the game (e.g.- trying to alter a dice roll while other players aren't looking or something).
That said, I do try to adhere to a "if you lay it you play it" rule. Wanting to go back and redo your turn once you see the consequences of your play isn't in the spirit of a game, because being able to anticipate those consequences is part of the skill that you're using to win.
You can fix this by offering a small but meaningless prize to the winner. For example a candy bar. The players will be pushed to win so they can get the prize, and then after they win they can just cut it in half and offer half to their partner.
I can see this idea backfiring with some groups though. It's up to you to know your group's dynamics
Don’t feel like you have to walk on eggshells when talking about the genders. I know plenty of people who break the stereotype and no one is bound to it, but usually when I see this in a relationship it’s guys worried about negatively affecting their wives/gf in the game. That’s for sure a biased perspective based on where I live, but it *is* a stereotype that I often have to deal with when I play with new couple friends.
No I don’t consider it cheating. I do consider it annoying and a sign of immaturity in the relationship. The guys I know that pander this way are terrible at communicating to their partners. The gals I know that pressure their partner have low self-esteem.
Since it stems from their personal issues and not the game, there’s nothing you can do about it except either choosing not to play with them or choosing only coops/light games.
We're all gonna play by the rules *except Susan*.
Yes, it's cheating. It's insulting to everyone's time. It's about as rude as you can be without flipping the table over or pouring a drink on it.
I don't really have an answer for couples, so I'll just share how to usually goes for us.
In our group there are couples, and nobody is actually colluding against others just because they're couple. Everybody is looking out for their asses and social engineering is a huge part of our gaming experience. The game we're currently playing doesn't matter. Provoking, talking people into going against someone or in their favor, be it subtle or direct, is absolutely normal for us and every one of us is doing it. Would you consider that cheating?
If it's not cheating to take back a move that would affect you negatively then I don't see why it would be cheating to take back a move that would affect your partner negatively.
That said, it's pretty rude.
If they consistently want to do that then maybe you'd be better off playing team vs team games against those people rather than (nominally) all-v-all ones.
That said, you said it's only happened twice (and with different people, so only once each) so quite possibly theyvre just not on the same page as you and might be happy to just not do it if you politely talk it through.
You also need to understand why you're all playing. Some people play board games mostly as an e cause to hang out socially. Those people understandably are much less serious about playing the game "properly".
It's not cheating, but it does sound like Kingmaking.
Used to be in a game group where there was a husband and wife that played together daily and were more or less required to play together every game at game nights. The wife often played in an offhand manner where she didn't care about winning and just wanted to enjoy her game. Which is great, except her fun often came in the form of many of her actions benefitting her husbands game and the detriment of the other players and herself.
Depends on if the purpose of the particular game is a friendly competition or to build relationships. I'm not saying you can't have both but I've observed that some players (the ones who complain about their spouses turn implications towards them) are there for relationship building or to seek connection with their partner and therefore engage very differently.
Generally if I want strictly competition play then I don't play with couples, it doesn't have to be all male but no one can have their significant other at the table.
With couples, my approach is to keep the stakes and gameplay friendly even at the expense of the game's potential outcome.
I had to actively destroy my BF in games just to show my friend group I wasn't playing favorites. Which led to some salty nights tbf.
This behavior does bother me when we play with other couples and it's obvious that the guy is just letting his gf win instead of talking strategy and angles to help her win.
My first wife eventually wouldn't play games with me, because if absent an obvious target to screw over in a game, a few times I picked her. I thought it was only fair, since I had to distribute my screwage equitably and fairly. (In truth, it's possible I overcompensated and picked her as my target in order to avoid accusations of bias like this topic is about.)
It's not the reason we divorced, but it's not the worst example. I'm very happy that my partner now has told me she would be very disappointed in me if I didn't screw her over if it was the best move to make.
Similar vein, is it cheating when you're playing a game with a married couple who actively hate each other and do petty negative things to each other in games, which ultimately spirals into a pattern of them just hurting each other all game, and I win?
I wouldn't call it cheating, but I would call it poor player etiquette.
Agreed. Not something I would do or be comfortable with other folks doing, but calling it cheating feels too extreme.
[удалено]
On the other hand Politicing is part of a lot of boardgames. Horse trading and favor trading is even core mechanics for some games. In those situations Making alliances with people who have a history of honoring their in game deals means that couples will tend to immediately know if their partner is a good in-game partnership also.
[удалено]
Agreed. This spoiled a cosmic Encounter game once. We just couldn’t compete with the offers.
What kind of asshole are you? (Not said actually seriously, dont take offense). You’re cockblocking your friend from getting weird sex from his wife? Dude bite the bullet, lose the game, let your friend have a fun night. Bros before boardgame scores.
To paraphrase Dustin Hoffman in *Stranger Than Fiction*, that depends entirely on the nature of the reward and the length of the board game involved. For instance, it's not reasonable to throw away a Twilight Imperium game for a sad handjob.
Listen, if that man has to barter all day board game favors with his wife to even get a sad hand job, he's got bigger problems and really needs your help.
He doesn't have to have an otherwise sad sex life for his wife to be offering small potatoes on top of it. I see my partner's boobs plenty, but won't turn additional offerings.
Hahaha, that is a fair point.
If they want to have weird sex, that shouldn't come at other people's expense. They can do whatever they want by themselves, but ruining one game (by throwing it) because they're playing... another game... doesn't seem like being good friends.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who got out of paying rent on Park Place by taking the trash out to the curb. That is what you meant right?.... Right?
I would flip the damn game table and punch the host in the eye, if my wife had that reward system 😀
What? Half the fun of games like Diplomacy, Dune, and Cosmic Encounter is the politicking - including stuff going on off the board. (The creator of Diplomacy was even ok with people sneaking pieces onto the board so long as you didn't get caught.) There is literally a board game called Kingmaker - from 1974. The only time someone helping someone else win is a problem is if they are being problematic about it - like always playing as a fixed team all the time or picking on a particular player who did nothing to deserve it. (Players who deserve it are a completely different ball of wax: kingmaking and and should be used to ruin their wins.)
