Is cheating "cheating" in Clue?
December 4, 2009 4:00 PM
Is it cheating to look at other people's cards or list in the game of Clue?
Help settle a small domestic squabble. Mrs. Schyler523 believes that being a good detective in the game of clue means that not only is it "OK" to look at the cards and lists of your opponents, but it is encouraged. I feel that this is cheating and the game should be won through logic and not trickery.
I expect that there will be a similar split in the beliefs of Mefites. I am looking for the best explanation either way as to why it is or is not cheating. Thank you.
Help settle a small domestic squabble. Mrs. Schyler523 believes that being a good detective in the game of clue means that not only is it "OK" to look at the cards and lists of your opponents, but it is encouraged. I feel that this is cheating and the game should be won through logic and not trickery.
I expect that there will be a similar split in the beliefs of Mefites. I am looking for the best explanation either way as to why it is or is not cheating. Thank you.
That's kind of the point of Clue; to have clues revealed by suspicions and at the end an accusation. That's why they give out the pads - to mark down things as they are revealed one by one. The challenge of the thing is to make inferences based on scant detail. Definitely cheating.
posted by Hardcore Poser at 4:05 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by Hardcore Poser at 4:05 PM on December 4, 2009
Is she nuts? It's cheating. If you want to defend cheating, that's fine. But it is cheating.
posted by smoke at 4:06 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by smoke at 4:06 PM on December 4, 2009
I would consider it a form of cheating. I was playing the game sometime ago, my boyfriend was murdered early, so he decided to go around the table and cross off the possible combinations based on the lists/cards. Unfair advantage if it's just one person and takes way too long if you have to wait for the whole family to do the same thing.
posted by biochemist at 4:07 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by biochemist at 4:07 PM on December 4, 2009
Cheating. No two ways about it. What detective work is there left to do if you're looking at someone else's?
posted by katillathehun at 4:07 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by katillathehun at 4:07 PM on December 4, 2009
LOVE that this is filed under "religion & philosophy". I personally believe that it is totally fine to steal money from the bank in Monopoly surreptitiously; this makes me the best little capitalist of all, in my view.
However, I probably wouldn't insist that was part of the game. If it's not listed in the actual rules that this is an OK and even encouraged behavior (and I don't think it is), I don't think Mrs Schyler523 should be insisting that it is.
I suspect that she probably had some older sibling or friend convince her of this when she was too young to remember. I was the oldest of three and I was always making up rules like that. This is the prerogative of the one sibling old enough to read.
posted by crinklebat at 4:09 PM on December 4, 2009
However, I probably wouldn't insist that was part of the game. If it's not listed in the actual rules that this is an OK and even encouraged behavior (and I don't think it is), I don't think Mrs Schyler523 should be insisting that it is.
I suspect that she probably had some older sibling or friend convince her of this when she was too young to remember. I was the oldest of three and I was always making up rules like that. This is the prerogative of the one sibling old enough to read.
posted by crinklebat at 4:09 PM on December 4, 2009
We JUST had this fight - I consider it not to be cheating if the other person is dumb (ahem) enough to show the cards. However, if she is purposefully going after it, then thats cheating.
posted by quodlibet at 4:10 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by quodlibet at 4:10 PM on December 4, 2009
How is that possibly not cheating?the whole point of the game is that you have to eliminate suspects, weapons, and locations turn by turn.
When playing poker is it OK to look at your opponents' cards?
posted by usonian at 4:12 PM on December 4, 2009
When playing poker is it OK to look at your opponents' cards?
posted by usonian at 4:12 PM on December 4, 2009
It violates both the letter and the spirit of the gameplay. Definitely cheating.
posted by not that girl at 4:16 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by not that girl at 4:16 PM on December 4, 2009
I love this example of how you cheat yourself (out of a fun game) when you cheat. Yes, it's definitely cheating.
posted by bearwife at 4:28 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by bearwife at 4:28 PM on December 4, 2009
Definitely cheating - but only if you get caught.
Cover your cards and keep your papers to yourself. When someone shows you a card, either write it on your pad at a later time or randomly orient your pad (so people watching your pencil don't see which section you marked off). Pass other players cards face down on the table to show them when answering a suggestion (so other players can't peek).
My family has always played however, that you are allowed to use extra paper to keep track of other activities during the game. We used this to great effect (and hilarity whenever we played with someone new) in the 3 or 4 games we'd play every Friday when I was in middle & high school.
I personally keep track of two lists for each player: what cards a player has 'agreed' ["I don't have any of the cards in your suggestion"] to, and which sets [the three card query] they have shown a card to. When a card appears in both groups, it gets removed from set - and if I can remove two cards from a shown set, then I know what card was shown, and can remove it from the possibilities. Similarly, if everyone else at the table has (at one time or another) agreed to a particular card - then either I have the card or its part of the answer.
My mom and dad both had completely different extra-paper methods. None of the three of us could make any sense of the others'. I believe my dad's consisted of keeping track of every suggestion and who answered it, in some sort of grid fashion and attempting to glean information from suggestion and answer patterns. I think my mom's was similar to mine, but she didn't organize it by player. The three of us would bust out clipboards and extra pads of notebook paper every time we played. I bet my little brother still won on dumb luck better than a quarter of the time tho - the bastard. The three of us would be at least 4 or 5 rounds from making any conclusive accusations, and he'd make a suggestion - have it go all around the table with agreeing nods from everyone and then say "oh, I guess that's it, Col Mustard in the Lounge with the Knife."
posted by ish__ at 4:29 PM on December 4, 2009
Cover your cards and keep your papers to yourself. When someone shows you a card, either write it on your pad at a later time or randomly orient your pad (so people watching your pencil don't see which section you marked off). Pass other players cards face down on the table to show them when answering a suggestion (so other players can't peek).
My family has always played however, that you are allowed to use extra paper to keep track of other activities during the game. We used this to great effect (and hilarity whenever we played with someone new) in the 3 or 4 games we'd play every Friday when I was in middle & high school.
