Thundercles, Antistone,

I think your argument got heated up, because no-one likes to be unsportsmanslike.
And it is very well possible that what gaming group A thinks is normal is called unsportsmanslike by group B.

To make this more concrete: an example.

We used to play a lot of Risk with my family at home. Making no-attack agreements was 'not done' and would be seen as a kind of cheating.
When I now play Risk (the future version, but still the same ethics) with my friends, you won't be able to win if you do not make pacts with at least one neighboring enemy. In the first round someone offered me a pact and I was like 'yeah, right..". We both didn't win that game

Morale of the story: different groups: different ethics.

Looking at the Descent discard pile is not covered in the rules and is therefore subject to the ethics of the group. Any discussion on this can be good if people will throw in pros and cons, but everyone needs to respect other peoples views. What is unsportsman for you, can be be normal for another. So instead of calling that player unsportsmanslike, use the arguments (card counting) as a con.

However, I don't think Antistones group and Thundercles group will handle this issue ever the same (unless it would be included in the rules).
So please respect each others ethics/view on this one.

- my 2 cts

To me this is sort of like playing Blackjack in Vegas. If you play and use a general observance of what cards have come and gone, sure that gets you a slight advantage. But if you sit there writing down every card that came and went on a piece of paper, then you are cutting into the core of the game, and will be kicked out. You are playing a "card game" - not a "card and paper notes game". There is a difference!

And then - if you ask the dealer if you could thumb thru the discards to see if there are any Aces left in the deck? Come on! That's downright silly.

Likewise this is a board game, about heroes running thru a dungeon. Nowhere does it imply micromanagement of the OL's powers, and being able to interrupt a game, and spend 10 min to read thru what cards have been discarded, and form a perfectly optimized plan. A player who would insist on doing that IS being unsportsmanly, per the guy above. That's a waste of time, and interrupts the flow / immersion of the game.

What if you play Poker with a group of friends and ask to see what's been discarded? You wouldnt be asked back!

What if you write down the cards as they're discarded? Surely same result!

Same thing in Descent. Yeah, you can watch what has been played, and an OL should discard one at a time if any player requests... but anything more than that - like logging the discarded cards by the players, or flipping thru the discard pile, is not appropriate.

You are aware (1) different games have different rules, and (2) gambling and strategy games sit in different corners and don't talk to each other, right?

That the casino or your poker group will kick you out has precisely zero to do with sportsmanship or good gameplay, it has to do with the fact that they're trying to make money off of you, and if they think there's a substantial risk that you can tip the odds in your favor, they have to get rid of you to protect their financial assets. Even if that wasn't the reason, the gameplay in those games doesn't even vaguely resemble Descent, so there's no reason to think a conclusion in one game would be transferable to the other. These are just about the worst examples you could possibly have picked.

As for time, sure, everyone wants to keep the game moving, but that's also a red herring. I can look through the discard deck during someone else's turn and not slow the game down at all. I can probably also quickly count the number of "charge" cards in the discard during my own turn in less time than you would routinely allow another player to sit there and simply deliberate. You can set time limits or whatever to keep the game moving, but what players are allowed to do within the available time is a totally separate question.

What if the friendly poker game is just for scoring purposes, not for money?

I'm just teasing, Antistone has a point. However, even if gambling and strategy games sit on opposite ends of the room from each other, their players do not. If poobaloo equates the two, I imagine he's not alone. Specifically, the mechanics are not the same because Blackjack and Poker don't have explicit discard: when you fold (or, in some versions of poker, pass in cards), the rest of the table is usually not going to see your cards. The hidden deck and hidden hand mechanics otherwise resemble Descent, so I see where the two could be equated, but since gambling places a far greater emphasis on the discard pile being unknown, gambling card game ethics and Descent ethics are not going to be equivalent.

Conversely, humans are really good at seeing patterns and equivalencies that don't exist, so an Overlord player familiar with the illegality of card counting in gambling would probably have to be convinced that card counting in Descent simply doesn't confer as much of an advantage. Extrapolating from gambling games is, while incorrect, a completely natural and almost expected occurrence.

By the way, questioning other people's judgment and example choice is not the same as refuting their argument.

Musing some more....

In Descent, a side (Hero or Overlord) that tries to count cards or see the discard pile is going to do it to gain a specific advantage: if they announce to the other side that they're trying to gain that specific advantage, the other side could easily be insulted, unless they know that the advantage is minor and therefore don't care or are already vying for that advantage themselves. Objectively, remembering what the OL doesn't have is going to be something that experienced players will simply do automatically (especially if you've spent any time choosing treachery), so denying players the ability to card count or even see the discard pile is trying to stop humans from recognizing patters, something most will do unconsciously. Subjectively, attempting to gain advantages (however small) is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, for heavily competitive tables but may be seen as insulting amongst groups trying to have a "friendly game".