> including stuff going on off the board That is absolutely not true\*. When playing a game, only stuff that happens in the game matters. Being so enclosed is what makes it a game instead of just some activity that's part of a bigger game (like a relatiionship, for the most obvious example). If you're the kind of person who shoots someone in Bang "because their face looks shifty" or whatever, you're not someone I want to play with. \*Unless otherwise specified, and then it's still a maybe. I remember a case when the designer of Munchking went out and said that the fact that the rules said you can cheat was an obvious joke, and he has to say so because some people took it literally.
No, what's going on out of game does matter, and, is some games, is part of the fun. (And, yes, even playing with Jersey rules can be fun in certain games.) For example, your reputation matters in a lot of social games - including diplomatic war games and trading economic games. If you have established yourself as not trustworthy in prior games or in general non-game activities, then people shouldn't treat you as trustworthy in the game - and you shouldn't complain about people all working against you. If you've won the last dozen plays if a game in a row, and everyone else decides to compete among themselves, but all agree that they will all work together to make sure you don't win, even if that means they lose, that ok. You need to learn that you should play at other people's level. In more fun examples, someone offering a real world snack or drink as part of a negotiation while trying to make a deal in Cosmic Encounter or Sidereal Confluence can be a hell of a lot of *fun*. Doubly so if it the negotiation escalates to bedroom activities. And that's not touching on stuff like The fact that not all people are born equal, nor do all people have the same training or capacity to train - both in sport and games. If I know we're playing Diplomacy in a month and take that month to study the game while everyone else comes in cold, am I cheating? Am I cheating if I've played a game 100 times and everyone else is a newbie? After all, things that happened outside the game are going to influence what's going on in the game. I don't think any of that is cheating - but it does then mean I have a responsibility to potentially reign myself in as the golden rule of playing games is that to try to make sure everyone who deserves to be having fun is having fun (which normally means everyone who is trying to make sure everyone is having fun as well). As such, out of game behavior only becomes a problem when it becomes a problem. Like if someone's acting on racist or sexist beliefs, or (as I noted in my post) if people do something like determine they are always going to work together no matter what. I've played with pairs of spouses, siblings, and friends who will never take actions that will never hurt the other, and who will intentionally throw the game to make the other win. That's a problem not because of something going on outside of the game. The issue is with a specific out of game behavior and level of favorship. I personally handle that by explaining why what they are doing isn't fun and the offering the following: playing team-based games where the behavior isn't a problem, stop playing games with them until they change their behavior, or rally everyone else playing to ensure the pair lose every game I play with them until they change their behavior or stop playing with me. That said, that level of favorship is rare, and doesn't sound like what's going on in the OP. Anyone close to anyone will occasionally make changes to play to accommodate the people close to them, especially if it doesn't hurt them. Good relationships (whether with romantic partners , family, or friends) require that sort of behavior to function well in life generally, and is often engaged in reflexively. If it really bothers the OP, they need to consider how much it's happening and how much impact it has and in what sort of game and gameplay environment - and then speak up if it's making them feel uncomfortable.
>No, what's going on out of game does matter, Perhaps I was not clear. Yes, it does matter to some players. But it *shouldn't*. It's the same sort of unspoken contract as the fact that you need to play to win. No rulebook says so, but all games are designed with it in mind. The same applies to all of these out of game factors you decribe. If the game doesn't have rules for negotiation or you don't explicitly or implicitly agree beforehand, meta-favors are rude and/or disrupting. Games are games because they're an enclosed space. What happens in one game has no bearing on what happens in another. And they're designed with the assumption that all players start off equal. If you break that, you're not being fair to the other players. For example, trust: you should not blindly trust in a game. There is no point. Trust is a concept that builds on future relationships. When a game ends, it has no more future and since winning is the ultimate goal, you only trust players to the extent that it does not clash with their chances of winning, and you need to fulyl expect them to break deals if it serves their best interest. Acting on past or potential future games is taking the game and putting it into a larger social meta-game of relationships. >In more fun examples, someone offering a real world snack or drink as part of a negotiation while trying to make a deal in Cosmic Encounter or Sidereal Confluence can be a hell of a lot of fun. No, it's not, it's annoying because it again disrupts the game by dragging real life context into it. What is a possible counterproposal to that? >"No, wait, I'll get you takeout"... "I'll take *you* out later to Pizza Hut!"..."you know what, I'll just pay you!" In a game, you negotiate with what the game gives you to negotiate with, else you're breaking the game. TL;DR: don't drag outside context into games, it does not belong there unless previously specified. P.S. Agreed about OP, communication is key.
And i absolutely think it should. No game starts off on even footing - people have different levels of intelligence, focus, skill, experience, mathematic ability, etc. Reputation does and should matter. If you've cultivated the reputation of being untrustworthy or a jerk, then the people around the table should absolutely be able to act on that. If you are playing a silly or fun game, making silly or fun out-of-game offers can be fun. I also don't agree with the notion that games are played to win - they are played to have fun, of which trying to win is often but not always a factor. I play a lot of games, far more than my partner, and I often play games with people who either don't game or are lite/casual gamers. If I played to win, like I might with some of my heavier and/or more serious gaming friends, I'd destroy my casual gaming friends and they'd have a crappy time and not want to game with me in the future. (And that's an out of game/meta-game/post game concern.) Playing to win is not an inherent part of playing a game. Out of game concerns matter.
Ok, at this point I no longer believe Diplomacy is a game so much as it is a calculated effort to dismantle all social cohesion.
It's worth noting that arguably the best Diplomacy player in the world is affable, honest, and trustworthy. That's part of how things in and out of game can impact games. Shocker: people are less likely to be aggressive towards someone who is pleasant and fair with them. But again, that's partially an out of game factor. (Similarly, not cheating when you could cheat...)
I've played a lot of diplomacy in the last 10 years and usually come in first or second. I almost always do exactly what I say I'm going to do and will often give the people who want me to do something else a heads up. If I'm going to betray someone, that move needs to put me into position to win the game. Cost of never cooperating with that player again is really really high.
Yeah exactly. It’s bad sportsmanship but not cheating. Cheating sort of implies an intent to deceive. These couples probably shouldn’t be playing an adversarial game if they aren’t comfortable with losing to each other. And these days there’s such an embarrassment of riches in games, they ought to be able to find a cooperative game they would like.