I personally keep track of two lists for each player: what cards a player has 'agreed' ["I don't have any of the cards in your suggestion"] to, and which sets [the three card query] they have shown a card to. When a card appears in both groups, it gets removed from set - and if I can remove two cards from a shown set, then I know what card was shown, and can remove it from the possibilities. Similarly, if everyone else at the table has (at one time or another) agreed to a particular card - then either I have the card or its part of the answer.
My mom and dad both had completely different extra-paper methods. None of the three of us could make any sense of the others'. I believe my dad's consisted of keeping track of every suggestion and who answered it, in some sort of grid fashion and attempting to glean information from suggestion and answer patterns. I think my mom's was similar to mine, but she didn't organize it by player. The three of us would bust out clipboards and extra pads of notebook paper every time we played. I bet my little brother still won on dumb luck better than a quarter of the time tho - the bastard. The three of us would be at least 4 or 5 rounds from making any conclusive accusations, and he'd make a suggestion - have it go all around the table with agreeing nods from everyone and then say "oh, I guess that's it, Col Mustard in the Lounge with the Knife."
posted by ish__ at 4:29 PM on December 4, 2009
I'm with quod in a sense; if the person leans over or something and leaves their hand visible, that is their fault. But the intent of the game is to outwit your opponents, and I don't define cheating as outwitting. If everyone playing the game is playing by that tactic, there wouldn't be a game at all. If only one person is playing the game by that tactic, it isn't fun and no one will want to play with that person again.
Perhaps when she was growing up she would do this to her siblings or friends just to get the game over with or look smarter in front of them, but I think it makes the person look foolish.
posted by june made him a gemini at 4:30 PM on December 4, 2009
Perhaps when she was growing up she would do this to her siblings or friends just to get the game over with or look smarter in front of them, but I think it makes the person look foolish.
posted by june made him a gemini at 4:30 PM on December 4, 2009
Cheating. The game depends on putting together the combination guesses that will most quickly yield the contents of the envelope. Not on who's being the most paranoid about hiding cards/lists.
I'd ask to restart the game if I accidentally saw my opponent's cards.
posted by palliser at 4:32 PM on December 4, 2009
I'd ask to restart the game if I accidentally saw my opponent's cards.
posted by palliser at 4:32 PM on December 4, 2009
This is such cheating that it's hard to even guess what Mrs. Schyler523's definition of cheating does include. If looking at other people's cards in Clue isn't cheating, what is? I'd love to have her chime in.
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:37 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:37 PM on December 4, 2009
The operating theory in my youth was SERIOUSLY dude I'm telling MOM if you don't QUIT IT.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:37 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by Countess Elena at 4:37 PM on December 4, 2009
Actively looking at another person's paper or cards? Cheating.
Trying to glean what card one person has just shown another person by where on their paper the other person has just made a mark? Not cheating.
Deliberately fucking with your brother who employs this method by making random crap markings on your pad and then making the actual marks later when it isn't your turn? Priceless.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:43 PM on December 4, 2009
Trying to glean what card one person has just shown another person by where on their paper the other person has just made a mark? Not cheating.
Deliberately fucking with your brother who employs this method by making random crap markings on your pad and then making the actual marks later when it isn't your turn? Priceless.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:43 PM on December 4, 2009
Mrs. Schyler523 here.
In my defense, I am a person of sound morals. I don't "cheat" because, to me, this is clearly not cheating.
The rules explicitly say that you should be very careful to not allow anyone to see your cards. If you are not following the rules and you leave your hand or your notepad visible and I sneak a look, I believe that I am playing the game as intended. You are a detective trying to solve a crime, and a good detective uses all the resources at their disposal to solve the crime. I do not do things like lace snacks with laxatives, or coordinate fire alarms in effort to have the other players leave their cards unattended... I just peek, while they are right there being lazy about keeping their information protected.
posted by schyler523 at 4:55 PM on December 4, 2009
In my defense, I am a person of sound morals. I don't "cheat" because, to me, this is clearly not cheating.
The rules explicitly say that you should be very careful to not allow anyone to see your cards. If you are not following the rules and you leave your hand or your notepad visible and I sneak a look, I believe that I am playing the game as intended. You are a detective trying to solve a crime, and a good detective uses all the resources at their disposal to solve the crime. I do not do things like lace snacks with laxatives, or coordinate fire alarms in effort to have the other players leave their cards unattended... I just peek, while they are right there being lazy about keeping their information protected.
posted by schyler523 at 4:55 PM on December 4, 2009
I'm not questioning the morals of whoever does this. But I do think that even with this explanation/defense this is 100% cheating.
I want to give some sort of comparison as to why this is cheating, but I this is so obviously cheating that I can't even come up with anything good enough. It's just cheating. You're not supposed to be running around sneaking looks at other people's cards even if they suck at concealing them.
posted by Arbac at 5:10 PM on December 4, 2009
I want to give some sort of comparison as to why this is cheating, but I this is so obviously cheating that I can't even come up with anything good enough. It's just cheating. You're not supposed to be running around sneaking looks at other people's cards even if they suck at concealing them.
posted by Arbac at 5:10 PM on December 4, 2009
Cheating.
Although, yeah, if they're leaving their cards where you can see them... (Hint: CARDS GO FACE DOWN)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:16 PM on December 4, 2009
Although, yeah, if they're leaving their cards where you can see them... (Hint: CARDS GO FACE DOWN)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:16 PM on December 4, 2009
Mrs. Schyler523, you may indeed be a person of sound moral character, but you are cheating at Clue.
I'm channeling my 12 year old self to add, "Cheater! Cheater! Pumkpin Eater!"
posted by amyms at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2009
I'm channeling my 12 year old self to add, "Cheater! Cheater! Pumkpin Eater!"
posted by amyms at 5:18 PM on December 4, 2009
OK, on the one hand, this is just a question of what game you want to play, right? Hitting people is legal in football but not touch football right?
