Part 1 | Part 2
And, yes, this time there will be strawberries. Please, try not to get any on the furniture...
The Strawman Variations (cont'd)
After making Mr Canoehead, I took a bit of a break from the strawmen. I started to work on a version of Vira that I could introduce to new players; I wanted something that was less elaborate (less intimidating) but still able to provide a "Vira" experience. I think I have something that works, but I'll talk more about that game (Cowbell Vira) in another post.
What brought me back to the strawmen was a lingering sense that I'd not finished porting all of the games that I'd wanted to cover. So far, I'd made strawmen games based on Euchre, Doppelkopf, Swiss Jass, and then some mashups of those games. I wasn't planning to do strawmen for every game that would work with them (I'll hope to show you why that's not necessary by the end of this post--or possibly the next post) but I did want to make a version for Sheepshead (or, more specifically Schafkopf). And yet, before I started to work on that, I first took a short climbing detour along a different branch of the Schafkopf family tree, up into the realm of the Saskop (and the Tarocks that inspired this group of games in the first place).
Strawman Variation VI began life with the name, "Duckhead".
I found it amusing to have a name that kept the [animal]-head convention but also sounded like cussing (f*ckhead or d*ckhead). I considered "Foxhead" but the German name (Fuchskopf) is perhaps a little too on-the-nose to be said in polite company.
The common trait among the Schafkopf-family of games is the promotion of full sets of face cards to top trumps: in Skat, it is all 4 jacks; in Sheepshead/Schafkopf, it's all 4 Jacks AND all 4 Queens. Saskop takes the next logical step and promotes all of the face cards (4 Jacks, 4 Queens, and 4 Kings).
In for a penny; in for a pound.
Ducktail adopts Saskops trump ranking (but I didn't bother to also promote the 6s to absolute boss-hood--because there's enough to learn without also needing to remember that). If Spades are trump, for example, then the full trump suit in Ducktail looks like this:
♣K, ♠K, ♥K, ♦K, ♣Q, ♠Q, ♥Q, ♦Q, ♣J, ♠J, ♥J, ♦J, ♠A, ♠10, ♠9, ♠8, ♠7, ♠6
That's 18 trumps in a deck of 36 cards. This proportion of trump vs non-trump is very reminiscent of Tarock. The trick play, which uses "must trump" rules, is also like Tarock. The difference is in where the points are weighted within the trump suit: Tarock puts all of the big points at the top and at the bottom and almost no points in between; Saskop (and Ducktail) puts points at the top, slowly drops their value, and then piles the majority just above the bottom. This shift in distribution makes capturing card points more interesting.
Ducktail also borrows another aspect of Tarock games: Ultimos. These are feats where you attempt to win the last trick with a certain card. In this case, you are trying to win the last trick with a 9 (a duckling--or, if it's the trump 9, the Duck). The "must trump" rule provides the slight increase in control that helps make this feat possible (yet still somewhat challenging).
While I was adding feats, I also awarded points for capturing the Duck and Ducklings in any of the tricks (I enjoy catching Foxes in Doppelkopf, so I borrowed that and then doubled down on it); all of these Duck-related feats provide a fun challenge (in trying to complete them or in trying to keep your opponent from doing so) and put at least 6 game points up for grabs each hand (potentially as many 10 points, if you can capture all of the ducks and also win the last trick with the Duck).
So, on average, you'll expect to split the duck points between the players--giving each player about 3 points per hand. But Ducktail also has Schafkopf-like scoring for capturing the most point cards. It's not all about the ducks. If you don't think you will catch them, you can instead focus on this other half of the scoring system, which starts out at 3 points but can be increased at the player's discretion up to 6 points (possibly even more) by using Sheepshead's cracking/recracking.
But, of course, in Ducktail, you don't say "Crack!". You say, "Quack!". And you don't "Recrack!", you "Quack Quack!".
With this mash-up of elements from Saskop, Doppelkopf, Sheepshead, and Tarock, Ducktail is a bit more of an original game than Moosehead. It's certainly more than just an Admiral Saskop. Among the Strawman Variations I've made so far, this game and Vivaldi seem the most like new trick-taking experiences as opposed to variants of existing games.
By contrast, Strawman Variation VII, while very much in the same family as Ducktail, is much more of a straightforward variant of its parent games Schafkopf and Sheepshead. But, again, I made tweaks to their recipes so that the result would better suit my tastes...
With Widderkopf (Ram's Head), I really just wanted to focus on one of the elements that I really enjoyed from Sheepshead.
The deliberate doubling of the game value. And, what I really wanted to do was to create an excuse to break out the Doubling Cube from Backgammon.
That's about it really.
With Cracking, Recracking, Schneidering, and Schwartzing, the game value can progress from as low as a single measly point for an entire hand of play, or as much as 64(!) points for the same hand (if you both players are doubling fools). Of course, that's very unlikely--most hands will be worth 1 or 2 points (with the occasional 4-pointer upping the excitement)--but the possibility of 64 points is what stokes the fire of my imagination.
And there's not much else to this one; it's really the closest of my Strawmen to being a straight-up Admiral-version of the game I'm porting. In this case, it could just as easily be called Admiral Sheepshead or Admiral Schafkopf, but it's still not entirely the same as either of those (the deck is a little longer there's a card point for the last trick that makes it so you can't tie, and I let the trailing player pick the trump suit--no auction required). I went with Ram's Head on this one because of all the butting of heads caused by a 2P game that is about cracking/recracking.
I'm going to gloss over Strawman Variations VIII & IX, Strawberry Whist & Strawberry Jam as those are still works-in-progress and I am uncertain about whether those experiments will result in games that are enjoyable enough that I'm willing to risk THE-HARSH-JUDGMENT-OF-OTHERS by sharing them... (which means, for the other variations, I'm pretty confident they will find an audience for which they are well-suited...these two I'm not as certain about).
These two games are attempts to use the strawmen-as-battery system that Mark Ball introduced to me from the 2P Rook game, "Over the Top".
I call the strawmen-as-battery system "strawberries" (straw'b'ery, see?) because I'm perverse and silly and I want to annoy people who just want to call them dummies (Hi Jonathan!) or a partially-exposed-double-dummy-system (Hi me!) --which, as it turns out, is exactly what they are. But doesn't strawberry sound more... appetizing?
In the strawberry system, unlike a strawman system, the piles of cards on the table are not an extension of your own hand; they are the partially exposed hand of your "partner's" cards. And they are played as such: you play one card from your hand, your opponent plays one from theirs, and then you each play a card from your strawberry patch (I am inventing terminology as I go, and it is either charming or maddening and I'm okay with it either way). If the trick is won by a strawberry, the first two cards of the next trick are played from the strawberries and then cards are played from the hand. It's as though the play of the hand switches direction from going clockwise to going counter-clockwise.
The benefit of this system is that it allows you to pull off 4P trick-taking maneuvers (like finesses and squeezes), something you can't quite do with only two cards per trick, and those plays can be quite satisfying. The downside is the game can start to feel deeply puzzly, dry, cold, and analytical. It's interesting, but I'm not truly sold on whether it's fun or not.
Strawberry Whist is what you might imagine it would be if you're familiar with Bid Whist (but it doesn't have bidding; again I let the trailing player choose trump and also whether the hand will be played Uptown or Downtown). Players will either score one point per trick taken or two points per trick if they take the majority.
I may revisit that one and try it with just strawmen instead of strawberries; it doesn't actually need to have 4 cards per trick, so perhaps it will work better with only 2 per trick. We'll see...
Strawberry Jam is Klaverjassen (the game from the Netherlands, not Clobyosh) for 2P. That game is about capturing tricks that include runs of cards in the same suit or sets of cards of the same rank (something you can't do when only two cards are being played per trick; so, enter the strawberry). Again, the game is functional but I'm not truly sure it's fun.
I was going to call the latter one Strawberry Jass but when I saw "Strawberry Ja" it seemed natural to go with Jam instead. Also, the card-play is about trying to force your opponent into completing tricks that form high-scoring melds. In other words, you're trying to jam them.
I did make some other Strawberry games, a few versions of Tarocks, but I haven't listed them as part of my variations as I found them unsatisfying. I had high hopes for Ottocento Fragole but I think I need to go back to the drawing board for the 2P Tarocks.
Old MacDonald (Rules)
The latest variation, Strawman Variation X or Old MacDonald, is near and dear to my heart as it's an Admiral-version of a Scottish pub-game called Phat. Phat is a variant of a game called Don, which is a member of the All Fours family (a group that includes Pitch and Pedro). In Britain, there still exist Cribbage & Don Leagues, where players gather at their local pubs to play cards and peg points over a pint of bitter. I would very much like to visit those pubs...
Like Widderkopf, Old MacDonald is a fairly faithful translation of its 4P inspiration to an Admiralized version. I stripped out the two bottom ranks from the deck, added a Joker that can win any trick and also cannot be forced out of your hand (it doesn't need to follow suit), and then put a single muck point on the Joker so that it's not possible to tie for Muck points at the end of the hand. I also leave 3 cards undealt (to avoid perfect information); I put the cards aside in "The Pen" and let the winner of the last trick score any muck points the Pen provides (which could be quite a lot of muck, but then the Muck only pegs 8 points so I'm not overly fussed about it).
The existing 2P variants for Don and Phat, called Blind Don or Blind Phat, deal out all of the cards to strawmen, with no undealt cards, and no hidden hand of cards. Some variants have hidden hands, but no undealt cards (eventually, you know exactly which cards the other player holds--it's inevitable and yet it could so easily be avoided...). None of them, that I'm aware of, add a Joker into the mix. And, as with most of my other variations, I'm letting the trailing player choose trump. That is definitely not in the traditional variants.
The game is quite simple to teach as it uses standard Ace-high card ranking and standard must follow trick-taking. It's nearly as vanilla as Whist, in that regard. But, what elevates the game is its distribution of card points among the ranks; in particular, trying to avoid giving up the high Phat points for capturing the middle- and low-ranking 9s or 5s makes for some interesting and sometimes quite tense decisions. Overall though, I find this game relaxing. It's enjoyable. A great game for playing at a pub or on a patio, with a pint and your favourite peg-board, dusted off and happy to be scoring something other than Cribbage for a change...
A nice way to while away an afternoon.
And that's it, for now. But, there will be Part 3. Sometime.
In that post, the plan is to point out some things to consider when trying to make Strawman Variations of your own (so that I don't have to keep making them!). I'll jot down some different ways you can consider for how to form your strawmen (they don't need to be just piles of two cards) and I'll note aspects of existing games that seem well suited for use in strawmen (and which aspects are not such a great fit) and then we'll turn things up to eleven by working through the Admiralization of yet another traditional card game. The result will be Strawman Variation XI (and, no, I haven't made it already).
A very occasional blog on traditional (and traditional-ish) card games.
Archive for Sean Ross
- [+] Dice rolls
Part 1 | Part 2
one idea; well, 1.5 ideas).
I've never thought of myself as a Designer (bear with me); I think of myself more as a Developer (I have helped develop quite a few published games over the last decade or so). Or, if not a Developer, then maybe a Synthesizer (that would be a combiner of ideas, not the musical instrument, you pedant). I'm pretty good at synthesis. At least. I think am? In any case, I've been doing a fair amount of the stuff while we've all been inside, waiting for the world to return. Some of the synthesis has worked (and some hasn't--or not well enough to share). Or, I think it has; I could be wrong. Still, other people seem to like what I've been doing, so I thought perhaps there might be other folks who'd like to hear about this stuff that has seemed to work. And perhaps to hear about some stuff that has yet to be tried (and that may or may not work). That's what this post is supposed to be about. I might ramble (perhaps we're already in the middle of one?). I might touch on the trick-takers I've played during this time (there've been so many) but I've covered those in other places and I'd rather not go over that ground again. Instead, I'll try to focus on the "new" trick-takers I've cobbled together. And, mostly, that will involve talking about the strawmen.
And maybe some strawberries. At the end. If you're good...
The Strawman Variations
A strawman is a pile of cards. It is most often used, alongside other strawmen, as an extension of a player's hand in a small number of two-player adaptations of typically three- or four-player trick-taking games. The most famous of these adaptations, if you can call it famous, is probably Officer's Skat. It's called Officer's, apparently, because the German army officers would not deign to play cards with the enlisted men, which often left them short the requisite 3rd player, and an adaptation was made so that the hoity-toity could still play something that approximated their favourite card game. The Officer's treatment was applied to Schafkopf as well, though that is a less hoity-toity member of the same family ([insert horrible black-sheepshead-of-the-family jokes here]).
The Officer's versions usually employ a number of two-card strawmen, with one card face-down and the second card face-up on top of the other one (you can have more or fewer cards, with different mixes of face-up/face-down ordering); only after the top card has been played is the card underneath revealed and made available to be played in subsequent tricks. In many of these variants, the players do not have a hidden hand of cards; all of the cards that will be played are dealt out to form the strawman piles. For versions that do include a hidden hand, their names sometimes receive a justly-deserved promotion in rank from that of lowly Officer (or Lieutenant) to the grand title of Admiral (as in Admiral Skat). I tend to prefer the Admiral variety, with its hidden information. So my Strawman Variations use that.
Note that a strawman is not quite a dummy. The distinction being that a dummy is played from as though it were another player, distinct from the human players; a strawman is part of the human player's hand (an extension), it is played from as an alternative to playing from its owner's hand (assuming the strawman system in use has a hidden hand--many do not, including Officer's Skat). We probably need another term for strawmen used in this way. As it stands, we use strawman to mean both the individual piles of cards and to mean the extension to the player's hand. That can get confusing. For instance, the dummy player in The Crew: The Quest for Planet Nine (and in its even better sequel), is made from strawmen, but it is not a strawman (it is not used as a strawman, it is used as a dummy). All of this might seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is different (mechanically and experientially).
That said, it was seeing the dummy in The Crew that set off over a year's worth of experiments with two-player card games that I've taken to calling my Strawman Variations. (Other people call it The "Can you move on to something original soon for Frick's sake?" Period)
That dummy reminded me of a 2P Euchre variant I had been taught back in the dark ages of ye olde 1980s: it used 5 two-card strawmen as an extension of the player's five-card-hand (for a total of 15 tricks) but it also used the 4-player Euchre scoring, which was not a good match. I remember not particularly enjoying that game; I wished there were better alternatives for 2P trick-taking. There are, of course, 2P trick-taking games--and a few are even good--but there are so very few that I actually like or that I would want to play on a regular basis. I figured someone else would make some. At some point. Eventually. So, I waited.
Nearly 35 years passed and nobody else had made one that I loved.
Some I liked; none I loved.
So, I figured I'd take a stab at it myself. And that intention led toStrawman Variation I.
I started working on Tuque (Two Player Euchre => Two-chre => Tuque; Get it??) back in June of 2020. It's 14 months later and I'm still making tweaks. I think it's very good but I'm not completely satisfied that the scoring is where I want it to be.