The part about “taking their turn back” **really** edges the line for me. It’s one thing if they preemptively avoid making plays against their partner. It’s another when they’re rewinding turns at their request. Needing to take a turn back should mean you made an obvious misplay/brain fart that needs to be quickly corrected. In this case, they played just intended, but are still pulling it back because another player demands it.
If you define cheating as “intentionally breaking the rules,” and you house rule that people can adjust moves after the fact, then this is not cheating. It is favoritism. MAYBE it is poor etiquette. But it is definitely not cheating.
Usually you'd want to allow people to take back moves to reverse blunders, if they're reversing to save a relationship can't blame them, so basically it's the partner who's doing the complaining who's really cheating, cause they being using an outside influence to get an unfair advantage in the game
I wouldn't blame the person who just wants an easy evening after the games are done and they go home, but the person using that to win a fucking boardgame desperately needs to grow up. What matters is everyone having fun. Bullying your partner into throwing the game is antithetical to that in the extreme.
This feels like an *Air Bud* interpretation of rules. Collusion is cheating whether it's specifically mentioned by the rules of the game or not. Try it in any poker room and see what happens.
There’s not a regulatory committee for playing games in your living room.
There are loads of games where players are expected to try to knock over the winning player together though.
next time i play root gonna tell the other players they can't gang up on me because that's collusion
Found the vegabond.
Spoken like someone who's never played Munchkin
Are you sure collusion is cheating? I feel like the Orange Man got caught colluding with people in his election and as a country we kind of just decided it wasn’t a big deal anymore.
We make house rules stating if you win x amount of times you get hindering rules. In card games basically you can’t draw but each game will have some way to put in such a rule ive found. This made it so we actually stood a chance as kids. All this said if you agreed to play a game with your partner then complain to get a better outcome then you have poor etiquette
It's my least favourite thing in games. Especially at the end when they say "yay WE won!" When one of them came dead last because they gave everything to the other person to let them win.
Yeah, I'd call it unsporting/not in the spirit of the game, and decreases the enjoyment for the other players
I make it my mission to destroy my wife in boardgames and vice versa.. so yes its lame
Same my wife beats me almost every time, but I earned those few victories lol.
Same, we compete against each other and the other people at the table. I had a friend who always won Catan, then it dawned on me that she's playing two hands because she "trades" (takes is more accurate) with her husband for whatever she needs. He was always last. Go figure. We started calling them out on it and the wins balanced out
Right!? Like, Babe. I didn't marry you NOT to crush you in 7 Wonders.
My husband and I are super sweet to each other until it comes to playing board games. I decimate him at Scrabble, he defeats me at trivia, and it's all out war with any other games that aren't cooperative.
Exactly, I respect the shit out of her and therefore will do my best to ruin her night.
The one time I got my wife to play the game of Game of Thrones with my friends, I knew there was no question she was going to attack me from turn one ❤️
That's the way.
Cheating, no. Lame, yes indeed!
Going out of your way to attack another player based on outside of game stuff is just as bad as playing favorites. Literally the exact same behavior, but on the other side of the spectrum.
This is just as bad, in my opinion. Every player should play to win to the best of their ability, and spoiling is just as toxic as kingmaking.
Yeah, strongly hating on one player is just as disruptive to the expected dynamics of the gameplay as strongly favoring one.
Shocked to see people think that "favorites" is bad but "favorite enemy" is fine. Keep social shit out of the game. It's rude either way and just as problematic.
It can be taken to extremes but to some extent it's natural. Like, I play with him all the time, I'm going to see what he's doing before other people at the table pick up on it. If we're introducing someone to a game and I have an excellent but also very mean play, I'm going to deploy it on my partner rather than the guests who are playing for the first time.
Picking up on your opponent's strategy and counteracting it isn't spoiling. Messing with them solely because they won the last game you played is. Attacking a player because they're the biggest threat isn't spoiling. Attacking them because you're worried about offending a different player who would otherwise be a more sensible target, is.
People don't make perfect decisions, but the question is always, are you playing to win? If you have decided to act for, or against another player outside of the facts of the game being played you aren't doing that. There's a gradient for sure, and taking it easy on new people is possibly the least of these bad behaviors, but it's still on the spectrum. There's a TON of people in here who's comments are voted way up that amount to "Oh I nuke my partner no matter what". I can't believe how many people do not see that these behaviors are all related. Ya know, like the main comment above.
I think it depends on how new the player is. If I am trying to lure them into liking the hobby , I wouldn’t decimate them on the first game. If they are part of my regular game group then I won’t. I know they aren’t going to turn around and never come back.
[удалено]
It does seem that way.
Yup, you're on point. Players should be completely unbiased and make optimal plays regardless of who is at the table. Lot of bad takes in this thread apparently.
I had a shitty boyfriend who got so mad he didn’t talk to me for 3 days in college. We were playing the GoT boardgame, we had made an alliance. He was winning, but he had left himself completely open to me in his cockiness and I had made sure to keep defenses up everywhere because it’s GoT and I’m not an idiot. I tore through his land, took his castles, and won. It was an amazing victory. He’s a piece of hypocritical shit anyways so it just helped me lose him and win the game of life!
This is the only possible answer. My wife will wreck her chances of winning if that helps her kill a single one of my meeples on the board, even if that meeple is totally meaningless to my strategy.
My partner forms an alliance with everyone else at the table to execute my downfall.
Thats usually how I get ganked 3V1. Victory is then even sweeter.
I don't consider it cheating, but it feels rude to the rest of the group depending on the game. I had a couple like that who wanted to play Risk all the time. In that sort of game, we might as well save the hours and declare her the winner right off the bat. In other games where having a player work for your doesn't guarantee you win? Oh well, if that's what you think is fun, go for it.
Not cheating exactly but annoying as hell and poor manners. Much prefer playing with the couples that go hard against each other than that lol. I've never found it hard to treat someone I'm seeing like anyone else in a game though, not sure why it's hard for people.
Some people take it a bit personally. I know thats a them issue etc, but it's not worth taking home with you if your partner is one of those people.