Moral of the story might be that checking the deck in Descent gives some small advantage, but make sure it's ok with everyone. You may need to explain that it's not that big a deal.

Yes, indeed a predicatable and easy response, to say, if someone makes an analogy to another game to say "it's a different game so it's different". :-) Still applies tho. I could name 10 games, perhaps 10 closer to ones you consider to be akin to Descent.

Flip thru the discarded cards in Ticket to Ride to see what colors are more likely to come up next? (or log them in a PC to do a statistial analysis real-time?)

Go thru the spent cards in Uno to decide if it's better to throw your yellow 7 or your yellow 5, based on the number of 5's and 7's that have been spent?

Look thru discarded buildings in San Juan to figure out which there are more of remaining (and thus make safer discards of your own)?

The list is limitless, and applies to card games, board games, and any other games. You simply accept the discard pile as a discard pile, and not an active part of the game to be flipped thru to plan your actions upon.

I mean - you could have a wounded hero on 2 health left, and flip thru it to see the OL has no door traps left, so you race thru and open a door in the heat of battle. Now that Hero, would never know whether it was safe to open that door or not, and so it should be a gamble - but for this metagaming that some are alleging could be considered legit and appropirate ways to play. It's simply not.

You could decide where to run based on the number of crushing block cards.

You could decide which weapon to arm based on the presence or not of crushing blow.

This list, too, is limitless, and would severely alter every play to where you're better off analyzing the spent cards every turn. The game is just not about that.

This is just my opinion of course, and you're entitled to your opinion, and yeah everyone can play their own way.

poobaloo made some very good points. I'll change my mind and say the players can see what you discarded this turn, but that's it. It's similar to the rule for most trick-taking games: you can look at the last hand, but that's it. Wondering if someone played the ace of spades last turn? Sure, go look. Wondering if someone played it two turns ago? That's just too bad.

2 schools of thought it seems:

1) The cards were discarded as public knowledge. Memorizing or note taking these cards aren't explicitely agains the rules. Therefore: Why not just let them see the discards since they should've seen them all already?

2) The OL's current hand is a secret. Looking at whats been discarded gives a definite advantage guessing what he has in his hand. Knowing what is in his hand is uber-powerful in descent since the cards in his hand are the biggest impact he has over the course of a dungeon. Going through the discards takes time. Therefore: Why give the players an advantage that also slows down the game?

Considerations:

Does the OL get to look through his own discards when he wants?

Feat cards are not a standard addition in a game, and their presence in RtL is still (among the forum posters) questionable.

I think this is a decision definitely each OL needs to make for themselves. I'm personally going to put my group into camp #2 because what with the Hero advantage already being high the OL probably needs all the help he can get, and our games are long enough anyway. The feat card argument doesn't affect me because A) We don't have that expansion and so I have no opinion and B) I'm not entirely convinced I'd use them even if I did get the expansion.

To each his own.

SkittlesAreYum said:

I like this ruling. Gets rid of the OL discaring as fast as he can to try to sneak something by the heroes yet limits the knowlege of the deck to what you can remember.

poobaloo said:

You are implying this is a universal rule, that it is not allowed to look through the discard pile in any game--this is not true. Some games explicitly allow this, others explicitly forbid it. Someone recently explained to me that the card game Dominion explicitly has some piles of cards you can look through, some you can't look through but are allowed to count, and still others that you aren't allowed to look at or count.

Different games have it different ways; there's tremendous variation. You could possibly look at a whole bunch of games that are as similar to Descent as possible and try to extrapolate, but that's a very weak argument (especially since many games, like Descent, do not specify), and neither Blackjack nor Uno are good candidates for such a list, so mentioning them does not strengthen your case in any way I can discern.

poobaloo said:

But all of that is true whether you're allowed to thumb through the discards or not , and therefore does not support your position.

If you allow players to look, then yes, it will sometimes be to their advantage, and some hypothetical perfect player with infinite patience would consider every card in the discard pile every turn. But if you don't allow players to look, the knowledge is still equally valuable, so you're encouraging players to get it in other ways--like spending lots of time and effort memorizing the deck and keeping track of which cards have been played. A hypothetical perfect player with infinite patience will still consider every discarded card every turn. I don't see any particular reason this is likely to be less disruptive of the game than the alternative in the general case--in fact, the reverse seems more likely, since remembering the cards requires constant attention and effort, while checking the discard allows you to play exactly as before except when you feel it's important.