At first, it was just a faithful write-up of the rules I had been taught oh-so-many-years ago. It seems likely that the version I played originated in Almonte, Ontario (about 35km from where I grew up)--they play a 6-handed Euchre that adds the 2, 3, and 4 of Spades as Super Trump (or Bennies). That game used a 35 card deck (7 to Ace in four suits, plus the 3 bennies): 5 two-card strawmen were dealt out to each player, along with a hand of 5 cards, and 5 cards were left in the kitty. I liked the 5-5-5 motif that was happening there. But, after doing some more strawman variations, I came back to this one and added the 6s to the deck (bringing the deck size up to 39 cards) and dealt out hands of 7 cards.
My experience has been that you want the hand size to be about 60-80% of the strawmen size (In this case, the hand size is 7 and the strawmen contain 10 cards, so 70%). I don't know why this range feels right; it seems to be a sweet spot. I've been aiming at this range with all of my variations so far. It's become part of a formula (which I will spell out at the end of this post).
The thing I hadn't liked about the variant I'd been taught was the scoring. There were 15 total tricks available to be played but the scoring was very broad: if the maker took 8 to 14 tricks, they scored 1 point; if they took 15, they scored 2; if the defender took 8 tricks, the hand ended with a Euchre and they scored 2 points. It just wasn't granular enough to be satisfying.
I looked and found Joe Chellman’s rules for Two-Handed Euchre. Joe used a different layout with all cards dealt out (4 down, 4 up, 4 in hand)--which I didn't like--but his scoring was 1 point per trick, 2 points per trick if there was a Euchre--which I did like (or, at least, I liked it better).
So I stole that bit.
It's very Euchre in that it is punishing for the maker to miss their target. I'm not sure how fair it is but Euchre isn't particularly fair either. In any case, I've been thinking I want to change that scoring to be less unbalanced (see the Elastic Tuque variant) but I'm not sure. One thing Joe's scoring system provides is High Drama™; the sense of relief when you manage to scrape past the rubicon, or the joy of the defender when you fail, is amplified by the unfairness of the scoring. Maybe it's better to be unfair sometimes? If it makes the overall experience better?
I'm still mulling this one over...
Strawman Variation II, Moosehead, began as an attempt to make a 2P variant of Doublehead Kids to play with my son. Once I had that working, I decided to make the variant work for the full game of Doppelkopf, adding in its more varied options for trump. And then I decided to make tweaks to the rules of Doppelkopf (sacrilege!) so that, while extremely close to being an Admiral Doppelkopf, Moosehead is a slightly different (and I think better) member of the same family (you could backport my changes to the 4P game, and I would but who would I play it with?). Since what I'd made was not strictly Doppelkopf, I decided to give it a new name. One that was still in keeping with the animal-head convention of the Schafkopf family. I tried a couple of things; eventually, I settled on Moosehead. I thought it sounded good; plus it amused me to use the name of a Canadian beer brand.
The first tweak I made was to include the Foxes and Charlie Miller in all of the suit contracts; not just Diamonds. The Foxes and Charlie Miller are fun so why not have more of them? In Moosehead, for any game where the trump is a suit, the Aces of that suit are Foxes. Charlie Miller, of course, is still just Charlie Miller. No change required. Sadly, Charlie and the Foxes don't quite work in the other contracts (Queens, Jacks, and Vegetarian) but 4 out of 7 isn't shabby.
The other change I made was to allow for an unbidden game to be played (for a lower score). If neither player wanted to bid, then a default game of Diamonds is played and the winner scores 1 point (there is no declarer or defender, per se). If a bidden game is played, where one player chooses to name trump (it could be Diamonds), the game is worth 2 points if the declarer wins, or 3 points if the defender wins. I think it's nice to have an option for playing the hand even if both players are too afraid to name a suit (somebody is going to win, and that person will learn that they probably should have bid as they would have made more points for doing it).
After having made several more strawmen, I came back to this one and gave the first option to name trump to the player who was trailing in points (or to the non-dealer if the scores are tied). Previously, it had just always been non-dealer first (the turn to deal alternates); I've since decided that I might as well give an advantage to the player that is behind (if that's not your cup of tea, then by all means, just go with the earlier version).
The big difference when moving from Tuque to Moosehead was that Tuque was a plain trick-taking game while Moosehead was a point trick-taking game. In a 2P trick-taker, I think it's best to always have at least a little hidden information (otherwise the game degenerates into being a puzzle). With a plain trick-taker, you can just set aside a small number of unseen cards and then play with the rest of the cards--it doesn't matter which cards are out-of-play. With a point trick-taking game, which cards are out-of-play matters--and it matters increasingly depending on the number of cards that are out-of-play.
You almost always need all of the point cards to be capturable so that the scoring of the game you are adapting does not need to change. This means you want all of the point cards to be scored but you also want some cards to be out-of-play. You could set some cards aside, blindly, and then let the player that captures the last trick also win these set-aside cards, but the number of points in those set-aside cards can vary wildly: suppose you set aside 2 cards in an Ace-Ten game, those cards could be worth 0 points or they could be worth 22 points. That is quite a lottery (which can be fun in the right game but in a serious game, it's just too much luck swinging in someone's favour).
Instead of blindly setting cards aside, in my early variations of point trick games, I went with dealing out all of the cards; I then let each player put one card from their hand into their own capture pile. This gets two cards out of play (there is one unknown card for each player), the amount that goes into the capture pile is controlled by the players--not by random chance--AND the value of those hidden cards can never exceed 11 points for either player. Pretty good. Not bad. But a few months later I transitioned to what is now my current preference.
Instead of putting a card into your own capture pile, I now make players put a card into their opponent's capture pile.
This change means that most of the high-value point cards remain in play (to be captured by trick-play instead of being squirreled away without being fought over); it also means that, if you want to have more unseen cards in the game, you can have the players discard two or three cards, say, instead of just one and be reasonably certain that (out of protecting their self-interest) most if not all of the point cards will remain in play for the round.
Because I found the trick-play of Moosehead, with its focus on capturing point cards over just capturing tricks, to be more interesting than the trick-play in Tuque, I kept my attention turned to point trick games for Strawman Variation III (and for several variations afterward).
Strohmann Jass (Rules)
I knew I wanted to have a 2P Jass game, at some point, but I wasn't entirely sure which Jass I wanted to port to this strawman structure. I knew that Differenzler was out (precision trick-takers of any kind are really not an option when nearly a third of your hand is unknown to you!) and I also didn't want any of the Jass games that used melds (I think it's okay to have games that capture melds--like Klaverjassen--but ones that display melds to trade information gain for bonus points are not a great fit for a game where you would be forming melds with cards from a hidden hand and cards from your strawmen, and once again you have a third of your hand unknown so more melds may exist that you cannot score simply because you are unaware of them--for now). I also don't think that games with bidding are a great fit for strawmen (unless the bidding is quite broad--as in "I will win more than you" rather than "I will win this many"). So, no La Belote Coinchée.
Coiffeur-Jass seemed like the best fit (though there are several other Jass games that would function nicely using this same configuration of hand size and strawmen--I leave this as an exercise for the reader...). For my version, I decided to keep the scoring relatively simple (no potatoes!)--you just score the number of card points you capture. There are no multipliers for the different types of contracts. I also don't force you to play through all of the different types of contracts; instead, you decide how many different contracts you want to play (I recommend 3 to 6 per player--or 6 to 12 deals); that's how many you play.
Of course, there's nothing stopping people from using this structure to play a complete game of Coiffeur-Jass, with 10 different contracts and different multipliers for certain groupings of contract. You can potato to your heart's content (or 20 deals have been played, whichever comes first). You also don't need to restrict yourself to the contract types I've chosen: if you just loves you some Gustav or Slalom then, by all means, add them. Strohmann Jass is a pretty flexible system for playing a variety of Jass games; adapt it to suit your tastes.
The lesson I learned from Strohmann Jass was that "may trump" trick-taking rules (you must follow suit BUT you may always trump) seems extremely well suited to strawmen when applied to a point trick-taking game (I can't see much advantage to using it in a plain trick-taker). I don't think you'd ever want to loosen the trick-taking restrictions as far as "may follow" (so no Briscola Paglierino is on the horizon) but "may trump", "must follow", and even "must trump" seem to work fine; I haven't tried a game that has "must win" restrictions...yet.
The other thing I particularly like in Strohmann Jass was the Undenufe contract, where the ranks of the cards go from top-down to bottom-up, the eights become worth 8 points and the largest scoring cards (the Aces, worth 11 points each) are also the lowest-ranked cards (some versions of Jass switch the 11 points up to the Sixes, but I don't care for that). This shift in where the weight of the points is located among the card ranks creates a lot of tension and fun card play. I enjoyed this change so much that I paused in my adaptations of existing traditional card games to make an entirely new game that is all about this single aspect of Strohmann Jass.
Always follow the fun.
Strawman Variation IV, Vidrasso, is a mash-up. It takes the "may trump" trick-taking and Undenufe-like card ordering (where the most valuable cards are the lowest in rank and the least valuable cards are the highest in rank) from Swiss Jass, combines that with the simple card point system from Vivaldi (the card is worth the number printed on it), and then makes the game a race to a cumulative scoring threshold (a thing in a few traditional games, but I was thinking about Madrasso at this time). After a play-testing session with Fukutarou, I also added trump ranks that function something like the highest trump in Mighty (the trump ranks belong to their original suit, they do not become an extension of the trump suit). So, Vidrassomite?
For a point trick-taking game, Vidrasso is very easy to teach. You don't need to remember which card is worth how many points (the value of the card is its printed rank). The scoring is simple: you just add up the numbers on the cards you capture, keep a cumulative total, and race to reach the target score. The trick play is highly tactical but there's enough control that you feel like you can steer the hand (or your opponent) in the direction you want. The decisions around when to trump and what to trump and how to trump (trump suit or trump rank?), what to lead, when to trade points for information (by revealing the bottom card of a strawman)--these decisions all ride the cusp between certainty and uncertainty. The player that best navigates the maelstrom wins.
I've enjoyed Vidrasso at 2P. And, so far, this had been the first game that I'd worked on that didn't start from an already existing game with a higher player count. And, of course, I've been thinking about how to extend the player range beyond 2P. So far, I've only tried the game at 3P, once, and I was not particularly keen on the result. I'd still like to try it again to see if I can make it work (it just feels like it should); it also seems like a 4P partnership version would be possible but I haven't tried to make that yet and I'm not sure how the partners could communicate effectively to decide on a trump suit or on a trump rank that best fit both of their hands.
While there's nothing really "new" in Vidrasso--as I say, it's a mash-up of ideas from several games--nevertheless, I think the resulting synthesis has formed an original-enough game where none quite like it has existed before and it's one that I think occupies a niche some folks may have been wanting to fill but could not quite articulate what had been missing.
I'm not sure the same can be said about Strawman Variation V.
Mr Canoehead (Rules)
This game is partly an attempt at synthesis between Euchre and Doppelkopf (or, to be more precise, Tuque and Moosehead); however, it is mostly a very much inside joke made to amuse a circle of one. Me.
To understand the joke, you need to be 1. Canadian, and 2. Old enough to remember a very niche Canadian comedy show from the terrible days before cable existed and there were something like 5 channels being picked up by enormous metal contraptions strapped to the sides of people's homes (these contraptions were known as "TV antennas", children). This show was called "Four on the Floor". It featured a troupe called "The Frantics" doing sketch comedy that was only very occasionally amusing (but there wasn't much else on so might as well watch it...).
A recurring skit featured a Canadian super-hero, Mr Canoehead; he had a canoe permanently welded to his noggin during an unfortunate portage incident. His super-power was to thwart evil-doers by turning around (swinging the canoe which would then knock the baddies out cold, by accident). Oops! Sorry!
You have Sheepshead. Doublehead (Doppelkopf). Now Moosehead. Why not Mr Canoehead? Eh?
I went with it.
But it wasn't quite Canadian enough. So I made the game about a trip where the players are "oout" and "aboout"; they take the religiously required detour through a Tim Horton's drive-thru for some essentials (coffee and donuts).
And then I added references to the only other remotely amusing bit I remembered from Four on the Floor (and even that is questionable).
Of course, I kept a spot open for adding in a reference to the Littlest Hobo. If you know what that is, you know why this inclusion is necessary.
Well, really, none of that needs to be included, but once I got going down the wrong path I didn't feel like turning back. If you put the Canadiana aside, the game is an attempt to bolt the scoring from Moosehead onto the plain trick play of Tuque. I liked that Moosehead had an option to play the hand if neither player wanted to bid, and I wasn't sold on the stick-the-dealer rule being used in Tuque, nor was I 100% on the high penalty scoring for being Euchred in that game, so I thought, why not take the scoring from Moosehead (which I liked) and replace the scoring of Tuque (which I was less certain of) to make something that Euchre players (the people who live around me) might like? And that's what I did.
I've only played it once, and it works. It's fine. It's not bad. But it's also not compelling. Maybe give it a try? Maybe don't? I'm not sure what else to say about that one...
And, at this point, I've run out of gas. Hopefully, I'll get the second part done sooner than a year from now. A trip to Timmies might be in order...
Where are the strawberries, Sean? We were promised strawberries! (I said, if you were good)
- [+] Dice rolls
Trick-Taking Quarterly geeklist posted by pkufahl. Since I tend to write a fair bit more than the other posters to the list, I try to contain my content by posting subsections as comments, rather than having one enormous geeklist entry that overwhelms the rest of the list. It just seemed like the polite thing to do. But it does break up the flow of the writing, and it makes it more difficult to find the bits about a particular game--as my posts become interspersed between the comments of other trick-taking aficionados. In future, I think I'll make a blog post when the Quarterly geeklist gets posted, and then my entry to the list will be a list of games played, with their ratings, followed by a link to this blog for commentary on the individual games. The commentary will look something like this...
10 Tartli NEW!
10 The Crew (2p)
10 Tuo La Ji
9 American Bookshop
9 Euchre (2P)
9 Königrufen NEW!
9 Voodoo Prince NEW!
8 Da Bai Fen NEW!
8 Euchre (4P)
8 Hungarian Tarokk NEW!
8 Sjavs NEW!
8 Slovenian Tarock
8 Somnia (2p) NEW!
8 Texas Showdown NEW!
8 Time Palatrix
8 Ugly Christmas Sweaters NEW!
8 Whist NEW!
7 Baśka Kaszubska NEW!
7 French Tarot
7 Minchiate NEW!
7 Tarot for Two (Prototype) NEW!
6 Duck Soup NEW!
6 Polish Tarock NEW!
5 Lua Cheia NEW!
4 Schwarz oder weiß NEW!
10 Gan Deng Yan
10 Guan Dan
10 Haggis (6P)
8 Mermaid Queen (Prototype) NEW!Tricking
Like last quarter's posting, this is gonna be a long 'un... Get everybody and the stuff together.
Okay, three, two, one let's jam...