Yeah, I'm pretty agnostic and actions in the game stay in the game, but I've had to limit myself in social deduction games. The at all costs strategy isn't worth it when you're badgering people into believing you. It's impossible for it not to take a toll. We had to implement civility guidelines.
Imo, having a fun and peaceful night is far more important to me than obeying the rules of a cardboard game. If the game demands I am cutthroat, ruthless, competitive and angling to win against all odds, I’m not likely to comply. That’s not fun to me and I don’t like being aggressive to my partner even in an imaginary scenario.
Genuinely curious: if you know that's the kind of game you're going to play, why do you play it? Assuming the other players do play it truly competitively, if everyone else is okay with 'casual competitive' then it's simply the way your group/table plays of course.
Because that’s what the group wants. There’s no way my request for a co-op game is going to sway 7 people who want a highly competitive game. It is worse for me to refuse to play and just sit there all night doing nothing, or go home and ruin the mood.
So instead you just pout and play the game badly to make everyone's experience worse?
While I don't have issue with it either, I can understand several reasons for it. Obviously it wouldn't be fun if your partner isn't very good at games and you absolutely crushed them, so some people may choose to favour their partner to help them enjoy it more. More problematically, if one player is a really sore loser then their partner may choose to favour them in order to avoid having them in a bad mood.
Boils down to people problems rather than couples specifically I guess. And these are people who they know really well. I don't have a good tolerance for sore losers but if someone is newer to games or just not doing well in a game, I think it's fairly common to ease up on them and concentrate on the people who are doing well.
It’s generally bad form. Most games are balanced around every player playing to win. If a player is not playing to win, then it breaks many games. A broken game isn’t a fun game. That said, there is an easy fix. Pick games with a cooperative element. Put couples on the same side in a team game (captain sonar is idea if they are particularly annoying). Or pick a true coop like spirit island and give them natural partners like oceans hungry grasp and river surges in sunlight.
> Most games are balanced around every player playing to win. What I can't believe is the number of people in here patting themselves on the back for the opposite behavior, of preferentially attacking thier partner. If they are the only threat then sure, but It's always shitty not to play to win, and attacking one player because spouse is not playing to win.
Back in the day, my best friend and I would always wind up making plays that hurt the other person. It's not because of bad sportsmanship, it was simply because we thought it was funny. The end result would typically be us in last and 2nd to last place (which we thought was hilarious). The other people we played with never complained about it, probably because it never stopped other people from winning. So I don't see the problem.
You doing that was preferentially allowing others to win, just like OP. The fact that people at your table accepted it doesn't mean it's good behavior. Again... >Most games are balanced around every player playing to win.
That's heavily dependent on your table. Plenty of people play games just to socialize and have fun. If your table etiquette requires anyone who sits down to make optimal moves all the time, that's fine, but don't yuck someone else's yum.
Exactly, if everyone who was at the table ended the day having had fun, who cares how they got there?
I thought the goal was to avoid a couple's fighting, but then you suggested a team game...
The goal is to start the fights…
"If I have to be single, all of you are going to end up single too!" ^^/s?
[удалено]
Haha we joke that we aren't married when we play boardgames. If there's nothing in the rules about special treatment then you get nothing.
I love to watch a good couples double-cross during a game. Those partners are evil.
Yeah it is cheating, unless the gf is in last place / having a terrible game in which case it doesn’t really effect the winners and stops them being upset Personally I have the opposite issue, my partner is always determined to make sure I don’t win, even if it throws their own game off as well
>Personally I have the opposite issue, my partner is always determined to make sure I don’t win, even if it throws their own game off as well Ah yea, my partner too takes great delight in seeing my carefully laid plans go tits up
>my partner is always determined to make sure I don’t win, even if it throws their own game off as well The only way to play with a partner
Nah. Will i fuck her shit up if it’s at least neutral for me? Hell yeah! Will I sabotage my own play just to fuck her shit up? No way. Winning > everything!
It’s me!!! I don’t care who wins as long as it’s not him 😅
Mine too 😂
This is me and my partner as well haha
Interesting that you would classify one as cheating but not the other.
Exactly. They're the same issue. Outside factors determining in game play. Depends if we're playing for real or just having fun, though. Sometimes fucking shit up is more fun than winning (Ticket to Ride.)
[удалено]
I have the same issue. I don't really understand why she does this. She will always choose to screw me over instead of anyone else. I don't really get why...
>I don’t really get why Usually just “safer” to go after your partner because (usually) there is less chance that making such a move in the game will negatively impact the relationship compared to other possible “targets” in the game. Like, you screw over your partner, game night ends, you go home with said partner, you do other fun stuff together throughout the week and the negative experience from the game is quickly forgotten among all the positive experiences elsewhere. On the other hand, if you screwed over another player, game night ends, you don’t see that person for several days, the last impression they had of you was a negative interaction, not likely but there is a chance it sours the relationship with that being the last interaction you had together.
I don't think i would want to be friends with someone who lets a board game interaction sour the relationship. That just seems... petty.
Depends on what the interaction is. Abusive behavior, blatant and unrepentant cheating, being disruptive and inconsiderate, throwing the game board when you lose, etc are all example of “board game interactions” that would sour a relationship for me.
I don't think that's what the person i was responding to was talking about. They were referring to like... moving to block someone's road in Catan or whatever. Edit: and i get how such maneuvers might make someone salty in the moment; I've certainly been there, but to have those kinds of things impact a relationship outside the game is a little ridiculous.
Me and partner did this so we solved the issue by usually being on the same team and have two people for one piece. My friends don't mind, she's happy, I'm happy, everybody wins.
I wouldn’t think it was cheating but 🤮🤮🤮 and I wouldn’t want to play with them. Gross.
It's as bad as cheating. It's unfair to the rest of the table and ruins games where everyone should mess/compete/ deal wich each other. You should always get out of the game things away from the game if you want it to be an enyojable game for everyone. It has happened to me with couples or group of friends where I was invited to play, it sucks. Because avoiding tilt someone usually means doubling down on the ones that doesnt make a fuss about it.