On the other hand, looking at cards is lame. I've done it and had it done to me in the sense of "well I saw something there" or "you should watch your cards." But it's just not that interesting or fun of a thing to do. I've played enough games with hidden information in planes, trains and automobiles where it may be impractical to properly shield your information. What, do we just not play? Or do we play the game with the convention that we don't peek? Turns out that the non-peeking game is more fun.
If a family member exposes their cards to me sloppily I will tell them to stop. I might make use of the slip if it's no big deal but ultimately if we can't agree to playing without me seeing your cards then I'd not be interested in playing.
My question would be: How long has this been going on? Does everyone know about the Mrs's belief?
It's not nice to take advantage of the fact that your partners are playing by a different set of rules.
What does the Mrs's interpretation lead to? Now that the Schyler523s are on the same page Mr & Mrs can guard their cards like pro poker players. And the game is the same one they'd have been playing if she didn't want to peek but perhaps less fun.
posted by Wood at 5:32 PM on December 4, 2009
On the other hand, looking at cards is lame. I've done it and had it done to me in the sense of "well I saw something there" or "you should watch your cards." But it's just not that interesting or fun of a thing to do. I've played enough games with hidden information in planes, trains and automobiles where it may be impractical to properly shield your information. What, do we just not play? Or do we play the game with the convention that we don't peek? Turns out that the non-peeking game is more fun.
If a family member exposes their cards to me sloppily I will tell them to stop. I might make use of the slip if it's no big deal but ultimately if we can't agree to playing without me seeing your cards then I'd not be interested in playing.
My question would be: How long has this been going on? Does everyone know about the Mrs's belief?
It's not nice to take advantage of the fact that your partners are playing by a different set of rules.
What does the Mrs's interpretation lead to? Now that the Schyler523s are on the same page Mr & Mrs can guard their cards like pro poker players. And the game is the same one they'd have been playing if she didn't want to peek but perhaps less fun.
posted by Wood at 5:32 PM on December 4, 2009
To clarify and (maybe?) defend Mrs. Schyler523. I think it is against the letter of the rules, and therefore cheating. However, I think it happens all the time and is to be expected in a game where you have to keep a lot of information to yourself. Call people out when you see them watching your pencil or peeping your cards, but don't call the game over it or make a big fuss - just be more careful next time.
posted by ish__ at 5:34 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by ish__ at 5:34 PM on December 4, 2009
I play a lot of games like that, mainly dice games. If someone is being lax covering their dice (or Clue cards) I will tell them to cover up their dice/cards. Takes the fun out of it otherwise. Though some people are card/dice protectors and some are not, and even if I tell someone they will usually still be showing them. I agree it may be hard for you to not look but for it to not be cheating, you need to tell them to cover their cards better the first time you see them.
posted by gatorbiddy at 5:35 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by gatorbiddy at 5:35 PM on December 4, 2009
A good detective needs to gather evidence that will be admissible in court.
It's possible to "win" at games if you promise the last piece of pie or sexual favors or to stop kicking someone under the table if they help you win - but all those things are cheating, even though they make you the "best" capitalist or detective or whatever.
Mrs. Schyler523, you are cheating. Totally. In a way that makes the game not fun for everyone else who isn't cheating. Also, you were either misrepresented in the OP or are backpeddaling like a fiend on this "sneak a look" version.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 5:54 PM on December 4, 2009
It's possible to "win" at games if you promise the last piece of pie or sexual favors or to stop kicking someone under the table if they help you win - but all those things are cheating, even though they make you the "best" capitalist or detective or whatever.
Mrs. Schyler523, you are cheating. Totally. In a way that makes the game not fun for everyone else who isn't cheating. Also, you were either misrepresented in the OP or are backpeddaling like a fiend on this "sneak a look" version.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 5:54 PM on December 4, 2009
You can't be expected to wear imaginary blinders. Not cheating unless you're playing with children under 7
The question isn't about inadvertently seeing someone's cards and using that information, it's about actively trying to catch any possible glimpse of the cards. To me this is clearly cheating and goes against the spirit of the game. The winner of clue isn't supposed to be whoever was most paranoid about others seeing their cards and most vigilant in terms of catching people's slip ups...for me knowing that someone was trying to look at my cards the whole game would make it a lot less fun.
posted by 12%juicepulp at 5:57 PM on December 4, 2009
The question isn't about inadvertently seeing someone's cards and using that information, it's about actively trying to catch any possible glimpse of the cards. To me this is clearly cheating and goes against the spirit of the game. The winner of clue isn't supposed to be whoever was most paranoid about others seeing their cards and most vigilant in terms of catching people's slip ups...for me knowing that someone was trying to look at my cards the whole game would make it a lot less fun.
posted by 12%juicepulp at 5:57 PM on December 4, 2009
I think Mrs. Schyler523's is playing both the board game and a psychological game with the other players. This is really fun with the right people, but everyone has to know what's going on. One-sided subterfuge is no fun when a) the other players don't make sneaking a peek difficult, and b) the other players feel taken advantage of. Even if Mrs. Schyler523 isn't coming up with elaborate schemes, she is seeking to exploit other players' weaknesses, like their habit of gesturing wildly with their cards which potentially allows you to see them, and so she is playing an inherently different game than the other players.
I don't believe the Clue game requires the psychological element to be played successfully, and I don't think the psychological game is implied in the directions. The warning to "not let other players see your cards" is a way of telling the players not to leave your cards face-up. Games that incorporate the subterfuge angle usually explicitly comment on this element in the directions. Most players are going to approach Clue as a simple board game, and if Mrs. Schyler523 wants to include this element everyone has to agree to it. Otherwise, it's cheating.
posted by lilac girl at 5:58 PM on December 4, 2009
I don't believe the Clue game requires the psychological element to be played successfully, and I don't think the psychological game is implied in the directions. The warning to "not let other players see your cards" is a way of telling the players not to leave your cards face-up. Games that incorporate the subterfuge angle usually explicitly comment on this element in the directions. Most players are going to approach Clue as a simple board game, and if Mrs. Schyler523 wants to include this element everyone has to agree to it. Otherwise, it's cheating.
posted by lilac girl at 5:58 PM on December 4, 2009
"You are a detective trying to solve a crime, and a good detective uses all the resources at their disposal to solve the crime"
And yet you draw the line at laxative laced cookies? You'd never make it past day one in the Pinkertons.
