by lordrahvin
SJack wrote:
i think you are referring to the assassin and thief and their abilities to hinder opponents by choosing a player to kill or steal from on their turn? would there be conversations involved at role selection time, such as "ooo, i'm going to chose the magician" when if fact they are choosing the warlord? in that case, we never bluff. I've not played with anyone that has tried to mislead another player over which role they have chosen in order to avoid being targeted. we try to deduce these things ourselves naturally, depending on opponents progress etc. I think it would be bad form for players to bluff and mislead other players this way.
The bluffing element comes not from some direct conversation with your opponent but from your awareness of how he sees your situations and the choices he'll likely make as a result.
If the King is available and you have a lot of yellow districts showing, you can profit substantially from this. But your opponents know this. Do you take the king anyway, or do you try for something else, hoping they'll foolishly assume you took the king and act on that information?
Bluffing in this case isn't lying, so much as tricking your opponent by manipulating the information he can't see (yet). In Chess, you can't really do this, because when you move your piece, an opponent instantly knows it. But what if somehow that information was hidden from your opponent in Chess? What if he can see all your pieces except the last piece you moved, and now he has to move based on his perceptions of where you were likely to move. Since you're aware of his perceptions, however, you may have predicted that behavior and done something to counter or foil it, even layed a trap for him. You've just turned Chess into a bluffing game. The most profitable move isn't necessarily the right one.