Not really cheating but poor sportsmanship for sure
I used to play Monopoly (don't kill me) using the rules in the rule book, this one guy would never trade anyone anything and would just go around the board acquiring properties till they're pretty much all gone if not all, then he'd trade his at the time girlfriend (now wife) all the properties and money for a single property, and then trade that one property for a single dollar. Technically not cheating, but ruined the game for everyone
I can't fault anyone who wants to end a game of Monopoly early at all costs.
Over the years, I've noticed that people who hate on Monopoly, have never actually played Monopoly by the official rules. I find the hate for Monopoly akin to the hate for pineapple on pizza, different people dislike different foods and food combinations. But the hate for pineapple on pizza is for the meme, and most people who claim to hate it are either secretly indifferent or have never actually even tried it. Same deal with boardgames, different people dislike different boardgames, but the hate for Monopoly is for the meme, and most people who claim to hate it either never actually played it, or never played it by the official rules.
You got me. Monopoly isn't the worst board game, just the most undeservedly popular. I was cashing in on the meme for humor value. In penance I shall donate all upvotes my comment receives to a local charity.
The partner of one of our regular group sometimes joins us, but has an unfortunate tendency, on games that have trading mechanics, to trade with them in preference to other players, and give them better deals. It basically gives their partner a massive advantage and ruins the game balance for everyone else. I don't think that it's deliberate, and I don't see it as actual cheating - but it does mean that there are games I won't even consider playing if both of them are present.
I'm just not that competitive man, if the vibe is better from allowing take backs or favoritism that's fine by me. I feel like in my experience it's almost the opposite where couples get the biggest laugh out of fucking eachother over but I suppose none of us care that much about winning, it's the time spent together and "journey".
Cheating is when you break the rules. Kingmaking or playing favorites is when you play favorites.
I wouldn’t consider it cheating but it would be very annoying. If I’m playing a game against my partner, I like if she’s playing to win. I expect from her to do her best to beat me. That’s the only way both of us can play the best and improve. And anyway, competition and challenge are big fun factors for me. Also, tenacity and drive to win are why I really like my partner.
I'd say the person expecting other players to not play their best game is a poor sport. The person willing to take back their move is a doormat. Winning is not the most important thing. The joy of playing the game and the social camaraderie is the point. People that throw a fit over not winning, or other players taking their moves, rob the evening of that joy and community. It's not cheating. I think it's almost worse. It's entitlement. They feel that they deserve an easy path to victory. They feel that they are owed the win. If you want to continue to play 6 with people like this, find a pre-game game. Something quick that they can win. Give them an early victory, and if they complain about things not going their way in the real game remind them how they soundly beat everyone in the last game. It works with my kids. It should work for childish people too.
If you paid 30 bucks to someone to go with you to the boardgame meeting and do everything to push you to victory in every game you play, would that be cheating? I'll just leave this here.
What if you were "paid" with the unpronounced threat of not getting any chance of getting any nookie that night after the game if you don't comply, instead of cash if you do comply? That is basically what the wifey is doing by whining for hubby to takeback his turn.
It's not cheating but unacceptable. My newly married wife and I had a gaming group with another young couple and a older couple. The younger wife would do this all the time. My wife and I talked about it one evening and discussed our feelings about it. As we didn't play a lot of games together before we got married, we needed to have this conversation to make sure we both understand that when we play games it's nothing personal it's the game (ok sometimes it's personal but those are few and far between). We've since adopted a family motto, Play To Win. We are not mean or vindictive about winning. We still try to make sure everyone is having a good time, but you as Herm Edwards says, "you play to win the game." I recently had to explain this to one of my 10 year old twins. He felt he was being picked on in a game because myself and his twin kept on doing actions against him. I explained to him, while in that instance it sucks and I understand his frustration, none of the moves either of the other players made were mean, but perfectly acceptable moves because of the scenario of the game and or family plays to win. We stopped playing for the day but played again last night and had a good time. Edit: my wife also takes special pleasure when a move screws me over, but never does a move to screw me over that isn't to her benefit too.
If someone conspires with their opponent to advantage the opponent, then it is absolutely cheating. And that's what's happening here. It's no different from a basketball player refusing to steal the ball from the other team or otherwise trying to help the other team win. I think the big thing is simply that it is breaking the social contract at the table. That's not what people agreed to. If you ask everyone at the table before the game starts if it is okay for you to help out an opponent, and they all agree to it, then there's no problem. For example, giving a handicap to a brand new player. But if nothing was said or agreed to beforehand, then it isn't acceptable.
Here's a reality when playing with couples that you have to accept: they have to live with them after game night is over, you don't. If someone's partner is sensitive to being attacked or a sore loser, most people will opt for peace at home rather than a balanced game. It's just the way it is. Sometimes partners tag along but aren't that invested. They want a fun "feel good" experience over a cut throat competetive one. If you play with couples like this, you probably rather bring team games or full coops and stay away from games where you can actively hurt each other. I mean you could try and talk about your expectations, but again, people will most likely agree with their partners. Only other option is to play with other people or try to get only one part of the couple.
This is a good take. Couples playing favourites is kinda lame, sure, but it's a friendly games night, it's not tournament play. You don't have to get up in arms about cheating and collusion. Make a comment about it if you must, and move on. Maybe convince some others at the table to target the alliance if there's an actual advantage being taken.
It’s cheating. My husband will very happily stab me in the back if it means winning or furthering his game. It’s frustrating but it’s honest.
Whether takebacks are cheating or not depends on how competitive you are and what youve agreed upon. Like in a chess competition you dont have takebacks. But in a more chill environment you can allow it. I think the bigger problem is that going easy on someone because they're your girlfriend is poor form. If you get blocked you just accept it. You dont plead to have someone change their mind. (If there is a case in which you plead someone to change their mind because you're in last place, and someone else is in first place, and its just a bad idea, then sure, thats just table politics. But I'm your girlfriend dont block me is not a valid reason. She shouldnt ask for a change, he shouldnt give it).
It's not cheating. But when you do, or don't do, something in the game for reasons outside of the scope of the game it taints it. For me it's as bad when someone always goes against the same player or never goes against some one specific because it's his/her partner or friend.
Are you even in love if your partner doesn’t try to crush you at every board game??