I've been playing a decent amount of Rubber Bridge of late, using the Trickster Cards app. It's not the best Bridge app I've used--that honour would go to Funbridge--but it's free and I don't have to keep giving them money to buy new deals (which is, unfortunately, the model that Funbridge uses).
The trouble with the Trickster app, for me--beyond just being less attractive than the Funbridge app--is that its bidding system is not nearly as nuanced or well described as the one used by Funbridge. I don't think I'd be able to play Bridge in real-life; I just cannot memorize all of the meanings of the various bidding signals. I would need to have an extensive and thorough player-aid available, and a very patient partner (not to mention patient and lenient opponents). But, when I know that those signals are available, you have to know I want to use them. And I want to use them effectively. Funbridge makes it easier to steer yourself meaningfully through the bidding process and arrive almost always at the contract that is best suited to your hand. Sometimes, I might bid a little more aggressively than it recommends, but at least I know I'm stretching things beyond what might be expected. With the Trickster app, there are these howling gaps in the bidding where I want to find a way to move forward but there are no signals associated with any of the remaining available bids. Far too often I'm left, stood on a cliff-face, looking out into the darkness...
Or worse, I bid to keep us in the hand and the AI leaps ahead to a place where I DID.NOT.WANT.TO.GO. and leaves me no room to course-correct; we're just going to get lumped and we'll have to like it...
That said, it doesn't go astray all of the time, and when it works, it's still gives me the wonderful, rich experience of playing a hand of Bridge and maybe even occasionally playing it well. So, I try to accept it for what it is and let myself enjoy playing a few rubbers here and there. Which is also a different experience from playing on Funbridge...
With Funbridge, you are playing Duplicate Bridge. And, I must say, that as an app experience, I would much rather play Duplicate Bridge than play Rubber Bridge. Not by a startling amount: my 10 rating for Bridge is based off of playing Duplicate on the Funbridge app; my experience of Rubber Bridge, using the trickster app, makes me think I'd rate Rubber Bridge as a 9. But maybe still a 10--I really do need to try this game with people some day...
The biggest difference is that you are more at the mercy of luck in Rubber Bridge. Duplicate is about measuring yourself against the play of others over the same hand--it doesn't matter if your hand is bad, it only matters if you are bad. Rubber Bridge is more social. It's a race to two games-worth of points. This sense of racing, and the connection of the scores from hand to hand, gives the game experience an arc. If you have bad cards, it doesn't matter how good you are, you can still lose. But, unlike Duplicate--where you are trying to fit the perfect bid to your hand--it can sometimes be advantageous to deliberately overbid a hand, knowing that you will lose, so that your opponents' score goes above the line (which does not move the game closer to ending) instead of below the line (which would). You don't want to do it too often, otherwise, even if you're the first to win two games, the total scores will still have you losing the Rubber. Losing will happen and you won't be able to prevent it, entirely. But, then you just shuffle up the cards and have another go. Just like almost every other card game in existence...
Playing against apps and not against people warps the experience of each game quite a bit. For instance, I know--I absolutely know--that I would not enjoy playing tournament Duplicate Bridge in real-life, and that I would enjoy playing Rubber Bridge more. But, with an app, it's the opposite. Why is that?
Well, yesterday, for instance, I was watching some Youtube videos of some hands being played at a Duplicate Bridge tournament. If you're not familiar with this, it is a sobering experience to witness. For fear of illegal signals being passed between partners, there is a freaking wall, with a wee swinging door at the base, through which you slide a bidding tray to communicate your bids via impersonal cards. Your hands are given to you, pre-assembled and tucked into a hard plastic gizmo of some sort, so there's none of the shuffling or cutting or warm ceremony of playing cards with your friends--it's all very cold and clinical and just NOT my bag at all. If I am playing cards with humans, then I want the experience to be warm and rich and about more than just the cards and who wins. Tournament Duplicate is not what I want to play with friends. But I love it as an app. And I would probably enjoy Duplicate if it was played casually, without the walls.
It's a wonderful puzzle to play through a hand and then discover how well you managed to solve the problem in comparison to hundreds of other people who've tried to solve the same problem. Most of the time I might be in the upper-middle portion of the group, and sometimes--more than I like to admit--I'll end up at the very bottom of the curve (which is embarrassing). But every now and then...Nirvana! You bid a hand and play a hand like nobody else had done and manage to get the very best result. And you're just chuffed. It feels really good.
Perhaps it's like golf. You can hit a hundred errant balls that slice into the trees or hook into the sand, but if you ever hit that one long drive that flies straight and true and lands softly on the green. Well. You'll chase that feeling again and again to relive the joy that leaps from the despair of that terrible, terrible game... Bridge is kind of like that for me...
I have a confession. I'm sure I have several but we'll start with just one: I sometimes rate games based on how I would like to play them rather than on how they are actually meant to be played...
I wish that Doppelkopf was a fixed-partnership game. Other people seem to enjoy the mystery of hidden partnerships that the game offers. That might even be their favourite part. Not me. I prefer knowing who my partner is. Until you know who your partner is, you can only play sub-optimally by not smearing tricks won by your hidden partner for the simple reason that you don't know they're your partner. Otherwise, you'd have an extra 10 or 11 points that you might really need by the end of the hand...
No. What I like about Doppelkopf is the oh-so-long trump suit; the tactical play of the hand; the relatively loose trick-taking rules for a game with so long a trump suit (compared to Tarock and its like); the option to suit the game to your hand by trimming the trump down to just the Queens, just the Jacks, or even to just no trump whatsoever; the capture of Aces (especially foxes) and Tens, the occasional Doppelkopf (40+ points in one trick) getting thrown into the mix, and the opportunities to increase your reward for the hand by calling Re or Kontra, and more. You know. Everything else but that one part that other people just rave about. That's the part I don't like.
But I love the other part so much that I play it as it is anyway. If I want to play the other way, I suppose I'll just have to make my own game... (Sigh. Not again...).
Anyway. I mostly play Doppelkopf against an app but I did have the opportunity to play the game, with real people, twice this quarter: once with Ray (rayzg), Peter (pwinckles), and Peter's wife; and once with Ray, Peter, and Jim Wickson. Ray's cards, with the trump ranks written-out for all to see, were a great help when introducing the game to new players. While it is certainly good to steep yourself in the culture of card gaming by learning whatever arcane, tortuous twists of the deck were made in this region of the world for their flavour of card games, you also don't want to scald people with an overload of information so that they would rather leap away from the table.
You know. Like boiling a frog.
Like Doppelkopf, I mostly play Skat on an app. In fact, I've only ever played the game against people once and that was about 15 years ago. It's not something I would relish trying to introduce to new players. I initially found this game quite complicated and had no idea how to bid or play well. But I had a realization, recently. After having playing the game on an app for so long, I find that I now reach for it as a casual alternative to my plays of Bridge or Doppelkopf. Familiarity and comfort combine...
This is not to say that I play well... No! But certainly better than when I began...I hope...
Next confession: Sometimes my ratings for games get inflated by infatuation.
At the moment, The Crew is my favourite 2P trick-taking game. I don't think Tartli will be able to supplant it, but I can at least say that Tartli is currently my favourite trick-and-draw game (or trick-and-meld, as Raymond calls it).
Tartli is a 2P Hungarian/Austrian member of the Jass group. It has a key distinguishing feature from other Jass games in that the Over Knave (Queen) is raised to top trump rather than the Under Knave (Jack). The game is essentially a race to 501 points. You score points by declaring melds and capturing point cards in tricks. The melds include sequences of 3 or more cards in the same suit, 4-of-a-kinds for every rank other than 7 or 8, and a trump marriage (or Bela). You can score a sequence multiple times, if you time it right, by declaring 3 cards, then 4, and so on. You do not need to win a trick to meld, so the melding is frequent and gives your opponent a lot of information about your hand. You have to manage that hand to remain open to collecting more melds, while also fashioning your hand to take at least one trick in the phase that begins once the talon has been exhausted.
Until the talon is exhausted, trick-taking is may-follow (ftr). Once the talon is exhausted, the rules switch to forced-trump (f,t,r). You must be able to win at least one of the final 9 tricks. There are 161 trick-taking points available each hand, including 10 points for winning the last trick. If you fail to take a trick during the final 9, you keep any meld scoring you may have done, but you lose all of your captured point cards: those go to your opponent, who scores the full 161 points for themselves!
If you reach 501 points before your opponent, you score 1 VP. If you get there before your opponent collects 251 points, you score 2 VP. The game is to 5 or 10 VP.
You need to keep track of what cards have been played and what cards have been declared in order to be prepared for those final 9 tricks where the trick-taking ramps up to do-or-die intensity. If you can track all of the information given to you through the first part of the play, you should know exactly which cards your opponent is holding.
And this is where I have my one issue with the game. When covering Tartli, Raymond talked about finding it hard to keep track of this information. I, on the other hand, am able to track the information and--for me--that makes those final 9 tricks a tiny bit of a letdown because I know exactly how it will play out.
And so we come back to my earlier confession with Doppelkopf: that I sometimes rate games on how I would want to play them, rather than strictly on how they were meant to be played.
In this case, my solution is to deal 10 (or 11) cards at the beginning of play, rather than 9, and then have each player discard 1 (or 2) cards into their own capture pile before play begins. This way, when you get to those final 9 tricks, there is at least 1 unknown card (or 2, if you want more mystery). That small change is enough to make the end of the hand a bit more exciting for me.
As I've mentioned before, The Crew is currently my favourite 2P trick-taking game. There are a couple of reasons why.
First, the game manages to do something that--I believe--no other 2P trick-taking game had ever done, before the recent spate of co-operative trick-takers (and of those, it does it the best): The Crew lets you have the experience of playing with a partner when there are only 2 of you.
One thing that elevates 4P (and sometimes 6P) trick-taking, for me, above pretty much any other genre (except climbing games!), is the ability to play the game in fixed partnerships. The comradery, being on the same side, working together to pull off amazing victories. It's glorious. Or, it can be.
The Crew, even with two, lets you do this. And that is no small accomplishment.
Second, The Crew introduces a new audience to a trick-taking feature that is usually only seen in the most skilful versions of Tarock games, games like Illustrated Hungarian or Royal Tarokk. The Crew introduces the concept of feats (or stunts).
The only other trick-taking game that I know of that focuses solely on the play of the hand in order to accomplish feats, is Royal Tarokk. It is a tournament-level, partnership tarock game that demands more skill than any other card game I've ever read about. Yes, more than Bridge.
Royal, and The Crew, are games that are all about called shots. You say what you are going to do, and often when you are going to do it, and then you do it (or don't) to reap the reward (or the whirlwind).
For anyone who loves The Crew, the next step is to explore Royal Tarock. It would be like playing the Crew and trying to accomplish your missions while playing against a team of spoilers who are bent on seeing that your missions fail. It sounds so good!
I covered Vira pretty well in my post for last quarter's geeklist, so I'll just say that I've continued to enjoy playing the game this quarter. I do, however, have more to say about Tractor this time...
And we're back to my confession for Doppelkopf...
Tuo La Ji/Tractor
It's easily the most fun and interesting trick-taking game I've played so far. It's dynamic and varied in its card play. It has the feel of a climbing game despite decidedly not being so (and for me, unlike for Raymond, that is a definite plus). The inclusion of multi-card or combo tricks for pairs and sequences of pairs gives you additional tools for digging out higher ranking cards or trump from your opponent's hands. They also make it so that very low ranking cards can suddenly become unbeatable by higher ranking cards (or even trumps) simply because your opponents are unable to respond with a higher combo of the same type. So a pair of 2's in a non-trump suit can defeat even an A-K in the same or in the trump suit (you'd need to play A-A to win the trick). Powerful. Flexible. A favourite.
Having now played Tractor against non-AI opponents (you know... People), I do still love the play of the hand, but the rest of the game (the scoring, trump setting, exchange, top cards play) needs a lot of development. I cannot whole-heartedly recommend this game to anyone--as it is. There are just too many things that argue against it. But the play of the hand, in isolation--if you just play the hand and forget about everything else--is wonderful.
When you play the game as an app, a lot of the other elements just don't matter as much, you just jump from hand to hand and enjoy the card play for what it is. When you play with other players, the scoring matters, the trump setting matters, who gets to exchange matters, the fact that the top card play can be hard to understand and hard to play correctly matters. All of these things get in the way of experiencing the part of the game that I most enjoy.
Essentially, what I'm saying is: I need to develop a version of this game that doesn't have the issues that I see happening in the traditional version--and it is that theoretical version of the game that I truly love.
Or, I could just play the app and be happy with that...
I've only reached the 9s.
I don't have much to add over anything I--or everyone else--have already said about American Bookshop. Other than, perhaps, to say I've raised its rating from an 8 to a 9. If you haven't played it yet, there's a playingcards.io implementation waiting for you...
Euchre For TwoMy comments from last quarter wrote:If there were a distinct entry for the version of 2p Euchre that I play, I would give that a 9. Linked as it is with 4P Euchre, I feel like I have to keep the rating at an 8 as I'm not as inclined as I once was to play Euchre at that player count.I don't take credit for this version of the game. Somebody else--lost to history--came up with the deck, added the 3 jokers, and came up with the idea of using 5 strawmen. The only thing I did was change the scoring--and my change was based on a system devised by someone else as well. I just steepened the penalty for being Euchred.
I didn't use to like this 2P version when it was first taught to me about 35 years ago, but that was mostly due to the scoring which short-circuited the gameplay to end after one player took 8 tricks (1 for maker, 2 for defender). I would have rated that version a 6.
I recently spent some time looking into alternative scoring. I tried a few, even venturing into Bid Euchre territory, but pulled back in the end to something fairly simple that I think works very well and provides a satisfying trick-taking experience for 2P while still feeling somewhat like Euchre. I was hoping that the Bid Euchre system would work out but it didn't feel right bidding at higher trick thresholds when you could only see 10 of your own 15 cards; I felt the system wasn't suited to bidding beyond saying "I think I can take more tricks than you if this is trump". That's what it was before and that's where I left it.
But I would like to point out some niceties from this design, and why I like it so much.
Euchre is a 5-card trick-taking game, so I like the repetitions of 5 in this approach: There are 5 cards down, for each player, plus 5 cards up, plus 5 cards in hand, plus 5 cards in the Kitty. So many fives. It just seems right.
I like the lottery/gift/curse of finding out whether you have the card you need in the face-down cards. It's joyous when it goes in your favour and something you can blame when it doesn't ?
If you think about a 4P partnership trick-taking game, in most of those games you will know where 25% (or less if some are undealt) of the cards are (since you will know your own cards). And, while you know 100% of your own cards, you only know 50% of your team's cards (unless you're Declarer in Bridge, then you'll eventually know where 100% of your team's cards are--before the play of the hand). In 4P Euchre, you make a contract knowing where 25% of all of the cards are (your 5 plus the up-card) and 50% of your team's cards.
But even in Bridge, after the Dummy is down (but not taking into account your deductions from the opponent's bidding), you only know where 50% of all of the cards are.