And even if card-counting were obviously and dramatically less disruptive of gameplay than allowing players to look at the discard pile, that would merely constitute a pragmatic reason for suggesting people play that way--you seem to imply either that it is illegal (as a matter of fact) or that it should be illegal (as a matter of principle), and under no circumstance would these examples support either of those claims.

Your statement that metagaming tactics are "simply inappropriate" is highly dubious; there are many "metagame" considerations, such as preventing monster spawning with line-of-sight, that players are specifically encouraged to strategize about by the designers --as I already argued once in this thread. Making the "metagame" distinction means you are siding against the designers and conventional Descent wisdom, and stating (as you did above) that "metagaming" cannot be considered legitimate is simply outrageous.

You are of course welcome to adopt any house rules you wish, but you are arguing for them in a public forum, and that means that your reasoning is going to get picked apart and derided if it is not solid.

Every practical argument made against letting players view the discard pile that I can recall reading in this thread is predicated on the assumption that forbidding this effectively hides the information and denies the heroes the knowledge of what cards have hit the table. This is not true. It merely denies that information to some players, depending on their experience and memory, creating two classes of players, and giving one a distinct strategic advantage over the other.

It is therefore only rational to adopt this as a general rule if that is your goal--to give players with more experience or better memory an advantage over players without.

It may also be rational to adopt it in your specific group if you're confident that everyone will remain in the same class, but that's kind of dangerous, as it can change over time. And in any case, it's not a reason to recommend it generally, just to use it in a few specific and highly-controlled cases.

Oh my. You were made for internet debates werent you. :-)

I'll just leave you to your thoughts. Your arguments are a bit flawed -- Some people have bad memories and so they should be compensated by going thru the discarded cards to formulate a precise plan based on the cards they now know the OL doesn't have in his hand for sure? Are you going to start creating handicaps where players must rate their memory on a scale from 1 to 10, and then they get to look thru so much of the discarded deck so that everyone gets equal rememberance?

Right. I'll bet people LOVE to play games with you. :-)

Nobody has suggested denying anyone knowledge. Anyone can watch what the OL discards, and everyone out here was pretty much in agreement that the OL should discard in a manner that allows everyone to at least see what he's discarded, if they care to. But once it's done, and the players have seen, there is no reason they should sit there and either A) document the cards one by one, so as to not have to flip thru the discards, or B) be priviledged to look thru said deck and then formulate a plan based on that. It's just not w/in the bounds of the game, unless you wish it to be.

Really if that was intended, there would be another step inbetween the OL takes his turn, and the Heroes take their turn, and it would say "The Heroes take a few minutes to plan where they will go by looking thru the cards discarded by the OL". Come on you're saying they should be allowed to do that?

I play Dominion, and no, you cannot look thru discarded cards. There are no piles that you can look thru, and if there were, there would be a rule saying "look thru this pile and do this" like in Ninja Burger for example. Barring such an explicit rule, discards are just discards, and to thumb thru them as a means to plan your strategy is pretty shady play. To expect to be able to do so, and do statistical analyses of discarded cards in games like Ticket to Ride would totally kill the flow of the game. Now sure nowhere in the TTR manual does it say you cant, but if everyone had to bring a computer and spreadsheet to the table to analyze the colors of cards disbanded, and so at any given point they know the exact distribution of colors remaining, it's no longer a game, but a mathematical competition. If that's what you want, go for it! But I doubt you will find many takers to play Ticket that way, or likewise Descent.

-mike

If I understand you correctly, your stated reasons for your position currently consist of the following:

• The rules don't say anything one way or the other, therefore you must be right by default.
• I was made for internet debates.
• If players had perfect memories, then the game would become "no longer a game, but a mathematical competition." Or maybe that was just in the case of some specific game played with some specific tool that no one other than you is talking about, I wasn't totally clear what you were trying to say there.

Truly, the best minds of our time must tremble before your irresistible logic. The four paragraphs of rhetoric that you typed right after declaring your intention to leave me to my thoughts clearly demonstrate an insight to which I can add nothing.

I could care less if my Heroes see the discard deck, especially in RtL.

Antistone said:

The rules dont say players cant steal certain cards out of the OL deck. The rules dont say the players cant ignore the OL when he damages them. The rules dont say a player cant put their hand on the board to prevent a unit moving there. I can just see the arguments... "Where in the rule book does it say that a player cant leave their fist on the board blocking movement?" The rules dont say a LOT of things. It is common sense that when playing a game, you play based on what is in the book, not such that what's in the book is ok, but also everything NOT in the book is also to be incorporated somehow.