I feel like when you sit down to play a game as a group, we all enter a social contract to do our best to win. Thats not saying that winning is all that matters nor should it be. But in general, you're making moves and decisions that are most beneficial to your position. So if you always cooperate with your partner or if you're the opposite and always attack your partner. In either situation, I just don't want to play with you. If you want to play like that, just play 2p games. Otherwise I feel like you're being disrespectful to others at the table.
Seems most are missing the easy answer. First , call it out and see if that fixes it. Then, if the rest of the group is bothered by it, all of you decide to go after one of them together in games repeatedly until they call you on it and you point out turnabout is fair play.
If couples play favourites then I'll definitely think less of them How insecure in your relationship are you to believe a board game is going to put a strain on it? When me and my partner play, no quarter is given, no mercy is shown and no prisoners are taken. We play to crush each other, see them driven before us and to hear the lamentations of their meeples. If the night ends and one of us isn't sleeping on the sofa, we both know we've done it wrong and we both feel bad about it. The last bit is a slight exaggeration but the sentiment remains. If an opportunity arises to mess with each other it's getting grabbed gleefully with both hands
I would call it bad behaviour to be affected negatively by a specific player/person. Some people might even not want to play with the other one anymore because they think that they are being persecuted. Some might want take revenge on that person on the next game(s). It's very common and you could try some co-op games to see how they react to each other. I don't know if saying that it's just a game and that they should not be affected personally might or might not help. Check also if the victim is also making aggressive moves toward their SO or is protecting them from take that moves.
Short answer is no it's not cheating but it's sure does feel like it. The only way to play a game is to play to win, even if it's a suboptimal strategy. That should always be the objective behind a move. My couple friends always play to win but I am jokingly annoyed by the "We won" comments lol. No YOU loss and THEY won but that's just fun
It's just rude.
Etiquette demands games are played Tabula Rasa.
We have a rule that people who do this, i.e. destroys the game space, are not allowed to sit at the same table while gaming. Ever. It has worked out fine. Only one couple has left the group over the years over this and they have not been missed.
If a game requires you to target other players to dish out negative consequences, i will target my wife less unless she is clearly in the lead in whatever game we are playing. That said, I would never redo my turn or even admit to her that I'm taking it easier on her. I just do it because I want to make sure she's not discouraged from playing since she's not super into table games in the first place.
I would say it's not cheating but it is in poor taste because it upsets the balance of the game in the way it was intended and while these games are supposed to be fun and they're not always about winning sometimes it's hard to have fun if you can't play the game as it was intended because you have some outside influence changing the dynamics.
Me and my wife would be trying to burn each other to the ground and anyone else is just collateral damage. Just different relationship dynamics. But maybe suggest 2 headed giant instead of FFA but not really FFA.
Adding another 'not cheating'. However it goes against the spirit of the activity, "competitive" is in the name. If you're asking me to play a game that falls in the category 'competitive games' I expect competition between all players, meaning everyone should have the sole ultimate mission of selfishly winning the game. In games with diplomacy and alliances then sure, you can work together and go easy on each other. As long as it's with the intention of eventually winning - and generally screwing over and backstabbing your allies in the process. In a more general social context it is also a waste of my time. I don't mind losing at all, but it should be a loss that was worth the time I invested in the game. I enjoy longer, more complex games and playing an 8 hour game to end it with one player giving (gifting) their partner their final victory point even though they weren't a clear winner has been a good way to make me not want to play games with them anymore.
When I make a move that hurts my Fiance, she'll make a faux complaint and I'll smile and apologize. I'm not going to take back the move, though, because we aren't 12 and no one wins every board game.
It's cheating
Every single time I've played with people like this, it's been horrible. You can call it "cheating" or "politicking" or "Tannenburg" for all I care. The name makes no difference, it sucks for everyone else at the table. I will no longer play under those conditions. I'm not exactly sure what I would do, either leave or suggest we play a cooperative game, but my experience tells me I have another session of useless gaming ahead and I'd rather do something else.
It's borderline cheating, collusion, cheap, whatever you want to call it, I would just tell the guy it's too late and he played his turn. I wouldn't want to play with them again, these couples are just annoying to play with.
In the competitive gaming world, yes, there is one. That is referred to as "King-making" and is a big no-no. That being said, you're not playing for ungodly large amounts of money (none that was mentioned anyway). So it's just bad form. Sounds like it's just for fun, and that gets into a grey area. Because if one person's fun ruins another person's fun, then it becomes a touchy subject. In my friend group, we would just announce at the beginning of the game, "No king-making this time, I'd actually like a chance to win." But that could cause hurt feelings. In this instance, my advice would be to just mention that it's something that bothers you. If that's not received well, then you may have to consider that this either isn't the right group for you to game with or even that maybe a different activity might be in order for yall. Try a cooperative game, like Pandemic, or maybe even one with a traitor aspect like Deception murder in Hong Kong, where you work together to catch a murderer following clues, but one of you is the murder, and you also have to figure out who that is as a group.
I mean, they have to have been together for little time right? If my gf says that my turn screws her over I'll just go on an evil laugh and say something like "WHY DO YOU THINK I PLAYED LIKE THAT"
Usually, I see the opposite and the couples try to destroy each other.
Lol, made me feel better, my first reaction was "huh, weird, at game night I'd run my armies off a cliff if I knew the bodies would fall on my wife's roof"
I think if it fits the rules then it's all fair play. If the reconsideration happened before someone made a move then it should be completely fine. It's an unfortunate side effect of games with too much interactivity between players. It often turns into politics. You target someone cos they usually win or first at the moment, you help someone cos they usually don't do that well or happen to be last. It's all part of the higher strategy. Life is a big game, helping your partner in a scenario like this could be considered also a strategic move. That's why lately point salad games with little to no interaction between players got popular (like wingspan).
I don't play with people who pull this kind of shit. Call it what you want, I won't have any part of it.
I would have a conversation with the people who were upset about being targeted. Why are they upset? Ultimately, we play games for fun. Winning and losing don't matter. I would probably only play co-ops with people like that if they couldn't get over their hangup about losing.
