>>96410072
>>96410086
I have seen those, but often the other players don't pick up on it completely so the effect is not to completely destroy the game. Highly effective cheating requires the coordination of multiple players which is possible but could also happen in any other game. So I agree and its bad, but I don't think it totally ruins the game.

>>96410299
The most common one I see is people celebrating correct guesses, but acting confused when there is a correct guess that was not intended by the cluegiver. That lets their team know they should go for more since that one wasn't part of the clue number. When I explain the other rules people generally understand and try to do right, but this one is beyond normies apparently.

All in all, I think the game is still enjoyable and worthwhile, and furthermore there are countless rules errors that go undetected in other games, so much of the problem in codenames is actually just the same as every other game, but completely public and obvious. For this reason I still see it as preferable to most other things for casual groups. If anything it is a forum for revealing how easily, naturally, and unintentionally people violate rules.

Not that it is comparable in any way but just for an example of what I mean, consider Terraforming Mars. I suspect that 9/10 games played physically include miscalculations of payments or plays against condition limits, but the structure of play means these are almost never caught. The structure of play of Codenames means basically all rules violations are directly and obviously seen by the whole group. This gives the impression that people cheat more (mainly on accident) but I believe that the cheating is only observed more.