(And also CHEATER!)
posted by schwa at 5:59 PM on December 4, 2009
And yet you draw the line at laxative laced cookies? You'd never make it past day one in the Pinkertons.
(And also CHEATER!)
posted by schwa at 5:59 PM on December 4, 2009
It's weird how house rules develop and turn into major bones of contention between spouses.
My wife was perfectly convinced that giving tiles to other players AND using the dictionary mid-play in Scrabble was perfectly fine. That was almost a divorce.
posted by schwa at 6:01 PM on December 4, 2009
My wife was perfectly convinced that giving tiles to other players AND using the dictionary mid-play in Scrabble was perfectly fine. That was almost a divorce.
posted by schwa at 6:01 PM on December 4, 2009
Not cheating!
Part of the game is to strategically prevent other players from gaining any extra clues. Be it through guessing clues already in your hand to throw off the scent, doing your best to keep from sharing a certain clue, or keeping your clues covered.
If you don't strategize to keep your info hidden then I'll strategize to steal it.
posted by simplethings at 6:17 PM on December 4, 2009
Part of the game is to strategically prevent other players from gaining any extra clues. Be it through guessing clues already in your hand to throw off the scent, doing your best to keep from sharing a certain clue, or keeping your clues covered.
If you don't strategize to keep your info hidden then I'll strategize to steal it.
posted by simplethings at 6:17 PM on December 4, 2009
Given the limited scope of the game (very limited people, place, and weapons), this would make the game too easy. Looking at cards is bad form, because you don't have to ask about those single items. Looking at the checklist is really bad, because you can knock off quite a few options (assuming the other person is right).
I believe the only thing the game really supports is deduction from questions others ask (and what others say). This only gets troublesome with people who don't understand that saying certain things can give away their hand.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:24 PM on December 4, 2009
I believe the only thing the game really supports is deduction from questions others ask (and what others say). This only gets troublesome with people who don't understand that saying certain things can give away their hand.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:24 PM on December 4, 2009
I dunno... I kind of agree with Mrs. Schyler523. We have the same rule in my house, that if you are able to see someone's cards/page then all the better. You have to be protective of your 'evidence', and if you don't hide what you know then you get what you deserve.
posted by gwenlister at 6:30 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by gwenlister at 6:30 PM on December 4, 2009
I am a bit surprised that everyone is saying this is cheating. It is the responsibility of the other player to prevent you from gaining such an advantage, I mean if this is cheating, using any information that a player lets slip would be cheating too. If they don't guard their tongue or their card, the info is fair game.
posted by Carillon at 7:13 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by Carillon at 7:13 PM on December 4, 2009
I think all that matters here is that the other player doesn't enjoy the game when you sneak peeks at his cards. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. Since it isn't explicitly part of the game mechanic, and the other player(s) isn't a fan, cut it out.
posted by secret about box at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by secret about box at 7:14 PM on December 4, 2009
(To be clear: Accidentally seeing something, you can't be faulted. Trying to sneak peeks, not an explicit piece of the mechanics. Move on and kick his whiny ass* without peeking.)
* kidding about the whiny ass thing
posted by secret about box at 7:16 PM on December 4, 2009
* kidding about the whiny ass thing
posted by secret about box at 7:16 PM on December 4, 2009
Honestly, I can't imagine this being fun for either person involved.
If I won because I looked at some cards (intentionally or un-), well, that's not fun. And if someone else enjoys winning that way, well, I probably won't be playing games with that person for much longer.
The game is supposed to be fun. If the people you're playing with are not enjoying it, then you probably shouldn't continue doing it. (And of course, they should be hiding their cards)
posted by alligatorman at 7:31 PM on December 4, 2009
If I won because I looked at some cards (intentionally or un-), well, that's not fun. And if someone else enjoys winning that way, well, I probably won't be playing games with that person for much longer.
The game is supposed to be fun. If the people you're playing with are not enjoying it, then you probably shouldn't continue doing it. (And of course, they should be hiding their cards)
posted by alligatorman at 7:31 PM on December 4, 2009
And if someone's cards are visible, it would be much more enjoyable for everyone if you just said "Hey Fred, hide your cards" rather than use it to your advantage.
posted by alligatorman at 7:37 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by alligatorman at 7:37 PM on December 4, 2009
I couldn't find it fun or challenging to play Clue while knowing a bunch of extra info gained from peeking at everyone else's cards. The fun of the game is logically deducing who did it, with what, where, armed with the same info everyone else has. There's a satisfaction in that. Peeking every time you get a chance just seems juvenile. And cheaty. I wouldn't play with anyone who did that. I would also feel taken advantage of.....like someone was just biding their time, waiting for that nanosecond when I let down my guard and held my hand at just the perfect angle so they could snatch a peek.
I have to ask though - why do you keep allowing her to peek at your cards? How hard is it to hold them so no one can see them?
posted by iconomy at 7:39 PM on December 4, 2009
I have to ask though - why do you keep allowing her to peek at your cards? How hard is it to hold them so no one can see them?
posted by iconomy at 7:39 PM on December 4, 2009
It'd bad sportsmanship that comes off like super over competitiveness. Beat your husband and others without the crutch of sneaking peeks at their cards. You can do it!
posted by Atreides at 8:00 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by Atreides at 8:00 PM on December 4, 2009
This is unambiguously cheating. The game is about using logic and the process of elimination, not exploiting the fact that clues are on little pieces of cardboard.
posted by winna at 8:20 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by winna at 8:20 PM on December 4, 2009
The goal of the game is for everyone to have a good time. If you are ruining the fun of the game for the people you're playing with, then you are cheating.