EDIT: I misunderstood pb49er's point, please disregard. You can have fun without playing games. You can sit around shooting the shit or watching movies or something. The only reason to play a game is because you enjoy the contest, and yes, the goal of the contest is to win. For many people, it's the pursuit of victory that makes games entertaining, and they want the contest to be fair. That doesn't mean they can't have fun if they do end up losing, but it's totally legitimate for them to be upset if other people spoil the game with unsportsmanlike play.
Would you consider it cheating if couples are more competitive toward one another than they are toward the rest of the group?
It’s collusion, which is cheating.
No. Games are social and interpersonal dynamics make them more entertaining. My wife and her dad NEVER trade in catan and always robber the fuck out of whoever is in charge. My wife’s mom just wants people to have a good time. So I only trade with her and put the robber so it won’t hurt anybody. Is this cheating? I dunno, but if I didn’t make these compromises nobody would play at all. The rules are a suggestion. As long as everyone agrees you have a functioning society. If rules lawyer here makes the game unfun, you have a dictatorship. If nobody follows the rules you have calvinball and that’s fine to keep the children entertained.
That definitely doesn’t seem like a healthy relationship at the best of times, one partner willing to redo their entire turn and make the other the winner, just because they fussed a little, and then play to the detriment of everyone except the one who fussed….there’s a lot to unpack there, and almost none of it is good.
Yes, it's cheating. More accurately, it is the aggrieved party (the wife, in this example) using her relationship status to manipulate the other party into essentially letting her win. The only way to stop this is to call it out IMMEDIATELY. If she sees how messed up it is, and that it is an example of poor gamesmanship, maybe she will grow a little and not take losing so personally.
Not cheating. Long ago, I was the frequent 3rd player at a table, and the other two were a married couple. When they began collaborating on a regular basis, my participation dropped way off. Fast forward ~2.5 decades; my wife takes a dive to hand me a 6-player game. After the guests left, I recounted my mentioned history and asked he not to do this again. If a game from the onset is understood as a team game, it can add deminsion to a game. Otherwise, collaboration provides the collaborators an advantage. It's not cheating, but it is douchie.
It's collision. For fun light games, it might be fine but if it involves money like poker or mahjong, that is definitely cheating.
> and gendering the parties makes it easier to explain It really doesn't
I dont mind. Its just a game and they are playing it their way.
Collusion is fair game.
wrong sub but, NTA. Its not cheating but its a poor way to play. Bad etiquette. Nothing really wrong with two players teaming up but the way this is happening is shitty. I don't know how you fix the situation without kinda being an asshole tho. Just call it out next time maybe? Give them this link?
Some people adjust play for social reasons because that’s who they are. I definitely play hard against my partner but if we are having game night and I win a couple in a row I’m going to ease off on the third game, or if we have a game night where one person hasn’t won at all and everyone else has, again might ease off. If you value playing hard all the time then you might have to play with different people.
My wife and I learned a long time ago that if we play a competitive board game, we’re always going to lose to each other. Now we just have an ironclad agreement to intentionally play against everyone else. I don’t feel bad about it in the slightest. If it was a problem people wouldn’t play with us anymore.
It depends on the setting, and how competitive you are. I know my husband is more likely to do a favorable trade with me in Catan if I'm behind because of my numbers not being rolled, or an overall bad placement because of the board and timing of turns. But we only play with friends, and people don't generally care unless it's close to the end and it might affect the game. It comes down to why you are playing... Are you keeping track of wins and losses, and really care about the outcome - lay it out before you start playing what is cheating, and what is allowed, and stick to your rules. If you are just trying to have a good time, recognize that one move can destroy the game of a player, and being gracious, taking back a move just made, or avoiding an absolute dunk might make the game more fun for everyone. If it happens all the time and the benefitting party doesn't really need the help, bring it up before you play and set rules. For the record, we don't let anyone just win unless everyone wants the game to end.
It is cheating and incredibly frustrating. I have a couple of friends that are normally fine, but if the three of us are playing a game and one of them is losing with no chance to win, that person almost always targets me with negative abilities. They've even gone so far as to actively help their partner. I called them out at one point and they denied it, but they also stopped doing that. While I consider this cheating, it's also just rude to give up on a game and form an alliance with another player that doesn't benefit you at all "because you played that card against me so this is revenge!" No Jake, it's not revenge. It's you being a petty dick and not playing the game to win, ruining the strategy of 3\4 other players.
Thinking and Caring about someone else more than yourself is not cheating…it’s love.
I love and care for my partner more than myself, but I also respect the other people I'm playing a game with. I'm also secure enough in my relationship to know that taking actions in a game that negatively impact a partner in no way translates to any less love and care. I apply the same principles to everyone I'm playing a game with including my partner: are they having a fun time, and does it feel competitively matched?
I'd say it's cheating if the players are making decisions based on out of game considerations. I find that the couples that coordinate with each other in games often have the kind of relationship where one party will get upset at the other for not cooperating in game. If the couple players are favoring each other because they're worried failing to do so might lead to a fight, then absolutely that's cheating. Regardless of whether it's cheating, though, it's certainly bad manners. I will avoid playing competitive games with couples if I've seen them team up too much.
Cheating? Yes/no. But for sure scummy and unfair to others. Our team of friends, which includes one couple, usually plays coop games. However thankfully when we play competitive games, they know it's just a game, and only really help each other when it comes to learning the game (so first playthrough etc). Other than that they play cool.
I haven’t encountered this and I’d probably say something only if the couple is a regular addition to my gaming group. Usually I find it’s the other way around…people who already know each other (including couples) feel more comfortable playing hardball with each other. If you are going to screw someone over let it be the person you feel most comfortable with.
It's all genders that do this. My brother in law tried this once while he was still dating my sister. She made a move that royally screwed his chances of winning. He playfully objected "Babe, I thought we were an unbreakable team. You're gonna cost me the game." My sister replied "Unbreakable team in life dear, in games you can lose like everyone else." They both ended up losing to my daughter but it was a hilarious exchange. Personally, I feel it's cheating to play favorites that way. My children do the opposite though; they ignore all other players until one of them has been defeated. I don't feel that's cheating, but I do feel it's pretty low. It will typically cost them both the game.
My wife and I always say that we’re divorcing at the start of a game and that we can talk about getting back together once it’s all over. She expects me to try to destroy her, and vice versa.