The way this variant works, you start out knowing where 16 of the 35 cards are. That's 46% compared to the typical 25% (but still less than Bridge's 50%). Sure, you can only see 67% of your own hand, but I like to think of it more as I can see 67% of my team's hand because, if this was 4P (and not Bridge), I could only see 50% of my team's hand, which would make this a step up... By not knowing all of the cards in your own hand from the outset, you get a tiny bit of that sense of the uncertainty you have surrounding which cards will be played by your partner. And when the highest trump suddenly turns up from the face-down cards to win the trick you need to avoid getting Euchred, it's like that moment when your partner saves your contract by taking that one uncertain trick you were worried about from the beginning of the hand. In other words, it feels great.
There's still plenty of luck in this variant but, as you can see from the percentages, just because you have some face-down cards that you don't know about, that doesn't mean you don't have a lot of information to work with. It's just a matter of changing how you think about those face-down cards. I think of them as my partner helping me out--I only rely on them taking one trick at most. If they take more its a bonus. If they take none, well, there's always the next hand...
Some points about the scoring system.
In 4P Euchre, the worst-case longest game is about 20 hands (you go back and forth taking 1 point up to 10 or 11 points). This system plays to 61 in at most 9 hands--though typically it will take 5 to 7. If you want to play the longer game to 121, as part of a rubber, it will take 17 hands in the worst case, but usually about 10 to 14 hands. So, a nice way to while away a bit of time. As a bonus, you could use Skunking rules from Cribbage for your rubber (if your opponent takes fewer than 90 points, that game is worth double). Fun!
If you only want to play a very short game, playing to 31 works okay, but you'll have less time to balance out good and bad hands...
You don't need a deck with 3 jokers to play this. The game I was taught used the 2, 3, and 4 of spades. But if you would like to use a deck that has 3 jokers, this one is very nice and it's the one I use:
So far, in my recent journey into Tarot/Tarock games, this has been my favourite of the bunch. It helped that Raymond made a very nice implementation of the game for playingcards.io that included a player aid for all of the many bidding options. It seems there are so many games now that I like that I could never use as pick-up games--where you're with some friends, you grab a deck of cards, and you just start playing. A lot of my favourites really need player-aids. Some might even do well to have a board (I'm thinking of Vira and Minchiate, here) or custom decks of cards (anything with wonky ranking and point values). Being able to play the game, where all of the niggling (but sometimes vital) details are still there but they are smoothed out by simply not needing to remember all of them--you can remind yourself by reading the aid or board and then get back into the game--makes a big difference in how it feels to try to play some of these older card games. I highly recommend getting into the practice of providing player aids for traditional card games whenever you think they will help the experience. That would be most of the time...
The other good thing about what Raymond did--he did a lot of work, for which I thank him--is he scoured the rule sets and put together a set of bids that seemed to work well. He's correct that it seems like the game would be better if there were more bids that resulted in team play. I would certainly like that even more. But the main thing these bidding options added, that haven't been as present in the other Tarot games we've played, is the addition of negative contracts (where you try to lose every trick, or only win one, and so on). Those really help you feel like you can take part in the game even when you might not have the strongest hand (especially then!). It's one of the features I love about Vira and I enjoyed seeing it used here.
One play, five players. This immediately entered my Top 25. Doesn't matter if I never play it at a different player count. This fills a niche and fills it superbly.
As did--skipping ahead a bit in my list--Texas Showdown, which entered my Top 50 based on a single play at 6 players.
I have to play some more, but (much as I like them) I don't think either of these games are ones I'd want to play for an extended period of time--back-to-back. They're not whole evening (or whole day) games. Those types of games are closer to my Top 10. But these two are games that fill a role--short, light game at a specific player count--and that is enough for me.
I wonder how many back-to-back games of American Bookshop I'd be willing to play...? Not a whole a day, I think. But an evening? Maybe...
This is exhausting. For me. For you too?
Time to gloss over some games.
I don't have much to add to Raymond's thoughts on Cego. This is the first time I'd played the game against humans; I'd only played the bots at https://www.cego-online.de/. It's more fun with humans. Slovenian Tarock? Same.
Now we're cooking...
The Trickster app I mentioned earlier, for playing Bridge, also plays several other trick-taking games. Among those, Euchre, Spades, and Pitch have seen the most plays. Playing 4P Euchre on the app has shown me how much my rating of the game is based on nostalgia and the people I played with over the substance of the game itself. It's quite a step down from Bridge. But that's fine, sometimes you need something simpler. But then I also find I'd rather be playing the 2P version which has a bit more depth to it...
Pitch I find adds some needed variety to my trick-taking habits, it exercises some underused muscles--the ones you only know you have because the day after your workout the pain has made you fully aware of them. I should very much like to play the related games of Don or Phat.
Spades, I have no complaints about Spades. It's there when I need it. It's my Goldilocks trick-taker, I suppose. Not too light, not too heavy, but also not as exciting (it has its moments, but they are not the highest highs or lowest lows for me). It's often my taking a breather game. Though Skat has started to step on its toes there...
I almost played Pinochle on the app but I got lost in the variations trying to decide what form was best and then decided not to bother. Someday...
Oh, and I had forgotten. I also played Whist on the app. First time. I found the Uptown and Downtown bidding very interesting. Need to explore this family more...
Was that gloss? It feels like it's still taking far too long...
Da Bai Fen. It's single deck Tuo La Ji. It's fine. It's easier, I suppose. I'd rather ride the Tractor.
There! Back on track.
Hungarian Tarokk is a game that is in serious need of a developer. There is a great game hiding under a bunch of crusty old edge-cases--traditional card game rules sometimes accumulate exceptions like barnacles. People think this gives them character. Really it just makes you not want to touch them...lest ye bleed...
Sjavs was only the very briefest exploration of the 2P game and it left me wanting to explore this branch of the Shafkopf family all the more. The novel bidding system is so simple and makes so much sense when you hear of it, you wonder why you've never seen it used before: The player with the longest trump is the declarer. It gets right to the point and into the game without a lot of fuss. Very much want to play again and at different player counts.
Ugly Christmas Sweaters
I think I became aware of this game when I was doing one of my semi-frequent advanced BGG searches for 2P card games. It may have been for trick-taking. It may have been for both. I don't know; the point is I found it. Moving on.
It was a trick-taking game that supposedly worked well for two players. I was hooked; I still consider those to be rare. Certainly, by comparison to 4P trick-taking games, they are. And then there was the charming Christmas theme. That also held my attention; I had to know what it was like to play. So I watched Rahdo's run-through for the game and then I watched two more playthrough videos made by Hunter and his wife, Kymberlie. Sold. Take my money. How do I get you to take my money? I asked in the forums; Hunter was nice enough to take my money. Well, first he asked me to trade him for a copy of Haggis--which was kind--but I didn't have one to spare. So, money.
Now I just had to wait patiently for the game to arrive.
Um. Forget that.
I had already made a few games for playingcard.io at this point, so I contacted Hunter again to ask if he would be interested in having his game ported to that platform? It would allow people to try it; it would get them talking about it; and, it might lead to a few more sales. They were interested, yes. I got access to the files and spent a few hours putting the game together on pc.io. Then I had the two of them play the game to see if it worked well. Shortly thereafter, Hunter posted the game to the geeklist of games for that platform. I felt it would look more official that it was okay to play his game there. Nothing was being used without permission. That sort of thing.
And, so, I got to play his game before I got his game. None of that silly waiting guff. Insta-win.
I arranged a 2P session with Peter (pwinckles) that week and quickly followed that with another 2P session, this time with Raymond (rayzg). I enjoyed it. Both times. I found it charming and fairly relaxing.
In the 2P game, each player plays two cards to the trick, and the cards they play are used to determine a draft order for selecting the parts of the sweaters you are hoping to build from a central pool. And then, the cards you played to this trick goes into the pool; and the next trick is about drafting from those cards. This continues until one player completes their 3rd sweater to trigger the end of the round.
The thing with this game, at 2P, is that it doesn't quite feel like trick-taking when you play it. It is trick-taking; don't get me wrong. But it kind of feels more like an auction. Remember Palazzo, from Reiner Knizia? You bid with money to draft parts of buildings, but there are 3 denominations of money and you can only bid with one denomination at a time? It's not exactly like that, but its the closest analogy I could think of to express what it feels like when you are playing the tricks. It feels like you are spending the cards to win other cards in an auction that limits which cards you can use by a familiar set of rules. Must-follow trick-taking.
I don't know how else to express it. You are definitely following trick-taking rules, albeit with two different suits you can follow. And you are winning or losing the auction for draft order based on trick-taking resolution rules. But you aren't capturing the cards that are played to the trick; you're capturing other cards that you paid for with this trick. And I thought that might be what made it feel not quite like a trick-taking game. You don't actually take the trick. There's a disconnect from what I'm used to, so it felt different. Not bad different--it's actually very clever and enjoyable to play--just different. But later, I played the game 4P on Tabletop Simulator. And that felt like trick-taking. Weird.
Back in the Spring, Dave Peters (rynelf) had been kind enough to help me out with some playtesting of a 4P and 6P version of Haggis. We played those games at pc.io because that was the platform I chose. He offered to implement the game for me on TTS, which he prefers, and then he did. And he also implemented a steadily increasing number of other games for that platform. It's impressive. So, when Hunter later contacted me to see if I might be interested in porting UCS to TTS (yay, acronyms!), I said I knew someone who already knew how to do it and that they might be willing to give it a try. Fast forward a little--gloss!--and we're testing the game for 4P on Dave's TTS implementation. Which, BTW, is very slick.
I didn't think 4P would make that much of a difference. In 4P, you only play one card to each trick; four cards get played to the trick, same as in 2P, but you only get to contribute one of those four. And you also only get to win one of the four cards in the pool. That difference was enough to change how the game felt; it felt more tactical. Which, to me, is how trick-taking games usually feel. The 2P game, on the other hand, feels more strategic. It feels like you can plan more and have more control over your plans working out. I like it both ways but it is a different experience going from 2P to 4P. I still haven't tried 3P, so I can't comment on how that feels. But, my physical copy of the game did arrive in the mail not too long ago. So, perhaps, I'll get to see what 3P is like using the actual cards for a change.
I think Ugly Christmas Sweaters is an excellent game. It appears to scale well, but with a slightly different experience at each player count--which is fine. It uses its theme very well, and it gives me a game that I can bring out during the holidays (but, no, not only then) and enjoy with my family. Definitely recommend trying out.
Sorry for the wait, Hunter. Thanks for letting me play your game. Early.
I agree 100% with Raymond's assessment. My comment for the game:Quote:A ridiculous pub game with very little control. It's a wild, silly ride that you can enjoy if you don't take it seriously. I would never, never play this for money.But I would play it. And I would double. But never if real money was on the line.
I play this occasionally, on an app. I think it's to remind myself that I don't actually like it all that much. I still rate it a 7 but I'm not sure if I should. I seem to not care for Type II tarot games (the fool is used as an excuse and the games assign the usual card values). So far I've played French Tarot, Droggn, and Danish Tarok and haven't loved any of them. Perhaps I need to try the game at a player count other than 4?
The two-player Tarot that I played is one that Raymond discussed in his geeklist post, linked to earlier. It was a trick-and-draw tarot when I played it but I suggested Michael might want to explore a Piquet exchange instead. It sounds like that may have been an improvement? I'll have to try it again to see.
This is a game that gets in its own way. It's another example of a traditional card game that could use some development. Or maybe it just needed further evolution? We'll see when we get to try its descendant, Ottocento.
[Edit: Tried Ottocento. Evolution chose the wrong path. Development is needed]
I'm not sure what this would have been like to play in person with real cards and if we did not have the board we used to track which team had captured which trump. The multiple robbing the pack mechanisms are ridiculous. Seriously. Oh, I know why they did them--to help people discover more of the far-too-many unknown cards in the deck, but it's a whole lot of awkward fumbling that would have been better served by the simple expedient of reducing the size of the pack.
But, once you get past that ugliness, there is a very clever team-based, set collection, trick-taking game to play. It would do quite well as a board game if an appropriate theme were applied (and even without). The best part of the game is about trying to capture certain trumps that form sets or sequences, while also trying to capture certain other trump to block your opponents from doing the same. The blocking part is great fun. And any redevelopment of this game needs to "focus on the fun".
Playing Polish Tarock was not a memorable experience. I mean, I can barely remember playing it. It was like the Milquetoast of Tarock. There's a fine mantle to own. Not great.
For me, it felt like I was playing a gimmick-game. You have a clever idea, a gimmick, you make a game to showcase that gimmick and then people get to experience your gimmick and decide if it really was clever or not. Pat on the head, good job.
But the game experience itself is often hollow and unsatisfying as a result. There's no soul. It's a mesh of clockwork gears that run to get a result. The spark of life isn't there.
Lua Cheia and Schwarz und Weiss are further examples of gimmick games.
Lua Cheia is an experiment by the designer of American Bookshop, Taiki Shinzawa, where he tried to teach the principles of play for a must-follow game but using a may-follow game and a very small deck of cards to do it. And it felt like an experiment. It was cute. It was kind of clever but there wasn't much there to enjoy.
Schwarz oder Weiss (Black or White) was an experiment by another Japanese designer that worked as an experiment but not so much as a game.
In many German trick-taking games there is a bid called Schwarz, which is a bid to take all of the tricks. A Slam, if you will. The designer of this game lamented that this most interesting of bids was so seldom called and so they decided to do something about it. This was the result.
How it works is this: after receiving their first card, two players take turns drawing cards into their hand until one of them bids Schwarz or one of them bids Weiss (a bid to take zero tricks). After the bid is made, the declarer can opt to have more cards dealt or play with what they have. The hand size can vary from two to five cards, at most. The first lead sets the trump suit and from there it is standard must-follow trick-taking.
It's a neat idea, and it works for what it's trying to do, but it's not something I would want to play more than once, nod to say that it worked, and then never try to play it again. It's not a bad game. It's just not a satisfying game.
You know how they give you these small portions of food at gourmet restaurants, and the purpose is for you to experience the isolated flavours of the chef's latest, genius experiment?
Well, I'd rather have the Chili.
The new wave of trick-taking designs coming out of Japan is a marvel to behold. There are games that are refining classics, giving them that extra bit of development I seem to keep harping about, to make them presentable for a modern audience. And then there's this tsunami of trick-takers-with-a-twist. These can be hit-or-miss. When they hit, as they have with American Bookshop and Nokosu Dice, they produce modern classics; when they miss, it's like hoping for fireworks but finding a damp squib. Disappointing.Climbing
Gan Deng Yan
Or, as I like to call it, "Paddington".
I was introduced to this game by Robert (BankofDracula) who learned it from one of his students. It reminded me that pagat.com, despite being the greatest resource for traditional card game rules on the planet, was sadly incomplete. There are more card games out there than were dreamt of in my philosophy... [Your narrator gazes out into a night sky filled with uncountable stars, clutching the skull of Yorick. Alas.]