It's very considerate of your husband to even post this question. If I were in his place, I would probably just smile and nod and ask myself what else you might be cheating at.
posted by bingo at 8:53 PM on December 4, 2009
It's very considerate of your husband to even post this question. If I were in his place, I would probably just smile and nod and ask myself what else you might be cheating at.
posted by bingo at 8:53 PM on December 4, 2009
Let's pretend it's an army game instead. Is it then not cheating to punch someone until they tell you where the nukes are buried? Because a good soldier would do it?
Cheating.
posted by CharlesV42 at 9:54 PM on December 4, 2009
Cheating.
posted by CharlesV42 at 9:54 PM on December 4, 2009
This is cheating. The game as most people understand it and play it is purely about making logical inferences. Furthermore, I can't think of any game where peeking at the other player's cards is a legitimate move. Even in games with a psychological element such as poker, looking at the other player's cards is not allowed.
Let's say you do agree with the other players in advance to the specific house rule that looking at other player's cards is allowed. In that case, everyone is going to make pretty well sure to hide their cards, and any revelation of cards will be because of someone's careless mistake. This introduces two new elements to the game - the arbitrary factor of luck in seeing someone else's cards, and the need to be paranoid about protecting your cards. These changes dilute and detract from the real focus of the game, making logical inferences, and it will be less fun for everyone.
posted by lsemel at 10:02 PM on December 4, 2009
Let's say you do agree with the other players in advance to the specific house rule that looking at other player's cards is allowed. In that case, everyone is going to make pretty well sure to hide their cards, and any revelation of cards will be because of someone's careless mistake. This introduces two new elements to the game - the arbitrary factor of luck in seeing someone else's cards, and the need to be paranoid about protecting your cards. These changes dilute and detract from the real focus of the game, making logical inferences, and it will be less fun for everyone.
posted by lsemel at 10:02 PM on December 4, 2009
If everyone is playing by the rules as written, you're cheating. If everyone's playing by rules that you've agreed upon that peeking is permitted, you're not cheating. That's it, really. The bit about keeping your cards hidden is not there to suggest that others will be looking so you should be careful -- it's there to make it clear that the game is meant to be played with cards hidden (unlike some games where this doesn't matter.)
So up to now, Mrs, you've been cheating. If you get your husband and other players to agree to peeking-is-okay, then you won't be cheating any more.
and I think it's worth noting, Mr, that Mrs has a very creative way of interpreting rules
posted by davejay at 10:10 PM on December 4, 2009
So up to now, Mrs, you've been cheating. If you get your husband and other players to agree to peeking-is-okay, then you won't be cheating any more.
and I think it's worth noting, Mr, that Mrs has a very creative way of interpreting rules
posted by davejay at 10:10 PM on December 4, 2009
> You are a detective trying to solve a crime, and a good detective uses all the resources at their disposal to solve the crime.
No, you're not. You're one of a group of people playing a parlor game at a table. And basic manners say that you follow the rules of the game (or the rules the group has agreed to).
If you were actually a detective, pulling the fire alarm so you can peek at the envelope while everyone is out of the room would be a great strategy. Heck, depending on whose detective novel you're in, pulling out a gun and forcing everyone to show their cards might be a good strategy.
But you're not a detective.
posted by mmoncur at 10:35 PM on December 4, 2009
No, you're not. You're one of a group of people playing a parlor game at a table. And basic manners say that you follow the rules of the game (or the rules the group has agreed to).
If you were actually a detective, pulling the fire alarm so you can peek at the envelope while everyone is out of the room would be a great strategy. Heck, depending on whose detective novel you're in, pulling out a gun and forcing everyone to show their cards might be a good strategy.
But you're not a detective.
posted by mmoncur at 10:35 PM on December 4, 2009
For what it's worth in a non-public-transit game I don't show my cards. It's also better to not show your cards.
posted by Wood at 10:49 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by Wood at 10:49 PM on December 4, 2009
If you spill your tiles in scrabble that's fair game though.
posted by Wood at 10:50 PM on December 4, 2009
posted by Wood at 10:50 PM on December 4, 2009
The only defense I can see in this situation is that a sneaky cheaty player - the kind that might, I don't know, strategically put mirrors up before the game, or such - forces people to be very focused on the game. So focused that if someone has to take a bio break, they'll be bringing their cards and notepad with them. Engaged at every moment. In some ways, this is in the spirit of the game - in the game you aren't a goddamn detective, you're a house guest whose host has been murdered and it might as well be any of the others and who knows how stabby they might be.
This vigilance itself can be distracting for people - focusing on that, instead of the logic of the game. It does not have a place in a 'leisurely' game. Like askme discusses 'ask' versus 'tell' cultures, I see a 'board games is serious business' approach versus a 'whoo gametime' approach at conflict here.
posted by Weighted Companion Cube at 5:28 AM on December 5, 2009
This vigilance itself can be distracting for people - focusing on that, instead of the logic of the game. It does not have a place in a 'leisurely' game. Like askme discusses 'ask' versus 'tell' cultures, I see a 'board games is serious business' approach versus a 'whoo gametime' approach at conflict here.
posted by Weighted Companion Cube at 5:28 AM on December 5, 2009
You are a detective trying to solve a crime, and a good detective uses all the resources at their disposal to solve the crime.
I play an online game, one in which the characters are pirates. And while the characters are, in fact, pirates, and there are well defined game functions for stealing from other players, there are also ways in which they can steal from other players because the other players trusted them and they were a jerk. The defense of these jerks is always "But we're pirates!" and the answer from the game employees, right before they ban the jerks, is that they're not pirates, they're people playing a computer game, and that if they can't do it within the rules of the game, they don't get to play anymore.
Same deal here. It's essentially an in-character vs. out-of-character divide. Pretending that your cheating is in character doesn't make it not cheating.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:25 AM on December 5, 2009
I play an online game, one in which the characters are pirates. And while the characters are, in fact, pirates, and there are well defined game functions for stealing from other players, there are also ways in which they can steal from other players because the other players trusted them and they were a jerk. The defense of these jerks is always "But we're pirates!" and the answer from the game employees, right before they ban the jerks, is that they're not pirates, they're people playing a computer game, and that if they can't do it within the rules of the game, they don't get to play anymore.