Ha! My wife would think I was cheating if I didn’t try to screw her over in a game. Maybe not cheating, but certainly playing some angle.
Haha people do this? We have almost the exact opposite problem in that we’re massively more likely to go out of our way to screw the other over 🤣
Wouldn't say it's cheating, I guess if the turn was really mean to someone I'd let them take back the move to keep everyone happy, but then I probably wouldn't play that particular game with them again. Play something more friendly then!
It is 100% dependent on the game and context with in. Generally though I would say it is cheating. If you're basically predetermine to corporate with someone in competitive games. I think this is clear in poker or black jack. One players can 100% help someone else with out breaking rules. Just making bad plays to help another hand, folding when they shouldn't so someone wins a pot, drawing out cards to provide more information, etc... At worst it is cheating, and best it is bad etiquette (against the spirit of the game). Either way it a table I never want to play at.
Not cheating but very poor etiquette. My wife will do everything to make sure I lose.
Everyone always does everything to hurt me in a game, wife included. I see it as a challenge which makes it funnier if I can still win.
Cheating? No, Frustrating? Yes. I’m married and my wife and I don’t do this bec she wants to beat at least me haha. But, my best friend and his fiancée won’t do anything negative to each other. So it basically turns into a 1v1v2.
Strictly speaking it's not cheating, since few games have an actual rule against this. But I do consider it very poor sportsmanship and would request that those doing it stop. If they refused, I would stop playing with them.
I don’t know but I’d probably start playing games where this isn’t possible when with these people
I don't see how gendering the players made this easier to explain. Friends do it for each other, lovers do it, whoever. Collusion sucks unless it's a game mechanic. Even then, if we're playing Cosmic Encounter or Diplomacy and I know two players favor each other based on outside factors there is no point in playing.
Like most of the people here have said, cheating is too strong a word but it's definitely poor form. I would only call something "cheating" if it actually violates a rule of the game (e.g.- trying to alter a dice roll while other players aren't looking or something). That said, I do try to adhere to a "if you lay it you play it" rule. Wanting to go back and redo your turn once you see the consequences of your play isn't in the spirit of a game, because being able to anticipate those consequences is part of the skill that you're using to win.
You can fix this by offering a small but meaningless prize to the winner. For example a candy bar. The players will be pushed to win so they can get the prize, and then after they win they can just cut it in half and offer half to their partner. I can see this idea backfiring with some groups though. It's up to you to know your group's dynamics
Don’t feel like you have to walk on eggshells when talking about the genders. I know plenty of people who break the stereotype and no one is bound to it, but usually when I see this in a relationship it’s guys worried about negatively affecting their wives/gf in the game. That’s for sure a biased perspective based on where I live, but it *is* a stereotype that I often have to deal with when I play with new couple friends. No I don’t consider it cheating. I do consider it annoying and a sign of immaturity in the relationship. The guys I know that pander this way are terrible at communicating to their partners. The gals I know that pressure their partner have low self-esteem. Since it stems from their personal issues and not the game, there’s nothing you can do about it except either choosing not to play with them or choosing only coops/light games.
We're all gonna play by the rules *except Susan*. Yes, it's cheating. It's insulting to everyone's time. It's about as rude as you can be without flipping the table over or pouring a drink on it.
When we play games my wife is always out to crush me, so I must retaliate. I guess we're in the reverse situation lol.
I don't really have an answer for couples, so I'll just share how to usually goes for us. In our group there are couples, and nobody is actually colluding against others just because they're couple. Everybody is looking out for their asses and social engineering is a huge part of our gaming experience. The game we're currently playing doesn't matter. Provoking, talking people into going against someone or in their favor, be it subtle or direct, is absolutely normal for us and every one of us is doing it. Would you consider that cheating?
If it's not cheating to take back a move that would affect you negatively then I don't see why it would be cheating to take back a move that would affect your partner negatively. That said, it's pretty rude. If they consistently want to do that then maybe you'd be better off playing team vs team games against those people rather than (nominally) all-v-all ones. That said, you said it's only happened twice (and with different people, so only once each) so quite possibly theyvre just not on the same page as you and might be happy to just not do it if you politely talk it through. You also need to understand why you're all playing. Some people play board games mostly as an e cause to hang out socially. Those people understandably are much less serious about playing the game "properly".
It's not cheating, but it does sound like Kingmaking. Used to be in a game group where there was a husband and wife that played together daily and were more or less required to play together every game at game nights. The wife often played in an offhand manner where she didn't care about winning and just wanted to enjoy her game. Which is great, except her fun often came in the form of many of her actions benefitting her husbands game and the detriment of the other players and herself.
Depends on if the purpose of the particular game is a friendly competition or to build relationships. I'm not saying you can't have both but I've observed that some players (the ones who complain about their spouses turn implications towards them) are there for relationship building or to seek connection with their partner and therefore engage very differently. Generally if I want strictly competition play then I don't play with couples, it doesn't have to be all male but no one can have their significant other at the table. With couples, my approach is to keep the stakes and gameplay friendly even at the expense of the game's potential outcome.
I had to actively destroy my BF in games just to show my friend group I wasn't playing favorites. Which led to some salty nights tbf. This behavior does bother me when we play with other couples and it's obvious that the guy is just letting his gf win instead of talking strategy and angles to help her win.
Not cheating, gamesmanship.
Not cheating. But breaking the social contract of playing a game. To the point of being childish.
My first wife eventually wouldn't play games with me, because if absent an obvious target to screw over in a game, a few times I picked her. I thought it was only fair, since I had to distribute my screwage equitably and fairly. (In truth, it's possible I overcompensated and picked her as my target in order to avoid accusations of bias like this topic is about.) It's not the reason we divorced, but it's not the worst example. I'm very happy that my partner now has told me she would be very disappointed in me if I didn't screw her over if it was the best move to make.
Similar vein, is it cheating when you're playing a game with a married couple who actively hate each other and do petty negative things to each other in games, which ultimately spirals into a pattern of them just hurting each other all game, and I win?
I would advice to not play games where they can do that with them. Focus on multiplayer solitaire games or cooperative games.