Too much? Let's bring this ship back to ground.
The game is like eating potato chips (crisps for my British readers), you keep wanting just one more.
Fascinating and frustrating. The name of the game is descriptive, "to watch helplessly". The other translations are "Glaring Eye" or "Hard Stare". It's the look you give the player that stops you from climbing higher. Like this:
Gan Deng Yan is a low-hand-size (5-6 cards) climbing game with very restrictive response rules: you can only play a combo that is a single rank higher (e.g., respond to 4 with 5, respond to 456 with 567), 2s, or a triple/quad bomb. There are 38 unknown cards at the beginning of a 3 player game, so there's quite a bit of luck involved. You need to prepare your mind for being thwarted and you need to keep your hand ready to respond to being thwarted at the right moment.
Despite the luck during the early rounds, you can usually still play well or poorly with what you're given. However, as the hand progresses, fewer and fewer cards are unknown: eventually, if the hand lasts long enough, the draw pile will be empty and you'll have quite a good idea of what cards are where. Then, certainly, skill is very much on display.
I still haven't played this with 2. Rafał W. Orkan (Skeeza) introduced it to his wife who "was just crazy happy playing it one-more-time and one-more-time again and again, even tho she lost most hands." So, it's probably pretty good at 2. I would guess that the scope for skilful play will diminish with more players. You add an extra deck to the game for 5 or 6. so it becomes more likely that someone--definitely not you--O! never you--will be able to respond to what has been led. Surely, somebody can play on this... Anybody? Grrrrrr!
I continue to enjoy this one quite a bit; though I may be adding significantly to my frown lines by playing it...
In the past, I've suggested that the feel of playing Tichu is like high-wire, movie Kung Fu and that Haggis feels more like a grappling sport--Brazilian Jujitsu comes to mind. Well, keeping with that theme, Guan Dan would be the professional, tag-team wrestling of climbing games.
It's body slams and pile drivers and flying off the top ropes to destroy your opponents. It's flash and glam but mostly slam.
Imagine if WWE was real. It's like that.
It begins with the hand size--27 cards--which is flamboyance itself (and yet is not the largest hand size in climbing games (See Băo huáng (保皇), which can have 43 card hands. Life goals). Because you have so many cards, you have so much to choose from. You've got most of the expected combinations--sets, straights, full houses, even stairs (though they call them plates)--but a few unusual ones like tubes (consecutive triples), 10-of-a-kind bombs, and the almighty 4-joker-bomb. It's a smorgasbord. All you can eat special. It's the candy store near where you grew up. You'll want to use them all.
The game plays out with regular floods of 6 card stairs or tubes, followed by dribbles of smaller combinations punctuated by the occasional full house or straight. But that's just the calm before the storm. Most rounds escalate to a flurry where multiple waves of increasingly powerful bombs are blasted into each other for longer than you might think possible. And then it ends. And the mists clear. And you start building towards the next wave.
It's a wonderful, mad, fun and smart game. Absolutely recommend.
I always knew that Haggis could be extended to support more than 3 players; I just never bothered to do it because I didn't want to be in direct competition with Tichu. I would surely be found wanting in comparison. And who wants that?
Then, about 3 years ago now, a publisher approached me about designing a climbing game for them. I wasn't motivated; I'd already been published so I wasn't driven by the prospect of doing it again. Still, shortly thereafter, I had a notion that did drive my interest. I began to wonder what it would have been like if climbing games had been introduced to Spain in, say, the 1600's. What would a climbing game, played with a Spanish-suited deck of cards, be like? This got me working on a game that I currently call "Rooster".
At first, I tried to steer the game away from being another version of Haggis. But, as the development went on, the best version of the game kept pulling me in that direction; I would have ideas that I put into Rooster and then I would think, "I could do that with Haggis as well". So, I started developing the two games in parallel. They aren't identical--the decks are different, there are different bombs, and Rooster has 6 wild cards (yes, 6)--but they are definitely fraternal.
Eventually, I stopped working on Rooster and began to focus on Haggis. I'll probably return to Rooster at some point, but I will change its combos to be restricted in length to no more than 6 cards. At least, that's what I think I'll do.
Anyway. Haggis. I got the 4P game working very well, I think. It's a different enough experience from Tichu that I feel it merits existence. Some people might like it; I do. More than Tichu. Shhhhhhhh! Don't let Tichu know!
There are some interesting features in the game. If you win a round with a bomb, you can either lead OR you can give the lead to your partner. Your team scores points based on the number of cards your opponents are holding when you go out; if your partner goes out second, even if the opponents have managed to get their hand sizes down, your team scores a Slam--which means that your partner scores whatever you scored when you went out. So. Big Points. Potentially. However, if you go out first, but don't get a Slam, it's entirely possible for the opposing team to score more points for cards in hand points than your team. It's also possible for them to greatly reduce the damage they will take for cards in hand points by getting their hand sizes down quickly; defensive play is meaningful.
While I was at it, I figured I'd take a stab at making the game work for 5 and 6 players as well. I still haven't played the 5P game but I've had several tests of the 6P game. I like it. I think it's really very good. But it takes a long time to play. Like, 90 minutes for 3 hands, long. We're playing online, so the length could be inflated, but I'd still say it would take at least 60 minutes to play it in person. Sure, it's a fully engaging 60 minutes, but yeah, 3 hands. I don't know... Also, the last playtest I had for the game, back in July, ended up in a blowout; this discouraged me enough to quit play-testing for the next 3 months (please don't judge me, I was sad). The scoring wasn't (isn't) where I want it to be. I'm hoping to get back to it sometime in November.
Okay. I think that's enough. I'll stop now.SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY...
 "focus on the fun" is one of Jay Cormier's mantras for game design. Jay and I are both members of the Game Artisans of Canada. Name-drop accomplished.
- [+] Dice rolls
4P version of Haggis (thank you playtesters!). It's based on some ideas I developed while creating Rooster (at this point, they are essentially the same game with different distributions and slightly different bombs). I think it works very well. And, if Rooster is a good indicator (and it seems to be), the 6p game will also be very good. I still have to test it, and my new 3p version of the game, but I think this is going to work out.
However, here's the thing: When I increased the number of cards in the deck to match the higher player counts, I also increased the number of point cards you would have to fish out of your tricks at the end of the hand, which is a bit tedious on its own, but then you also have to do all of the arithmetic with those additional point cards and that really was tedious. So, I got rid of the point cards.
And it was fine. In fact, it was better.
Now, at every player count other than 2P, you do not add up point cards; instead, you simply count how many total cards you captured and that number is your score. It's much simpler. It's much quicker. It's cleaner and it's easier. And it works for 3P, 4P, and 6P (and will work for 5P if I ever get around to working on that).
My concerns now are: Should I also remove the point cards from 2P so that the game is consistent for all player counts? Is the game as good at 2P without the point cards? If I remove point cards from the game, is this still Haggis? Or should I move on and call this game something else, like Rooster?
What I would like--what I need--is for people who play 2P Haggis already to try the game again at least twice. Play a full 2P game with the rules as they are now. Then, play a full 2P game but instead of adding up point cards, just count the number of cards that you capture and score that amount for captured cards. And then tell me which you prefer. The results of these tests will determine what a reprint of Haggis (or printing with some other name) will become...
Poll: Haggis 2P without point cards Poll: Haggis or Rooster
Note: I changed the first poll. It was not worded clearly before.
If the answers are "Better" or "Pretty much the same" then the point cards will go away. If the majority answer is "Worse", which I doubt, the point cards would stay, but only in the 2P game.
- [+] Dice rolls
I went on a ramble about designing a trick-taking game for Roxley's Iron Spades deck. I spent a bit of time going over the type of game I might want it to be (a synthesis of Slovenian Tarock, Doppelkopf, and Tractor), then quite a lot more time going over what the deck configuration might look like and why. Later on, in the comments beneath the post, I touched on some ideas for assigning card point values and mentioned that the trick-play would be either like Tarock (f,t,r) or French Tarot (f,T,t,r). At this point, I'm pretty certain it will be like Tarock. And that's about where my certainty ends.
Since that last post, I've been ruminating. A lot. More than you might imagine.
I've been chewing over variations on the deck configuration, variations on the point card values, variations on whether the game should have fixed or variable partnerships (and, if the latter, should the partnerships be known or unknown), and variations on bidding. And the only conclusion I've come to is this: I probably need to make more than one game.
I'm going to go on a little tangent here to give some context to the discussion that follows. Please bear with me. We'll get back to Iron Spades in a moment. If you want to skip this part, jump ahead to the regular-sized text.
So. I went nearly a decade, after designing Haggis, without trying to design a game. I had some notions percolating on how to make Haggis work with more players but it wasn't something I spent any focus on. I made Haggis because I wanted to play a climbing game with two people (3P only happened because the modelling I did showed that it would work too). The game I wanted to play didn't exist in the form that I wanted, so I made it. And I was content with that. I didn't see any reason to compete with Tichu (why fight a losing battle?) so I never really gave 4P Haggis much thought after that.
Then, about 2 years ago, I was doing something with my Latin-suited card decks (I can't recall what) when I thought: "What would it have been like if someone had invented a climbing game to play with one of these decks three or four hundred years ago?" Curiousity got the better of me and I spent a few months designing a game I called Rooster. I wasn't trying to make a competitor for Tichu, I was just trying to see what this creature might look like that was occupying my mind. And that let me feel free to start thinking more about adding players to Haggis. I did spend some time working on that but adding players to Haggis was not as clean as I would have liked because a few of my legacy-decisions for the original version limited where I felt I could take the game. So, then I started looking a sort-of double-deck Haggis/Rooster hybrid with 18 card hands and two sets of wild cards per player (which, at the moment, I just refer to as "Double Decker"). And, then, recently I got thinking about what it would be like to make a climbing game geared towards a German deck. That last one needs a lot of work.
Anyway. the point of this tangent is to say that I've got quite a few little ideas I want to explore in the genre that I love: climbing games. And, now, suddenly, I have more ideas I want to explore in a genre that I also love, trick-taking, but that I don't love as much as climbing games. Unfortunately, I have very, very few opportunities to play-test anything. I'd like to get these things done--and done properly--but it's going to take a lot of time under the best of circumstances. Now (with the pandemic happening) is not the best time to be wanting to playtest new designs. So I should prioritize where I focus my attention. Of course, I should. But that's not going to happen until I get these trick-taking ideas out of my head. Hence, blog post. It will be therapeutic for me; hopefully, it will be somewhat of interest for you. Back to Iron Spades.
Just the Cards
By the end of my previous ramble, I was leaning towards a double pack of cards like this:
Deck A (Identical Jokers)
Trumps: ★F, ♠A, ♠K, ♠Q, ♠J, ♠10, ♠9, ♠8, ♠7, ♠6, ♠5, ♠4, ♠3, ♠2 (28 cards)
Clubs: ♣A, ♣K, ♣Q, ♣J, ♣10 (10 cards)
Hearts: ♥A, ♥K, ♥Q, ♥J, ♥10 (10 cards)
Diamonds: ♦A, ♦K, ♦Q, ♦J, ♦10 (10 cards)
It seemed alright. With 58 cards in the deck, it would let me have a 6 card talon for Tarock-like bidding, and a hand size of 13 cards for a 4 player game. All good. Seemed fine.
For point values, I was thinking something very close to traditional Tarock values:
Scoring A1 (Tarock-like)
Rank Points Qty Total % Ind. %
F 8 2 16 10.0% 5.0%
A 5 8 40 25.0% 3.1%
K 4 8 32 20.0% 2.5%
Q 3 8 24 15.0% 1.9%
J 2 8 16 10.0% 1.3%
T 1 8 8 5.0% 0.6%
9 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
8 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
7 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
6 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
5 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
4 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
3 1 2 2 1.3% 0.6%
2 5 2 10 6.3% 3.1%
To be traditional, the value for the ★F would rightly be 5 points, but I'd prefer to have a total card point value that's divisible by 10, so I made the card worth 8 points. I refuse to do any of the Tarot-type grouped-card-counting of points that artificially fits the total card point value of many games at 70. I always find that stuff unnecessarily awkward--I mean, if you want the total to be 70, maybe have different values for the cards?
Anyway. This is where I was. I briefly considered Ace-Ten card point values, but then I felt, if I did this, I should also re-rank the cards accordingly. I didn't really want to have non-standard card ordering, by default, in the game so I set that option aside for the time being. Still, for those that might be curious, it works nicely enough if you're willing to have a lot of cards worth zero points:
Scoring A2 (Ace-Ten-like)
Rank Points Qty Total % Ind. %
F 20 2 40 13.3% 6.7%
A 11 8 88 29.3% 3.7%
T 10 8 80 26.7% 3.3%
K 4 8 32 10.7% 1.3%
Q 3 8 24 8.0% 1.0%
J 2 8 16 5.3% 0.7%
9 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
8 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
7 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
6 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
5 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
4 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
3 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
2 10 2 20 6.7% 3.3%
For a much shorter time, I entertained the idea of using All-Fours scoring. The conceit being: If the game was something that might have been invented and played by railway workers during the late 19th century in the UK (read the previous article), then maybe the card points should be more like other card games from the same region and time period. Which gives you something along these lines:
Rank Points Qty Total % Ind. %
F 5 2 10 5.6% 2.8%
A 4 8 32 17.8% 2.2%
K 3 8 24 13.3% 1.7%
Q 2 8 16 8.9% 1.1%
J 1 8 8 4.4% 0.6%
T 10 8 80 44.4% 5.6%
9 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
8 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
7 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
6 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
5 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
4 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
3 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
2 5 2 10 5.6% 2.8%
To be more authentic, the Joker would only be worth 1 point, it would rank between the Jack and the Ten, and the 2 would be worth 0 points. But I had different needs for those ranks, so I set both at 5 points apiece.
Somewhere amongst all of this, I considered scoring the card points with poker chips (Iron Clays for the Iron Spades, you know).
Scoring A4 (Poker Chips)
Rank Chip Qty Total % Ind. %
F 20 2 40 13.3% 6.7%
A 10 8 80 26.7% 3.3%
K 10 8 80 26.7% 3.3%
Q 5 8 40 13.3% 1.7%
J 5 8 40 13.3% 1.7%
T 0 8 0 0.0% 0.0%
9 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
8 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
7 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
6 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
5 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
4 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
3 0 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
2 10 2 20 6.7% 3.3%
Unfortunately, you'd need to buy at least the 200-chip Iron Clay set to use this, and the 400-chip set would be better. But my cheap-o set of 500 chips (with 100 chips in 5 colours) is better suited to the job.
I do like keeping score with poker chips...
Nevertheless--after all of that--in the end, I kept coming back to the Tarock-like scoring (A1) as being the one I wanted to keep. Each of the other scoring systems might produce a decent game in their own right, but they weren't the ones I wanted most to explore at the moment. So, I started re-reading the rules for Tarock games and when I got back to Slovenian Tarock, I noted how cleanly the game scaled from 4 players down to 3 players. Damn.