Same deal here. It's essentially an in-character vs. out-of-character divide. Pretending that your cheating is in character doesn't make it not cheating.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:25 AM on December 5, 2009
Generally acceptable behavior in most games when you accidentally see someone else's cards/tiles or whatever is to tell the other player that you can see them and to tell him/her to do a better job concealing them.
That doesn't mean you should pretend you didn't see them, you should use the knowledge to your advantage, but it certainly doesn't mean you should be sneaking peeks at other cards, installing video camera, bribing other players to let you win, etc.
The reason for this is to help preserve the fun of the game for everyone, I haven't played cluedo in years, but in most games with hidden cards/tiles knowledge of other player's assets can give you an extremely strong advantage. Generally you should build up that knowledge by observing their behavior (e.g. watching what people buy/sell in Settlers of Catan). Sneaking a peak gives you advantages that are not available fairly to all other players (the player over the table from you is probably not able to ever see the cards of the clumsy player next to you).
In summary: accidentally seeing other peoples cards is not cheating. Deliberately peaking at other people's cards definitely is. Not telling another player that you accidentally saw their cards is bad form.
Full disclosure: depending on the game played and the players involved - I can and will cheat like a son of a bitch (never let me be the banker in monopoly for example).
posted by schwa at 7:33 AM on December 5, 2009
That doesn't mean you should pretend you didn't see them, you should use the knowledge to your advantage, but it certainly doesn't mean you should be sneaking peeks at other cards, installing video camera, bribing other players to let you win, etc.
The reason for this is to help preserve the fun of the game for everyone, I haven't played cluedo in years, but in most games with hidden cards/tiles knowledge of other player's assets can give you an extremely strong advantage. Generally you should build up that knowledge by observing their behavior (e.g. watching what people buy/sell in Settlers of Catan). Sneaking a peak gives you advantages that are not available fairly to all other players (the player over the table from you is probably not able to ever see the cards of the clumsy player next to you).
In summary: accidentally seeing other peoples cards is not cheating. Deliberately peaking at other people's cards definitely is. Not telling another player that you accidentally saw their cards is bad form.
Full disclosure: depending on the game played and the players involved - I can and will cheat like a son of a bitch (never let me be the banker in monopoly for example).
posted by schwa at 7:33 AM on December 5, 2009
Long ago (the 1970s), my mom used to play in scrabble tournaments. She played a game against someone who turned a letter tile over and played it as a "blank" to make a seven letter word.
Of course, there are only two blank tiles in the game, so you can imagine my mother's confusion when, late in the game, a "third" blank tile came up.
What's going on?! A judge is called over -- blank tiles are turned over -- the ruse is revealed! My mom can hardly believe it -- keep in mind this is before such things as scrabble tournaments became serious business -- I think the grand prize was a sweatshirt that said "scrabble champion".
Her opponent sits back smugly and explains unashamedly that she hasn't broken the rules -- you see, it was in the scrabble federations rulebook that "it is an opponent's responsibility to check any blank tiles played". Of course, it never occurred to my (sweet, sainted) mother to do such a ridiculous thing.
The judges ruled in her opponent's favor, she won the game, and my mom never entered another scrabble tournament.
Was that lady a cheater? You goddamn bet she was. It's 30 years later, and I'd still kick her in the shins if I got the chance.
posted by the bricabrac man at 12:26 PM on December 5, 2009
Of course, there are only two blank tiles in the game, so you can imagine my mother's confusion when, late in the game, a "third" blank tile came up.
What's going on?! A judge is called over -- blank tiles are turned over -- the ruse is revealed! My mom can hardly believe it -- keep in mind this is before such things as scrabble tournaments became serious business -- I think the grand prize was a sweatshirt that said "scrabble champion".
Her opponent sits back smugly and explains unashamedly that she hasn't broken the rules -- you see, it was in the scrabble federations rulebook that "it is an opponent's responsibility to check any blank tiles played". Of course, it never occurred to my (sweet, sainted) mother to do such a ridiculous thing.
The judges ruled in her opponent's favor, she won the game, and my mom never entered another scrabble tournament.
Was that lady a cheater? You goddamn bet she was. It's 30 years later, and I'd still kick her in the shins if I got the chance.
posted by the bricabrac man at 12:26 PM on December 5, 2009
It's cheating.
posted by limeonaire at 12:57 PM on December 5, 2009
posted by limeonaire at 12:57 PM on December 5, 2009
Mrs. Schyler523 once again reporting that I have posed the exact same question to friends from my childhood and they ALSO think peeking is fine. Clearly, this is where I get that idea (or maybe I told them they ought to be peeking - I AM bossy). At any rate, I will no longer try to sneak peeks while playing with Schyler523. In the future, I think it is fair to check with our competitors to see which they prefer to play.
For the record, the only way anyone ever knew I was peeking was because I admitted to it openly, believing that I was playing within the rules. A cheater doesn't usually bring up their cheating ways. Thank you for settling our debate, which this would have had its' 2 YEAR anniversary this holiday season.
posted by schyler523 at 4:27 PM on December 5, 2009
For the record, the only way anyone ever knew I was peeking was because I admitted to it openly, believing that I was playing within the rules. A cheater doesn't usually bring up their cheating ways. Thank you for settling our debate, which this would have had its' 2 YEAR anniversary this holiday season.
posted by schyler523 at 4:27 PM on December 5, 2009
To provide the opposite view point from many of the posts here:
We always had two house rules:
1. Cheating is wrong. If you do it, you will be fined/punished/reprimanded/etc.
2. It's only cheating if you're caught.
The first game my dad taught me (after chess) was the German card game Skat; he showed us (by whipping us the first dozen or so go-arounds) that if you didn't count cards, you were at a serious disadvantage. So we learned quickly to count cards if we wanted to compete.