The things the rulebook doesnt say, definitely are NOT part of the game. Right, it doesnt say that you CANT go thru the deck, and you use that as the basis that you can do it? Based on this logic where anything not stated in the manual is assumed to be part of the game, you'd have billions (infinite) aspects to the game that are not in the book, and therefore reasonable and playable options to you?

It's not about me being right, I dont consider myself right or wrong on the matter, just having an opinion. If you want to add to the game, by all means do so. Add as much as you want! I'm not saying it's wrong, or you're wrong, or I'm right.

A discard pile is DISCARDS. THey're discarded. Out of play. Done with, until such time as you reach the point in the rules where it says when the OL cards have all been discarded, he reshuffles them and scores 3 points. Nowhere in there does it talk about players using the discard pile as a tactical resource of strategy optimization in the mean time!

Not that I would care. If a player asked "did you discard this or that last turn?" I wouldnt care and just pull back a few cards and show them. It's not like we're being deliberately secretive... But if it got to be to where the players were physically holding onto the discards to categorize and study them and conduct an analysis of what cards the OL has remaining, and using that to base their strategy on, that is getting way out of the flow of the game.

-mike

poobaloo said:

I don't believe Antistone has ever said that you can do everything that is not banned by the rules.

All Antistone said, and I support him in this and even you support him in this, is that common sense starts where the rules stop.

Only your common sense tells you that discard piles are not inside the game and can therefore not be checked. Antistones common sense tells him that there is no objection against going through the discard pile.

There is no right or wrong here, only opinions.

You can also name all kind of games, but that wouldn't matter, because these games either have this issue explicit in their rules (so, no comparison), or they do not have the issue explicit in the rules (opinions will differ about this game as well).

The rules also don't say that you are allowed to breathe, blink, talk, examine the dice, read the cards that are face-up on the table, or do many other things that are obviously allowed.

I agree that where an action would actually alter the way game mechanics are resolved, then unless the rules state or imply that you can do it, you shouldn't be able to do it. However, taking notes on things that happen in the game, or examining cards that have already been shown face-up to the entire table (without being randomized afterwards), are not things that interfere with the normal functioning of the game's mechanics. They more closely resemble things that would obviously be allowed by default, like talking or reading cards that are face-up on the table, than things that would obviously be disallowed by default, like physically restraining your opponent. I therefore see no reason that they would necessarily be assumed to be illegal.

Ok, pulling the common sense into the "Whats written and what's not" arguement, you're both right.

Rather than list a million you cannots most games list what a player can do. Since it doesn't say a player can search through the discards I would assume that means that they cannot. It also doesn't say the OL can so I'd say he can't either. In fact, all the game says you can do with the OL discard pile is put cards on top of it, whether to use or for threat and to reshuffle to make a new OL deck. Sounds like the OL discards are off limits to everyone.

The list of what a player can do that doesn't get mentioned IS pretty low. Both examples of blocking movement with a fist or eating and breathing are actually kind of funny. Its well within the player's right to play the game suffocating, or to block movement with their fist. As far as the game rules are concerned the player's health has no impact on how he's playing, and moving into a square isn't blocked by body parts so again as far as the game's concerned in the process of moving the figure somehow the figure will force that arm aside. (probably waiting until he finishes suffocating to move the arm out of the way)

A lot of games suffer from a sense of "This makes sense and sounds fair" rulings that aren't canon and usually twist the gameplay. In Arkham Horror I had a player ask about selling items and I couldn't find mention of it at all. We had a similar discussion brew as to what seemed fair. The grey areas between spelled out rules are breeding grounds for house rules, and whether you are for or against sifting through the discard pile that will be what you're doing: declaring a house rule on a non-specified action.

I've mentioned my reasons I feel against going through the discards above, but what's important isn't who's right but that we stop FLAMING about it and try to at least try to debate for or against it to come up with a fair concensous.

poobaloo said:

What if players can do this without looking through the discard pile? Would this be considered unfair play? Or would it be considered OK?

What if a player could say.... The OL has discarded 30 to 35 spawn cards we have gone through 20 turns leaving about 20 cards in the deck his hand size is 5 so there is a 30% chance he has a spawn card. Would you as an OL feel that player was playing unfairly somehow?

p.s. The example again is hyperbole please do not reply saying my numbers are wrong or that no player can figure this out.