The Beauty of Dozens
With 54 cards in the deck and a talon of 6 cards, 48 cards are dealt between the players. In 4 player, this gives you a 12 card hand; in 3 players, it gives you a 16 card hand. The main takeaway here is that the talon is the same size in both instances. This means, for one thing, you don't need to handle exceptions around having a different size talon at each player count. My Deck A, with identical jokers, has 58 cards. That works fine for 4 players but it gets ugly trying to make it work for 3 players.
With 58 cards, if the talon is 6 cards, then there are 52 cards to deal evenly between 3 players--but you can't deal them evenly so you either change the size of the talon (which adds exceptions to the rules for dealing the cards, the rules for bidding over the talon, and the rules for exchanging with the talon) or you strip out cards (which gets ugly and also adds exceptions) or you add cards. All of these options are distasteful to me.
Why not just take 4 cards out of the deck to get it down to 54 cards? Well, it's awkward. You could remove two ranks from the Trumps, but what does that do? One nice thing about the current deck is that it uses the entire Spades suit, no ranks are removed, it doesn't seem awkward. Lopping the suit off below the 4 just seems ugly to me, never mind that it would mean different rules for what it means to capture the top two trump along with the lowest trump (Trull capture, from Tarock). Removing the Jokers and the 2s is also ugly, plus I want that Joker there to give me a rank that can catch ♠A. I wouldn't entertain removing any of the inner ranks, so that would leave removing one copy from 4 of the ranks, but which ones? I might consider stripping an ★F, ♠A, and ♠2, but I can't think of removing any of the other ranks without feeling nauseated.
Another option would be to add two more Jokers and remove the Tens from the off-suits. This would work. Unfortunately, this deck is for packs of cards with identical Jokers. I don't want to mark up the deck to make this work, so having 4 identical Jokers would mean having 4 cards all at the highest rank, above the ♠A. All other trumps only have two of each rank; I don't like the idea of having one trump rank quadrupled when all of the others are not. It could work, maybe, but it wouldn't be quite what I'd want.
In the end, it's all just yuck.
As far as I'm concerned, Deck A might be fine for a strictly 4 player game but there are better options if you want to handle 3 and 4.
For example, the other deck I'd been considering in the previous article was similar to the one above, but it has distinct Jokers. The trouble with distinct Jokers was that the Iron Spades decks that inspired this enterprise didn't have those, and I wanted to make the game work with that deck. If I put the Iron Spades aside and just focus on making a deck that works for a Tarock-like game for French-suited cards, the following deck is a better fit:
Deck B (Distinct Jokers)
Trumps: ★F, ♠A, ♠K, ♠Q, ♠J, ♠10, ♠9, ♠8, ♠7, ♠6, ♠5, ♠4, ♠3, ♠2, ★F (30 cards)
Clubs: ♣A, ♣K, ♣Q, ♣J (8 cards)
Hearts: ♥A, ♥K, ♥Q, ♥J (8 cards)
Diamonds: ♦A, ♦K, ♦Q, ♦J (8 cards)
Trull, or Honours
This deck, with 54 cards, is a much better starting point for making our game work cleanly for 3 or 4 players. It has more trump than either a Tarock game or Doppelkopf, but that could be interesting. The short-coming with this deck is I also had the idea of promoting ranks as Major and Minor trump (ala Watten and Mu). With only 4 ranks in the off-suits, if we raise two of them there are only two left. Still, the deck should work fine for a game where we just leave the trump suit unaltered. We'll need another deck for the rank promotion game...
But back to Deck B. Coming from Deck A to B, there are only minor changes to the point card values, and they work in favour of returning the game to its Tarock inspiration.
Scoring B1 (Tarock-like, distinct jokers)
Rank Points Qty Total % Ind. %
F 5 2 10 6.7% 3.3%
A 5 8 40 26.7% 3.3%
K 4 8 32 21.3% 2.7%
Q 3 8 24 16.0% 2.0%
J 2 8 16 10.7% 1.3%
T 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
9 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
8 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
7 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
6 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
5 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
4 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
3 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
2 1 2 2 1.3% 0.7%
F 5 2 10 6.7% 3.3%
The Joker at the top of rankings, representing the Fool, gets the traditional 5 point value. The other type of Joker replaces the ♠2 as Pagat. All Jokers and all Aces are worth 5 points. It's a nice clean system with some symmetry. It's probably the one I'll move forward with for my port of Tarock to the standard deck. But there are other decks I've considered. For instance:
Deck C (Trump Ranks Are High, Non-trump Are Low)
Trumps: ★F, ♠A, ♠K, ♠Q, ♠J, ♠10, ♠9, ♠8, ♠7 (18 cards)
Clubs: ♣6, ♣5, ♣4, ♣3, ♣2 (10 cards)
Hearts: ♥6, ♥5, ♥4, ♥3, ♥2 (10 cards)
Diamonds: ♦6, ♦5, ♦4, ♦3, ♦2 (10 cards)
This deck interests me. It doesn't have quite enough trump to make a Tarock game, and it would need another off-suit rank to have enough cards to make a 6-card talon. But adding that other rank would cause the trump ranks and the off-suit ranks to overlap, and that would defeat the purpose of a deck like this.
This would probably be a good deck for an introductory trick taker as the trump suit has a distinct set of ranks from all of the off-suits making it crystal clear that this suit is different from the others. On top of that, the ranks in the trump suit start at one higher than the highest rank in the offsuits and continue up from there. It's easy to see that a trump card beats an offsuit card because any trump card's natural rank will always--and obviously--be greater than any offsuit card's rank.
But it might also be good for a more advanced game that involves rank promotion. You would probably only promote from ranks 2 to 6 (but maybe not), and they would go above the ♠A. If you promote two ranks, you still have 3 ranks (6 cards) in each offsuit (for a total of 18 non-trumps) and the trumps would have 12 new cards (for a total of 30 trumps). All of this messing around with ranks kind of defeats this decks ability to showcase the natural rank hierarchy in a trick-taking game with trumps but, once you get passed the intro game, it would be something to grow into.
The point values for this deck, if you were going to use it for a point-trick-taking game, might be something like this:
Scoring C1 (Pip Value)
Rank Points Qty Total % Ind. %
F 15 2 30 10.0% 5.0%
A 11 2 22 7.3% 3.7%
K 10 2 20 6.7% 3.3%
Q 10 2 20 6.7% 3.3%
J 10 2 20 6.7% 3.3%
T 10 2 20 6.7% 3.3%
9 9 2 18 6.0% 3.0%
8 8 2 16 5.3% 2.7%
7 7 2 14 4.7% 2.3%
6 6 6 36 12.0% 2.0%
5 5 6 30 10.0% 1.7%
4 4 6 24 8.0% 1.3%
3 3 6 18 6.0% 1.0%
2 2 6 12 4.0% 0.7%
Every card has either it's rank as its card point value, or a pretty universally understood value for the court cards; only the Joker has card point value you might have to learn, and even then it's kind of natural. It's pretty slick. And then, on top of that, the total point value is a nice round number as well (300). Plus, look how much closer the values are in that percentage column with this deck; pretty much every card matters, there are very few throw-away tricks to be had.
This deck could make a few good trick-taking games for 3 or 4 players. With 48 cards, it will deal evenly at each player count. There won't be a talon, but every game doesn't need to have one. Yet another system to explore. And I'm not done.
It's a lot.
Just one more, and then I'll move on to another topic.
The Trouble with Doubles
One of the games I was looking to for inspiration was Royal Tarokk. It's a version of Illustrated Hungarian Tarokk that does not use card points but instead focuses entirely on accomplishing feats (capturing certain cards with certain other cards at certain tricks). That game uses a 40 card deck, there's no talon, and each player gets 10 cards. A deck that has doubled suits seems ill-suited to accomplishing most of the feats this game outlines for you to attempt (there are 60 or more of them). If I want to bring a game that does some of what Royal Tarokk does to the French deck, I'd probably do well to move to a single deck. I think I'd use this one:
Deck D (Single Deck)
Trumps: ★F, ♠A, ♠K, ♠Q, ♠J, ♠10, ♠9, ♠8, ♠7, ♠6, ♠5, ♠4, ♠3, ♠2 (14 cards)
Clubs: ♣A, ♣K, ♣Q, ♣J, ♣10, ♣9 (6 cards)
Hearts: ♥A, ♥K, ♥Q, ♥J, ♥10, ♥9 (6 cards)
Diamonds: ♦A, ♦K, ♦Q, ♦J, ♦10, ♦9 (6 cards)
This deck has 32 cards. About 44% are trump. If we let the Driver (Declarer) promote one of the offsuit ranks, we can get that trump percentage to 53% (Royal Tarokk is at 55%). The offsuit ranks for this deck will be familiar to most people who've played games with shortened packs. The hand size with 4 players (Royal Tarokk only plays with 4) will be 8 cards each--two fewer than Royal Tarokk. We could get to 36 cards and a hand size of 9 by adding a distinct Joker below the ♠2 and an 8 to all of the offsuits, promoting one rank would get us to 50% trump and it would allow us to explore some form of 3 player variant with a hand size of 12 cards. I can't think of a game that has suits with A K Q J T 9 8, so that will be a little unfamiliar, but nothing terrible.
SCORING D1 (Tarock-like, for one deck)
Rank Points Qty Total % Ind. %
F 5 1 5 6.3% 6.3%
A 5 4 20 25.0% 6.3%
K 4 4 16 20.0% 5.0%
Q 3 4 12 15.0% 3.8%
J 2 4 8 10.0% 2.5%
T 1 4 4 5.0% 1.3%
9 1 4 4 5.0% 1.3%
8 1 1 1 1.3% 1.3%
7 1 1 1 1.3% 1.3%
6 1 1 1 1.3% 1.3%
5 1 1 1 1.3% 1.3%
4 1 1 1 1.3% 1.3%
3 1 1 1 1.3% 1.3%
2 5 1 5 6.3% 6.3%
Not bad. Standard Tarot card points, nice round total at 80. It works.
It also makes me think of Schafkopf. So. That's yet another option and yet another game to explore. Damn it.
And I haven't gotten to the difficult parts yet...
And I think I'll break this off here for now. I still have quite a bit to talk about. Partnerships and contracts being the big ones. I'll be looking to do those next.
I figure people who have read this far might be interested to know that there's a custom deck available for teaching Doppelkopf to your kids (and your not kids, really). There will be a Kickstarter happening on 12 May 2020.
- [+] Dice rolls
climbing games so that I can ramble about an idea that is forming and wants to take shape. I don't have anyone around my home with whom I can really talk about this sort of thing but I thought there might be a few people who read this blog (there might be 3 or 4 of you, huzzah!) that might find my reasoning about pre-alpha card game design interesting. Plus, I just need to get this out there. So, here you go...
About a week ago, Roxley posted an image of their Iron Spades deck on Facebook. This is a USPCC printed deck that they had custom made, about a year ago, to sell alongside their Iron Clays poker chips. Yesterday, when the image popped up on my feed (which is natural as I'm friends with several of the Game Artisans of Canada members that work there), I thought: "There really should be a trick-taking game called Iron Spades. But it shouldn't just be a Spades-clone. That path has already been trodden. Although, what if it was more like Differenzler?"
And then, because I had been playing a lot of Tarock and Doppelkopf and Tractor on my iPhone of late, I thought: "What if it was something like a Type III tarot game, ala Illustrated Hungarian Tarokk or Cego but with Spades as the fixed trump suit, instead of Tarokks, the way that all of the Queens, Jacks, and Diamonds (plus 10s of Hearts) can all be trumps in Doppelkopf? It would be much less confusing if the trumps were all in the same suit... And what if you could play pairs of identical cards (J♠ J♠), and sequences of those pairs (J♠ J♠ Q♠ Q♠), as you can in Tractor? How should this thing be scored? Can we perform announced feats like taking the last trick with the lowest trump? Is it fixed or variable partnerships? What sorts of bidding are possible with a fixed trump suit? Can we score this thing with poker chips? Can you have a dummy as you do in Bridge? How heavy do I want this thing to be? It does have 'Iron' in the name, so pretty heavy I guess..."Oh, look: it's me...French Tarot decks, started stripping out cards, and cobbled together a deck that should work quite well. Once I've actually designed the game that you would play with such a deck. Ah well, deck first, game second. Right?
The first constraint I set for myself was that the number of trumps versus colours (non-trump) in the game should be similar to games like Hungarian Tarokk which have 22 trumps (tarokks) vs 20 colours (4 suits with 5 ranks in each suit). Doppelkopf has (in its basic form) 26 trumps vs 22 colours. So, I wanted something similar. I had two ways I was willing to go and it depended on whether or not the deck I was using had distinct Jokers or not.
It seems that Roxley's Iron Spades decks do not have distinct Jokers, which is a bit of a missed opportunity (I feel) but you work with what you have. Though I'm not really making the game for Roxley, so I'm not limited to what their deck provides; I just thought it would be nice if what I made actually worked with the source of its inspiration. Anyway, I came up with one deck for when you do have distinct Jokers (which I think I prefer) and another for when you don't.
Either way, all of the Spades go together to form the bulk of the trumps. You have two copies of each card, with the cards ranked from high to low: A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠. So, 13 ranks, doubled, for a total of 26 trumps. So far. We now add either 2 or 4 Jokers to get to 28 or 30 trumps in the game.
If you have distinct Jokers, we'll be adding 4 trumps to the game for a total of 30 (pretty big but there are games with more than this... Minchiate, for example, has 40 plus the Fool). There are several ways you can use them, but I had two that I was considering: either the two types of Jokers ranked one above the other at the top of the trumps, or one type of Joker ranked at the top of the trumps and the other ranked at the bottom of the trumps. To discuss these, I'll use F for the Joker (or Fool) instead of J so that it's not confused with the Jack (and I don't have to use something like Jk, Joker, or X).
F★, or the other way around? Is it
F★ F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠
F★ F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠?
I don't know. The trump suit is black so it seems like the black Joker should be the top trump, but then the red Joker seems special by not being black--it stands out as being different--so maybe it makes more sense to put it on top? Tractor, and many Chinese card games, put the red Joker as the higher card, so maybe tradition can help steer my choice? I really don't know. Probably red on top.
One thing I like about putting both Fools at the top of the trumps is that they act as a simpler, less confusing version of the rank promotion that happens in games like Euchre (left and right bower) or Jass (trump Jack and nine). In this case, the two best cards are fixed and there are no other cards that look like them yet behave in a different way. That's a little bit easier to learn.
And yet, all that being said, I don't think I'd put both Jokers at the top of the trumps anyway. I did tell you this would be a ramble...
I kind of prefer F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠ F★.
Of course, there's also F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠ F★, but I do have a strong preference for having the black Joker reign supreme in this configuration. I'll explain why shortly.
