There’s a game on Facebook called Wordox which will be going soon as it’s flash based, but I’ve played it on and off for years. It’s a shared letters game, with both players drawing from the same pool. One rule is that if there are 2 consecutive passes then the pool is refreshed with a new set of letters, however playing an invalid word doesn’t incur a penalty and doesn’t count as a pass.
This can lead to a situation where neither side wants to play, because all valid plays with the available letterset will result in a winning position for the opponent; and if player 1 passes then player 2 can just indefinitely keep the game going.
I have encountered on at least 1 occasion a board I could not see any valid play at all, but the opponent kept playing invalid moves until I just had to forfeit, that pretty strongly falls into player 2 being a jerk.
The situation that comes up more often is player 1 CAN play but any move would be bad, so he passes. Player 2 plays deliberate misplays to force player 1 to make a play. It’s bad game design that makes the situation possible, but who would you say was in the right?
My opinion is that choosing to pass is something that once you’ve taken the initiative to do, the other player should either make a real play or pass and let the game continue. Some of my opponents have insisted that passing when you have a possible play is cheating and that if you were the last player who could make a play you must make it.
Most of the time after 2-3 iterations I just play, but today I was watching a movie and had a lot of time, so I stuck to my guns for a long time and the game lasted over an hour of repetitive passing and invalid plays. (I played after that, so she won the game.)
Given the game designers are unlikely to fix the game or weigh in on the etiquette issue, in your opinion who do you think has the more respectable right of way?