As we grew into more complicated and complex games, we played to win: so when we counted out the little Risk men, maybe we added a few to our starting pile. But it was the prerogative of any player to ask to switch sets, so if you added to your set, you may have just been giving extra players to your opponent. (When you play with several players, we'd finish counting them out... then switch one, two, three+ times... so sometimes you'd end up with your original set, sometimes not. 'got to the point that we'd count everything out, then roll the dice to see how many times we'd switch around-- nice little mind game of "what're the odds that someone's trying to screw me... or that I'll unintentionally screw myself")
The same applied to card games, etc; if you could hold extra cards from another deck, so much the better: but if you were caught slipping them in, you lose. (so there were many times that we'd play a round of poker, or gin, or what have you, only to end up with a few cards in the shoe that were also on the table at game's end)
We enjoyed it: kept the game more interesting by adding another dimension. ... of course, we're also the type that "if you can find the Christmas presents before Christmas, they're yours"... so that led to creative hiding spots like outdoor burials, or in attic vents, etc.
posted by Seeba at 6:13 PM on December 5, 2009
We always had two house rules:
1. Cheating is wrong. If you do it, you will be fined/punished/reprimanded/etc.
2. It's only cheating if you're caught.
The first game my dad taught me (after chess) was the German card game Skat; he showed us (by whipping us the first dozen or so go-arounds) that if you didn't count cards, you were at a serious disadvantage. So we learned quickly to count cards if we wanted to compete.
As we grew into more complicated and complex games, we played to win: so when we counted out the little Risk men, maybe we added a few to our starting pile. But it was the prerogative of any player to ask to switch sets, so if you added to your set, you may have just been giving extra players to your opponent. (When you play with several players, we'd finish counting them out... then switch one, two, three+ times... so sometimes you'd end up with your original set, sometimes not. 'got to the point that we'd count everything out, then roll the dice to see how many times we'd switch around-- nice little mind game of "what're the odds that someone's trying to screw me... or that I'll unintentionally screw myself")
The same applied to card games, etc; if you could hold extra cards from another deck, so much the better: but if you were caught slipping them in, you lose. (so there were many times that we'd play a round of poker, or gin, or what have you, only to end up with a few cards in the shoe that were also on the table at game's end)
We enjoyed it: kept the game more interesting by adding another dimension. ... of course, we're also the type that "if you can find the Christmas presents before Christmas, they're yours"... so that led to creative hiding spots like outdoor burials, or in attic vents, etc.
posted by Seeba at 6:13 PM on December 5, 2009
It's cheating because it harms the people not involved in the cheating (It harms those who are not the cheatee or the cheater).
1. A shortcut to winning this game would be to collude with another player and share information while creating an agreement between you and that other player that you'll share the wins. (n=2; base case)
2. Add one more person to this and collude with three players. The three of you will have an even greater chance of winning, and those not participating in the collusion will have very little chance of winning. (n+1)
3. If everyone colludes, the game is ruined and there is no point in playing. You're filling in a spreadsheet, which is not a pleasant way to spend your free time. (n implies n+1 is true)
Therefore, cheating in this method is logically proven, by induction, to destroy the game and you might as well pack the game up and do your taxes.
posted by sleslie at 10:50 AM on December 6, 2009
1. A shortcut to winning this game would be to collude with another player and share information while creating an agreement between you and that other player that you'll share the wins. (n=2; base case)
2. Add one more person to this and collude with three players. The three of you will have an even greater chance of winning, and those not participating in the collusion will have very little chance of winning. (n+1)
3. If everyone colludes, the game is ruined and there is no point in playing. You're filling in a spreadsheet, which is not a pleasant way to spend your free time. (n implies n+1 is true)
Therefore, cheating in this method is logically proven, by induction, to destroy the game and you might as well pack the game up and do your taxes.
posted by sleslie at 10:50 AM on December 6, 2009
It's certainly NOT cheating!!!
Neither is looking at another player's cards in Texas Hold'em, Pinochle, Bridge, and Blackjack.
Especially in Vegas.
In fact, it's encouraged.
An ex-con told me that, so you know it's true.
BTW, is there any sort of behavior that does seem like cheating to Mrs. Schyler523? Cuz, like, you might have reason to be concerned, if not...
posted by IAmBroom at 8:32 PM on December 6, 2009
Neither is looking at another player's cards in Texas Hold'em, Pinochle, Bridge, and Blackjack.
Especially in Vegas.
In fact, it's encouraged.
An ex-con told me that, so you know it's true.
BTW, is there any sort of behavior that does seem like cheating to Mrs. Schyler523? Cuz, like, you might have reason to be concerned, if not...
posted by IAmBroom at 8:32 PM on December 6, 2009
If you were playing poker and one of you had to use the rest room, would the rest of you look at that player's hand? No, because it's cheating.
The fact that the theme of the game is "detectives" isn't relevant to basic game play etiquette. There are games where such shenanigans are encouraged and appropriate but "Clue" isn't one of them.
posted by chairface at 12:05 PM on December 7, 2009
The fact that the theme of the game is "detectives" isn't relevant to basic game play etiquette. There are games where such shenanigans are encouraged and appropriate but "Clue" isn't one of them.
posted by chairface at 12:05 PM on December 7, 2009
"When playing poker is it OK to look at your opponents' cards?"
Yes, if they're careless enough to let you see them.
This is really a question about your philosophy of Clue - should you have enough time on your hands to have developed a philosophy of Clue.
If you believe that the point of Clue is to use logic and process of elimination, then it's cheating. If you believe the point of Clue is to use "detective work" to find the answers, then it isn't cheating.
posted by timdicator at 12:32 PM on December 7, 2009
Yes, if they're careless enough to let you see them.
This is really a question about your philosophy of Clue - should you have enough time on your hands to have developed a philosophy of Clue.
If you believe that the point of Clue is to use logic and process of elimination, then it's cheating. If you believe the point of Clue is to use "detective work" to find the answers, then it isn't cheating.
posted by timdicator at 12:32 PM on December 7, 2009
I love the idea that cheating is okay because of the crime-solving motif.