One of the ideas I wanted to incorporate (In other words, steal; I don't really design games, I synthesize them) from Tarokk was capturing Honours: The Škis (or F★) and the Mond (XXI), the top two trump (in Type III tarot); and the Pagat (I), the bottom trump. With the deck I'm considering, the F★ would be the equivalent of a Škis (though there would be two of them) and the A♠ would be the equivalent of the Mond (but, again, there would be two of them). And, finally, the F★ would be the equivalent of the Pagat (and, yes, there would be two of them).
If I went with both Jokers at the top of the trumps, one type of Joker would be the Škis, the other would be the Mond, and the 2♠ would be the Pagat. I kind of prefer that the special cards look special, so having the 2♠ as Pagat doesn't appeal to me as much. Also, there's Ace hunting to consider.
A♦. In Iron Spades, I would probably combine the two concepts. You would get a bonus for capturing an A♠ with one of the F★--the Škis captures the Mond--and you would get a semi-symmetrical, but lower bonus, for catching any of the colour Aces (A♥ A♦ A♣) with one of the F★--the Pagat, in this case--catching foxes. I like that in both cases its a Fool capturing an Ace, just a different type of Fool for a different type of Ace (trump vs non-trump).
So. I've got my preferred trump when we have distinct Jokers: F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠ F★. Again, those are each doubled, so we have 30 trumps. If we do not have distinct Jokers, I'd go with F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠...3♠ 2♠, which gives us 28 trumps.
Now we need to choose our colours. Our non-trump cards.
If we have distinct Jokers, I'm thinking:
A♥ K♥ Q♥ J♥ T♥
A♦ K♦ Q♦ J♦ T♦
A♣ K♣ Q♣ J♣ T♣
We have duplicates of each of these 15 cards, which would give 30 trump cards vs 30 trump cards and total deck size of 60. We can deal 15 cards each to 4 players.
If we don't have distinct Jokers, I'd maybe drop the tens:
A♥ K♥ Q♥ J♥
A♦ K♦ Q♦ J♦
A♣ K♣ Q♣ J♣
With duplicates, this gives us 24 non-trumps vs 28 trumps. Or 52 cards total. So, hand size would be 13 cards.
Alternatively, we keep the tens, have 30 non-trumps and maybe have a talon of 6 undealt cards to bid over (as is done in various Tarock games). Something to consider. Also, I might want the tens if I decide the ranking should be, for example:
A♣ T♣ K♣ Q♣ J♣
With card points of 11, 10, 4, 3, and 2, respectively. Did I mention there'd be card points? I think there will be card points. This will most likely be a point-trick-taking game. Just need to figure out how I want to distribute the points among the ranks. The Jokers will need to have some value, maybe as high as 20 for one of the types. I'm not sure.
Anyway, the other reason we might want to keep the tens in the identical Jokers game, besides the card points and the talon, is there's a chance we might consider adding super-trump to the game.
Let's compare what we have now, for the identical Jokers game versus Doppelkopf.
A Doppelkopf deck, in a basic game, works like this (all ranks are doubled):
Trumps: T♥ Q♣ Q♠ Q♥ Q♦ J♣ J♠ J♥ J♦ A♦ T♦ K♦ 9♦ (26 cards)
Clubs: A♣ T♣ K♣ 9♣
Spades: A♠ T♠ K♠ 9♠
Hearts: A♥ K♥ 9♥
Iron Spades is looking like this:
Trumps: F★ A♠ K♠ Q♠ J♠ T♠ 9♠ 8♠ 7♠ 6♠ 5♠ 4♠ 3♠ 2♠ (28 cards)
Clubs: A♣ K♣ Q♣ J♣ T♣
Hearts: A♥ K♥ Q♥ J♥ T♥
Diamonds: A♦ K♦ Q♦ J♦ T♦
These decks are nearly identical in function (they're even closer if you drop the Ts from the off-suits), but I think you can see that the latter is easier to understand and remember. For instance, you don't have any weird re-ranking of Qs and Js and just two of the Ts; you don't have to remember that, among the Qs and Js, ♣ beats ♠ beats ♥ beats ♦. In Iron Spades, all of the trumps (except F★) are ♠ and they rank in their natural order. In the non-trump suits, there are no gaps in the ranks where promoted ranks have been pulled up to trump. And all of the non-trump suits are the same length.
What Doppelkopf has over Iron Spades, is flexibility in declaring Trumps to improve the power of your hand. For instance, in Doppelkopf you can change the trump suit from ♦ to any of the other 3 suits; you can make it so only the Qs are trump or only the Js, or that there is no trump at all. You can't do that with Iron Spades (or any of the Tarot games, for that matter). What you could do, to get some of this flexibility (but at the cost of extra complexity), is allow declarer to promote a rank to super trump status. As happens in Mü or Watten.
So, if you have a lot of Qs (there will be 8 in the game) you could designate Qs as a super trump and the cards would rank like this:
Trumps: F★ Q♠ (Q♣ Q♥ Q♦) A♠ K♠ J♠ T♠ 9♠ 8♠ 7♠ 6♠ 5♠ 4♠ 3♠ 2♠ (34 cards)
Clubs: A♣ K♣ J♣ T♣
Hearts: A♥ K♥ J♥ T♥
Diamonds: A♦ K♦ J♦ T♦
Where (Q♣ Q♥ Q♦) are the same rank below the Q♠ but above the A♠. I would allow this rank promotion for any of the ranks in the non-trump suits. So, you could promote not just Q but instead A or K or J or even T.
Allowing for something like this is why I consider leaving the Ts in for a game with identical Jokers. By leaving them in, we still have 24 non-trumps vs 34 trumps; if we take them out, we have 18 non-trumps vs 34 trumps. That might be fine but it seems like it would be better to have some more play in the off-suits.
Additionally, you might tie which rank gets promoted (or no rank being promoted) as part of a bidding schedule. For example, you might be declarer if you bid to play a game with Ts promoted (making weak cards strong), and I can beat you in the bidding by promoting Js, or cue bid by jumping to Qs. Aces would be the second strongest bid behind no rank promotion.
And so on...
F★); I still have to decide what the trick-taking rules are (lots of options, could be like Tarot, could be like Bridge, could be like something else); I need to decide if there's a Talon or not; do I or don't I include rank promotion; do I want fixed partnerships or variable; and on and on.
I'm back and forth on allowing Tractor-like play of identical pairs and sequences of identical pairs ("Tractors"). What they allow is for an otherwise poor hand to be slightly better as, when you play a pair, everyone else has to play a pair in the same suit (or in trump) to beat your play; if they don't have a pair, they can't beat you but still have to play the same number of cards and match the suit as much as they can. This can add scoring cards to the trick, or drain trump, or both. But it does so at the cost of additional complexity. Sequences of identical pairs would happen pretty infrequently, so having a rule that allows their play might be extra overhead for little practical gain. Identical pairs on their own, however, occur with enough frequency that I'm very much considering letting them be part of the game.
One reason I like the idea of including Tractors in the game is that there is some association between Roxley's Iron Spades decks and their Iron Clays poker chips, and those are associated with Roxley's versions of Brass. I thought it would be interesting to look at tying the Iron Spades game into the world of Brass, as though the railyard workers were regular players of this game, by using train-related lingo or slang for naming things. For instance: identical pairs would be a spike, a trolley, a boxcar, or maybe a kettle (small engine); two pairs might be a rail, a train, a locomotive, or a hog; three pairs could be a diesel or a battleship (large engine); and so on. The F★ could be Brass Hats or The Brass (President or Boss of the railroad line), the A♠ could be The Boss (conductor), the other Aces could be Cushion Riders (Conductor of a Passenger Train) or Gaffers (section boss) or Straw bosses or Skippers, the rest of the non-trump cards would be Deadheads (passengers), or whatever.
Perhaps the promoted ranks would be the Board and the ♠ of that Rank would be the Chair and the rest would be Directors. Or, maybe they're the Brass, and you get rewarded for catching them with the F★. Double if you catch the ♠ (Brass Hat or Top Brass). In this case, the F★ are Bulls (police). Catching embezzlers? Catching Brass? Bulls beat Brass? Too much?
I think it'd be more confusing than helpful to use those terms, but a lot of traditional card games pick up names for various cards over the years, it seems like maybe I could get a head start on this one...
Anyway. Thanks for letting me ramble. That was a whole lot of words to say I've been thinking of maybe making a standard deck trick-taking game. Don't know exactly where it will end up, but I think this deck is a promising start.
BTW. In case it wasn't somehow obvious, this is not some sly promotion for Roxley's products. They don't need me to promote them; their products promote themselves.
- [+] Dice rolls
The clock, of late, has sloth-armed grown. I bet
Its scraping hand, from tock to tick, would get
A year of rheumy crust from off its face:
Dry specks of Time that yield to yawning Space.
Inside this "Fool & Nibs", this nest sublime,
No Outer space exists, no Outer time;
From storm and stress secured, we do abide
And grow sufficiently suffonsified.
Your friendly barkeep is already at your elbow, placing a glass beside you.
Aagh! Will you please stop doing that!?
Thanks, Jeff. Cheers!
I clink your glass. Don't worry. Nothing is contagious at "The Fool & His Nibs".
So, where were we?
Well. It feels like you've spent a year or so talking about the different types of playable combinations. Sets and runs. Bombs and catalysts. Probably a bunch more that I've forgotten by now; it's been so long since you started that I can't remember why you felt the need to tell me about all of these things in the first place.
Because they all work together--along with scoring (which I'll get to later)--to determine how it will feel to play one climbing game versus another. As you vary the playable combinations, and how they can interact with each other, you vary the play experience. The combos, hand size, and deck configuration work together to dictate the pace of the game. Changing these can take your game from plodding to parkour. It depends on what you want.
Ooh. Nice. Plodding to parkour. You wrote that down before you came here, didn't you?
Where was I? Oh. Right.
And then there's the way that the combos interact with each other: whether a round is strictly constrained to one type of combo (a single branch of play) or the round can go off in different directions, using different types of combos (through the use of bombs or catalysts). All of these interactions affect the pace of the game as well. But, beyond that, they also affect the game's stability, which can have an even greater effect on how it feels to play the game.
It might not be the right word to choose. What I'm trying to describe is the amount of order versus chaos in the system. Stability vs instability. Predictability vs unpredictability. Restriction vs freedom. Certainty vs uncertainty. Your sense of control or lack thereof.
That's too many things! Break it down for me.
Okay. Let's see... Suppose you have a Schnapsen deck.
Too many people.
Anyway. You've got a Schnapsen deck; it's pretty simple: it has four suits (Acorns, Bells, Hearts, and Leaves) and 5 ranks in each suit (Ten, Jack, Queen, King, and Ace). So, there're 20 cards in your deck.
Now, suppose we were going to design a climbing game to play with this deck. We're not going to, but suppose we did. There are many ways we could go about it, but let's start very simply: there are only two players; when it's your turn to lead you cannot pass; and there is only one playable combination--singles.
So, a trick-taking game.
It depends what you mean but let's not get into that. In this game, you have to play a higher-ranked single (the suit won't matter) or, if it's not your lead, you can pass. So, it's not the same--mechanically--as a typical trick-taking game (I play a card, you play card) and our goal will be to go out first (so card capturing will not be something we're worried about, for now). Okay?
We'll continue to keep things simple by dealing out all of the cards between the two players, so each person has 10 cards in hand. Essentially, at this point, it will be a perfect-information, ladder-climbing GOPS. If a player is smart enough and they have the better hand, they can look ahead to find a way to go out first. With the only combination being singles, there are people who could do this. For these folks, the game would feel very stable: there would be little uncertainty over the outcome. If I had the better hand, I'd feel very much in control. You would likely feel you had little or no control.
Worse. I'd feel restricted by the limited number of options for responding to your plays because there would be nothing I could do to steer the hand away from its inevitable conclusion.
You'd feel like it was on rails.
Yeah. It might be an interesting puzzle, but I'm not sure how fun it would be to play.
Not very, I'd imagine.
Anyway. Each addition of a new combination to the system (pairs, for example), will increase the size of the decision tree for the game. There will be more and more ways that an individual round can be played, so there will be more and more branches at each level of the tree--it will become bushier. The larger and bushier the decision tree becomes the greater the uncertainty over finding the correct path to victory will become. And, with this decreased certainty, my sense of control will likely remain but it will be diminished.
But, my sense of being able to steer the hand in a new direction (that will end well for me) will increase.
Yes. The sense of player agency starts to come into balance. And, while all of this is happening--as the list of playable combinations becomes longer, and the number of cards in those combinations grows--the number of ways that you can play each round and the rate at which you can shed cards will speed up, making the game feel increasingly flexible and dynamic.
Less plodding, more parkour.
You got it.
So. At this point, the game will still feel relatively stable. More often than not, you'll feel like you can assess the strength of your hand and predict whether or not you'll be able to navigate successfully to a winning path through the decision tree. You'll still feel like you can take control of the hand and, more importantly, keep control of the hand.
Adding bombs into the mix makes things feel a little less stable; the sense of instability will be directly proportional to the frequency with which the bombs can occur.
Fewer bombs, less instability; more bombs, more instability.
That's right. But also: fewer bombs, less freedom; more bombs, more freedom. If the game is feeling too restrictive, just add more bombs.
And, don't forget: catalysts have the same effect on the stability of the system as bombs; they just tend to occur with greater frequency. So, catalysts tend to be very destabilizing. The sense of freedom is increased but the sense of control is reduced.
Catalysts can make things Kerrazay!
Jazz hands? Really?
The tipping point for the amount of stability and pace of shedding to have in your system will depend on your taste. It's like adding salt to your food. You have to add the right amount. Too much stability, you won't like it; too much instability, you won't like it. Shed too quickly, you won't like it; shed too slowly, you won't like it. To get this balance right, you need to calibrate the deck, the types and sizes and frequencies of the combinations, and you need to decide if you want to include bombs or catalysts into the mix.
I'm surprised you went with salt for your analogy, just then. I truly thought you would say it was like adding water to your Scotch.
Jeff snatches your Scotch glass away.
I can't even look at you right now...
I tend to think of stability as being like No Trump trick-taking. Bombs (and catalysts) are kind of like trumps--they create instability. Trump adds enough instability/uncertainty to make the game exciting. Bombs and Catalysts do the same thing, but they can create too much instability (depending on your taste). The greater the instability, the less feeling of control that you have, the lighter the game feels--and yet, the decision space created by the flexibility of play means that the game is actually deeper than a game that is more stable. Similar to how it feels playing a trick-taking game where you do not have to follow suit but can play any card to any trick--your options are greater but your feeling of control, especially on a lead, is less. When you feel like you have less control, you feel like the game is lighter; with more control, you might feel that the game is deeper. The decision tree might tell a different tale on the depth of a game, but how deep it feels can matter more than how deep it actually is...
Schnapsen is a good example of what I mean. It goes from unstable to stable, as you play. It starts with no restrictions on trick play-- total freedom but very little control--then moves to greater control as the number of cards reduces, until the stock is finally closed and the game ends with full restrictions and absolute control. It goes from a game that feels very light or chaotic, to a game that gets deeper and more orderly as you go along.
