This is part of the "social rules" of this game. I. E., this is your game, go however feels the more fun for your party, as long as everybody likes it.
In our case we never show our hands and seldom tell what we have. This is because we are more by choice on a roleplay style than on a puzzle optimization style.
But it's your pick.
The rules of the game make no mention whatsoever about whether players show each other their hand or not. It's always been understood that whether to do so is the choice of the player.
FWIW, my understanding is the entire design team plays with an open hand -- except for the curmudgeonly :) Mike Selinker, who does not.
Yep, that's pretty much right. If anyone at the table had a strong preference for hidden hands, I'd be fine with it, but I'm happier to sort my cards on the table and keep my hand free :)
The rules of the game make no mention whatsoever about whether players show each other their hand or not. It's always been understood that whether to do so is the choice of the player.
FWIW, my understanding is the entire design team plays with an open hand -- except for the curmudgeonly :) Mike Selinker, who does not.
We hold our cards in our hands, but offer things that could help a particular check if you ask or if the odds don't look great. It's a co-op game, after all.
I don't mind playing open if the group wants, but there isn't always room to spread everything out on the table. Things get tight if we've got two games going and there's other groups in the gaming space that night. (Those character tents serve a purpose! :)
I personally play closed handed, because I like holding the cards. I believe myself to be generous with helping others and often tilt my cards forward to show my hand.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our torturous travels in the desert, I have been given the odious task of carrying a cage containing the severed, undead head of the Oracle Neferekhu. She seems to enjoy nitpicking everything we do while still providing useful advice on occasion. Her constant complaints about her treatment have grated upon us all so I have hired her a Valet to carry said cage and deal with her outbursts.
I must admit, however, that on the rare occasion that I am forced (forced, dahling!) to resort to physical violence, I rather enjoy smashing various ruffians over the head with her cage.
(Watching my companions react to her appearances would not be nearly as fun if they could see what was in my hand. ;)
The down side of open hands is when you have a particularly bossy/dominant player. If everyone's hands are open then that player (or small group of players in some cases) can work out what everyone else should be doing on their turn, while everyone else just sits there and follows instructions. If you hold your cards in your hand you can be both quiet and autonomous, you don't have to justify every blessing you don't play.
So it's a social choice really and depends entirely on the group and whether everyone participating is more important than being strictly optimal.
Not being able to freely share information seems counterintuitive to me during a cooperative game.
Not being able to freely share information seems counterintuitive to me during a cooperative game.
The game Hanabi is a co-operative game based entirely around not being able to freely share information.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not being able to freely share information seems counterintuitive to me during a cooperative game.The game Hanabi is a co-operative game based entirely around not being able to freely share information.
That seems counterintuitive to me.
That seems counterintuitive to me.Not being able to freely share information seems counterintuitive to me during a cooperative game.The game Hanabi is a co-operative game based entirely around not being able to freely share information.
Cooperative doesn't mean friendly. An alliance to defeat a single enemy is a cooperation and (see the world wars...) doesn't at all mean you are sharing all your secrets and not taking the max spoils of wars for yourselves.
A cooperative game just means "everybody loses together or wins together". It doesn't mean "everybody plays fair with everyone".
Most of RPG, starting with D&D, are cooperative games. Yet characters have different alignments, religions, cultures, factions, guilds. There are thieves among us and even assassins. Do you really think they share all info? This is the Brotherhood of the Ring, but Frodo isn't telling what he is doing with the ring.
I don't see any "counterintuitive" in that.
I've never played PACG with an 'alpha' player (and um... I'm hoping I'm not that player). If I did, I'm fairly certain I'd immediately find a different group to play with. Which I'd also do if our cooperative games were not friendly. :)
But sure, closed hands make sense in that situation. Being able to keep your hand open/closed depending on your playstyle is a very good thing, for this and other reasons.
FWIW, my understanding is the entire design team plays with an open hand -- except for the curmudgeonly :) Mike Selinker, who does not.
I most assuredly do not.
That seems counterintuitive to me.Not being able to freely share information seems counterintuitive to me during a cooperative game.The game Hanabi is a co-operative game based entirely around not being able to freely share information.
lol
I suspect Hanabi had its roots in the card game where you put the card on your forehead and you guess it based on what others do... wikipedia calls it blind man's bluff.