Monopoly: I'm great at having Monopolies. I even negotiate pre-market sales with the banker.
Chess: This is a war! More than one soldier moves at a time in a war.
Operation: I've saved the patient's life by switching to a pair of rubber-tipped tweezers.
posted by roll truck roll at 1:12 PM on December 17, 2009
Monopoly: I'm great at having Monopolies. I even negotiate pre-market sales with the banker.
Chess: This is a war! More than one soldier moves at a time in a war.
Operation: I've saved the patient's life by switching to a pair of rubber-tipped tweezers.
posted by roll truck roll at 1:12 PM on December 17, 2009
Mrs. Schyler523 once again reporting that I have posed the exact same question to friends from my childhood and they ALSO think peeking is fine.
Lady, this is AskMetafilter. You are fighting with the entire internet. You are not going to win.
For the record, I'm in the minority with you - I don't think its cheating. That said, I play a lot of poker, and if someone is careless with their cards, I am going to A) look, the first time, and use it to my advantage, B) tell them, immediately, that I know what they have. This is half to screw with their head and half to hint to them to be more careful.
To clarify my particular data point a bit more, I come from a family where a common tactic is raiding the monopoly tray of a few 500's a few hours before the game is even suggested. Then, you make shady side deals and back-door handshakes with each of the brothers you are playing against, all agreeing individually with you to collude in cheating the other two out of a fair win. You've pretty much guaranteed a win for yourself with everyone thinking they are cheating with just you, and there's rarely a game of monopoly in the holiday household I come from that doesn't end in a flipped board, lots of yelling, some wrestling, and threats to not let whomever come to In-and-Out with us to get burgers.
Fine, I don't want to go with you guys anyway.
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:21 PM on December 18, 2009
Lady, this is AskMetafilter. You are fighting with the entire internet. You are not going to win.
For the record, I'm in the minority with you - I don't think its cheating. That said, I play a lot of poker, and if someone is careless with their cards, I am going to A) look, the first time, and use it to my advantage, B) tell them, immediately, that I know what they have. This is half to screw with their head and half to hint to them to be more careful.
To clarify my particular data point a bit more, I come from a family where a common tactic is raiding the monopoly tray of a few 500's a few hours before the game is even suggested. Then, you make shady side deals and back-door handshakes with each of the brothers you are playing against, all agreeing individually with you to collude in cheating the other two out of a fair win. You've pretty much guaranteed a win for yourself with everyone thinking they are cheating with just you, and there's rarely a game of monopoly in the holiday household I come from that doesn't end in a flipped board, lots of yelling, some wrestling, and threats to not let whomever come to In-and-Out with us to get burgers.
Fine, I don't want to go with you guys anyway.
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:21 PM on December 18, 2009
I heard this thread on the recent Creepypasta podcast episode. Quickly skimming over the thread it looks like the majority think's it's cheating.
However, I think Mrs. Schyler532 is correct - it's not cheating. Because the rules say "be careful with your cards" instead of "people looking at others cards are cheating and should be beaten with a lead pipe" the game encourages it. I've always played that information gathered "on the sly" is perfectly fine. In fact we go so far as to watch other players mark their detective sheets - you can tell by what area they are marking what clue they saw. (so now we mark sheets while hiding them from curious eyes, or wait a bit and mark later when another player is taking his or her turn.)
When we start playing each player goes to different parts of the room to secretly mark up their pads. I've gotten to the point that I try to play without a pad and keep the clues in my head.
Other tactics include withholding information as much as possible - if one person has seen my "ballroom" card, I try to remember that/flag that, and if another person's query comes around and contains the ballroom I'll show that card instead of another. If the first person comes back around to the ballroom, but asks for a different weapon or person, I'll still try to show that ballroom card. I've had other players say 'but you already showed me that one". Nothing says I have to show a different card - ask a different way.
And since I'm on a roll - another technique is the "fishing trip" - if I need to figure out what room it is, I'll use a weapon and character that I already have - if no one shows me the room card during my query then I've resolved that mystery and can work on another aspect. I also like to jump between I room I have in my hand and the murder room fishing for weapons - the other players aren't sure which room it is and I can quickly narrow down other elements. (Though one has to be careful doing this to not tip off the other players.
You're looking for clues, and even when it's not your turn clues are still all around. If another player is careless with his or her cards, then they've tipped their hand too soon and I'm more than happy to capitalize on that.
posted by jazon at 4:49 PM on December 19, 2009
However, I think Mrs. Schyler532 is correct - it's not cheating. Because the rules say "be careful with your cards" instead of "people looking at others cards are cheating and should be beaten with a lead pipe" the game encourages it. I've always played that information gathered "on the sly" is perfectly fine. In fact we go so far as to watch other players mark their detective sheets - you can tell by what area they are marking what clue they saw. (so now we mark sheets while hiding them from curious eyes, or wait a bit and mark later when another player is taking his or her turn.)
When we start playing each player goes to different parts of the room to secretly mark up their pads. I've gotten to the point that I try to play without a pad and keep the clues in my head.
Other tactics include withholding information as much as possible - if one person has seen my "ballroom" card, I try to remember that/flag that, and if another person's query comes around and contains the ballroom I'll show that card instead of another. If the first person comes back around to the ballroom, but asks for a different weapon or person, I'll still try to show that ballroom card. I've had other players say 'but you already showed me that one". Nothing says I have to show a different card - ask a different way.
And since I'm on a roll - another technique is the "fishing trip" - if I need to figure out what room it is, I'll use a weapon and character that I already have - if no one shows me the room card during my query then I've resolved that mystery and can work on another aspect. I also like to jump between I room I have in my hand and the murder room fishing for weapons - the other players aren't sure which room it is and I can quickly narrow down other elements. (Though one has to be careful doing this to not tip off the other players.
You're looking for clues, and even when it's not your turn clues are still all around. If another player is careless with his or her cards, then they've tipped their hand too soon and I'm more than happy to capitalize on that.
posted by jazon at 4:49 PM on December 19, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ian1977 at 4:01 PM on December 4, 2009