The equivalent in a climbing game would be sort of like starting a hand by playing with Crazy Clubs' rules but finishing the hand playing with regular Clubs' rules.
Image credits go to moxtaveto and mnowaczy.
The next topic, if I ever get around to it, will be Scoring. It might need sub-topics. We'll see...
If anyone ever wanted to actually play a climbing game with German suited cards, you'd probably find it easier if you can find a pack with rank & suit corner indices. These would work pretty well:
I wish I hadn't thought of trying to do a climbing game with a Schnapsen deck; above, I said "we're not going to" but the ideas are just bubbling away...
For combo play, it would be sort of like Crazy Clubs but with Big Two-like ranked suits (Acorns, Leaves, Hearts, Bells--to be like Skat and Doppelkopf). Combo types would be of-a-kinds, runs (2 or more consecutive ranks; but, like Haggis, they need to be the same suit), and of-a-kind-runs (runs of pairs, runs of triples, runs of quads--again, like Haggis). Probably restrict the length of of-a-kind-runs to 2 (e.g., 22-33, 222-333, 2222-3333) and I'd need to figure out the catalyst rules for of-a-kind-runs (probably let them beat both of-a-kinds and runs and then let longer of-a-kind-runs beat shorter ones). Scoring would probably be simple (no card capturing), but who knows...
Maybe you don't rearrange your hand? Like Dealt!? Maybe you each get a Schnapsen deck and the game is more like Animale Tattica? Maybe it's both?!?
Names? Something German I suppose. Lammkopf (lambs head)? Jäger? Korn? Eichel?
Somebody else please make one so I don't have to!
- [+] Dice rolls
You were saying something about "catalysts" and how they act like bombs.
Right. Well, all bombs are "catalysts" but not all catalysts are bombs. At least, they haven't been called bombs; not yet. I'm not even sure a catalyst is the best word to describe what I'm talking about. "Switch" might be better... Let's see.
What does a bomb do?
Alright... And an explosion. That would be disruptive, wouldn't you say? It would disrupt the order of things?
Well, bombs are disruptive. In climbing games. They shake things up.
In pretty much every climbing game, when someone makes a regular play--a single, a pair, a run, or what have you--the other players must make the same kind of play (or pass). It's like following suit in a trick-taking game but, instead of playing an off-suit, you can pass.
Climbing games that have bombs are like trick-taking games that have trump. If you can't follow suit, you can play a trump; if you can't (or don't want to) play the type of combo that was led, you can play a bomb. In both cases, the context of the round (or trick or whatever you want to call it) changes. It shifts, or switches, from one context to another; it gets disrupted. The round begins in one context, which was set by the lead (a particular suit in a trick-taking game, or a particular type of combo in a climbing game). It ends in a new context, a trumping or a bombing context, which was triggered by someone playing a trump or a bomb.
When the context changes, so does the win condition for the round. Where before it would have been the highest card of the suit that was led or the highest ranked play that matched the type of the combo that was led, now it is the highest trump card or the highest bomb that wins.
So, a bomb is something that changes things. That's what catalysts do. Which means bombs are catalysts, by one definition of catalyst.
And so are trump, for that matter. Maybe I should call catalysts "trump"...
Look. You could think of it like a railroad track. The track, or context, of the round is headed in a certain direction. If nothing changes, you'll continue in that direction until you reach your expected destination--the end of the round; you'll still be on the same set of tracks, the same context, playing the same suit or combo, as when the round began. A bomb is like someone throwing a switch on the tracks ahead; suddenly the tracks have shifted in a new direction. Now, when you reach the end of the round, you'll have reached a different destination. Nowhere near where you expected to be when you started out.
So that can be pretty exciting. Or pretty frustrating. I guess it depends on whose driving when you come to a stop, eh? Whoever has control.
Canadians really do say "eh?", don't they?
Um. So, yeah. A bomb is like a switch; each time one is thrown, it can send the round in a new direction. For a game with a single bomb type, like some variants of President, a round can only be sent in one direction: a series of successively higher 4-of-a-kinds. But that's less common. Most climbing games that have bombs have hierarchically-branching bombs. Some simple and some more complex.
Okay. What are "heirarchically-branching" bombs?
Well, hierarchical bombs are a set of distinct bomb types with a fixed ranking for which type of bomb can top another type of bomb. Haggis, for instance, has hierarchical bombs but Tichu has hierarchically-branching bombs. You have two distinct bomb types--4-of-a-kinds and straight flushes--and there is a hierarchy within each type--a higher ranked 4-of-a-kind beats a lower ranked one, same for straight flushes--but there is also a hierarchy between the two types--straight flushes top all 4-of-a-kinds bombs, no matter their rank. Simple enough. Where the hierarchy becomes branching is with the straight flushes because there is more than one type of those, and those types also have a hierarchy. A 5-length straight flush can be beaten by a lower-ranked 6-length straight flush, and so on up to 13-length straight flushes.
So, we're playing a normal round of, say, pairs when I play four Queens and suddenly the context of the round has switched from pairs to bombs. At this moment, the context is narrowed down to 4-of-a-kind bombs; it only takes four Kings or four Aces to beat me.
Only, he says...
But you respond with a 5-length straight flush from 6 to 10; now the round's context has switched to 5-length straight flushes. The context is still bombs but now the branch that led towards higher 4-of-a-kinds has been lopped off. We're on a different path than the one we were just on a moment ago. You can't go back. And then my partner, bless them, hits you with an 8-length straight flush from 2 to 9 and now we are once again on a different branch in the hierarchy. The round is no longer about 5-length straight flushes, it's about 8-length ones (or longer). So, you start the round on one branch, and that branch has a hierarchy, then the context switches to bombs and suddenly you have hierarchies within hierarchies to contend with. The ways forward multiply.
Throwing Eggs branches in the opposite direction from Tichu: it has a single branch for 5-length straight flushes but then, like Gang of Four, it has a nest of branches for different length Set bombs (or, Of-a-Kind bombs). And then it has the Almighty bomb, the four Jokers, that tops everything and can't be topped. Like Krass Kariert's "Stop" card.
What do Rooster's bombs do?
It has a fixed hierarchy, like Haggis, but not the same hierarchy. It's on the player aid I gave you...
Okay. So, what are these catalysts, or switches, that are not bombs? Or aren't called bombs.
Those are regular combos that can be played within a system of hierarchical branching. It's not so much that the combos are bombs, it's that the rules for playing the combos allow them to act as though they were bombs--they have a similar context switching effect on the round that bombs do.
What would be a good example?
Well, you could start with some variants of President, but I think one of the best examples I could give you would be Crazy Clubs.
In Clubs, you have two types of combos--or melds, as they call them: of-a-kinds (which are sets) and runs. There are different sizes of each type; you have 2-of-a-kind, 3-of-a-kind, run-of-2, run-of-3, and so on. In regular Clubs, if I play a 2-of-a-kind, you can only ever respond with a higher ranked 2-of-a-kind or pass. There are no bombs or catalysts or switches or whatever. The track, the context of the round, never changes.
Crazy Clubs lets you beat shorter melds with longer melds of the same type. So a single 7 could be topped by a pair of 5's, for example. Or a 5-6 run can be beaten by a 3-4-5 run. That sort of thing. In both cases, the context of the round has changed: in the first, the context changes from 1-of-a-kinds to 2-of-a-kinds--the next player needs to play a higher ranked 2-of-a-kind to continue the round, or they can switch the context again by playing any 3-of-a-kind; in the second, the context switches from runs-of-2 to runs-of-3--and the next player has a similar choice, they can play a higher ranked run-of-3 or lift the context up to playing runs-of-4.
It's the same effect you would have if Clubs had defined 2-of-a-kinds or runs-of-3 as bombs; and then said that 3-of-a-kinds and runs-of-4 are also bombs. And so on. It doesn't say that, but the effect is the same. This is what I mean by catalysts; they aren't called bombs but they act in a similar way and they have a similar effect.
You should call them "ducks"!
You know... "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
Does Rooster have ducks?
No. Only chickens.
Any other games have ducks?
Yes. Wait. No!! We're not calling them ducks!
Fine. Catalysts, then.
Frank's Zoo allows you to play a larger set, but only of the same rank; this still changes the context to the larger set size. Krass Kariert is almost entirely catalysts. The combos progress from singles to runs-of-2 to pairs to runs-of-3 to triples; the context of the round switching as you climb the rank of combos. Also, you can't re-arrange the cards in your hand in Krass, the combos have to come together in your hand--like a match-three puzzle--as you pull contiguous combos out to play. So, I imagine it's less crazy-feeling than Crazy Clubs.
That sounds awesome!
I suspect it is. Looking forward to trying it. That and Animale Tattica which has its own catalysts, they call it "Surrounding". You normally play a set, they call them armies, and I'd need to play a higher ranked one of the same size; surrounding lets me play a lower-ranked, but larger-sized, set if the numbers in the new set add up to the same total as the previous set. You'd have to play a set of the same size as mine, or surround it again, or pass. The neat thing with Animale, other than its supposedly playing very well with 2 players, is its asymmetric decks. Everybody has their own deck, with different rank distributions. Your hand is drawn from your own deck, not a communal deck like most other climbing games. Monster Crunch does this too and its also supposed to be pretty good with two. I really have to try these...
And I'll stop there, for now. The next article will be on how bombs and catalysts affect the experience of playing a climbing game. How the experience of a game changes based on its stability, or lack thereof. Image credits go to hanibalicious, henk.rolleman, EndersGame, and Maeglor.
- [+] Dice rolls
When most people think of bombs in climbing games--which of course, they are doing all the time--I imagine they think of Tichu. You've got your 4-of-a-kind bombs and your straight flush bombs and the straight flushes can vary in length, from five onward; all pretty standard. There are even variants of President that have 4-of-a-kind bombs. Some variants of Big Two as well--though they sometimes are played with an added card; because 5-card poker hands...right? If the variant has a 4-of-a-kind bomb it usually also has a 5-card straight flush bomb. They don't call them bombs, they call them "Honour Hands", but its the same thing. In Gang of Four they have 4-of-a-kind, 5-of-a-kind, and 6-of-a-kind bombs but they call those "Gangs". Which makes sense. No straight flush bomb though; it's just a poker combo.
Do most climbing games have bombs?
I'd say "Yes", but it depends on how you define them. If you think a bomb is only a bomb because that's what it's listed as in the rules, then bombs are still pretty common; though not as common as I think they are. But let's come back to that. There are other bombs, that are called bombs, besides 4-of-a-kinds and straight flushes. You've got your Gangs, which I just mentioned go up to 6-of-a-kinds, but you also have games like Throwing Eggs that go up to 10-of-a-kind bombs.
I know! It's crazy but it's wild and fun--well, fun for the person who plays them anyway... But, to put it into perspective, playing a 10-of-a-kind in Throwing Eggs gets rid of the same percentage of your hand as playing a 5-card straight flush would in Tichu. There's just so many more cards to get rid of in that game. So it's not that crazy, but it can feel that way.
Throwing Eggs actually has nine different kinds of bombs (or 3, depending on how you want to look at it). You've got 4-of-a-kind all the way up to 10-of-a-kind; you've got your straight flushes, but only 5 cards; and then you have a special bomb that beats all of the others--all 4 Jokers played at the same time. Haggis only has six kinds of bombs. So much simpler...
Riiight... How many bombs are there in Rooster?
Ten. Why not just go to 11 while you're at it?!?
I'd like that but then you'd need to add more cards to your hand-size.
I was kidding...
Oh. Right. Where's Jeff? I'm thirsty. Are you thirsty?
No. What kinds of bombs do you have?
Well, they're pretty similar to Haggis'. The bombs in Haggis are based off the bombs in Zheng Fen. That's the game that Tichu came from.
Every now and then I read comments where someone says "Tichu is based on Big Two", or "Fight the Landlord looks a lot like Tichu, I wonder if this is where Tichu came from?", and I get all worked up. Because, no. It's not based on those games. Yes. They're all climbing games. But they are all clearly different from one another...
Are you alright? You're kind of turning purple. Do you need me to call someone?
Let's come back to that later.
Zheng Fen has point cards: Kings, Tens, and Fives. It's the only traditional climbing card game, I know of, that has those. After Tichu adopted them, there have been a few more commercial games that have them as well: Haggis, of course, which is partly based on Tichu (but also Zheng Fen and Big Two), Chimera (which is mostly based on Fight the Landlord, but it added in several elements from Tichu--and, I think, for the better--one of those elements being point cards), and Clubs (which made an entire suit become point cards; hence the name).
One thing that Tichu did not adopt from Zheng Fen was its bombs. Tichu used its own set of bombs, which are great, but I think it could have used Zheng Fen's as well. I know at least one other person who agrees with me on that, but we're probably a minority. Most people don't even know Zheng Fen exists. Anyway. I used Zheng Fen's bombs in Haggis. Well, the same idea anyway--bombs are made from point cards; I just used different cards.
I'm doing something similar here, in Rooster, but this time there aren't any point cards, per se--all of the cards are worth points. One point each. It's like a plain-trick-taking version of Haggis, which is sort of a point-trick-taking game. But let's not go down that rabbit hole...
What rabbit hole?
Whether or not some climbing games are also trick-taking games.
Do you hear crickets? Jeff! Do you hear that? I think you've got crickets.
I don't hear anything. Do you need some more coffee?
The main thing is that the bombs in Haggis and in Rooster are similar: I used alternating pip cards to form surprise bombs that can be played from your hand as well as different combinations of court cards that are played from the table where everyone knows what you have. The combos are a little different but the same idea is there.
Why did you make the bombs that way?
That's a long story. Let's come back to that. I want to get through the different types of bombs first; we can talk about how they affect the games later.
Sure. So, what other kinds of bombs are there? You've covered big sets and big straight flushes; there was the special Joker bomb; and now you've got point card bombs. What's left?
Well, circling back to the Throwing Egg's Joker bomb for a second, Fight the Landlord and Chimera have something similar with their Rocket and Chimera Flight bombs. The "Stop" card, in Dealt! performs a similar function--albeit with a single card. The unbeatable bomb.
And, then you have Tien Len's Double Sequences (or Stairs). They're a kind of bomb, but they can only be used in specific instances, namely to bomb Twos. Otherwise, they're just a regular combo. Finally--well, not finally, but we're nearly there--you have Peeper. Like the other games mentioned, it uses set bombs--starting with triples and going to quads--but it adds a wrinkle: you can construct the bombs, in a way, using another players cards. If you play a 3, I can play a pair of 3's alongside that to make a triple bomb; if you have the fourth 3, you can make a quad bomb in the same way. I think that's unique to that game; it's not very well known.
That's pretty neat. I'm surprised it hasn't been used in any other games but, I guess--as you say--not very many people know about it. Hold on though. You said you were not quite finally at the end of the different types of bombs. Was there something else?
That's where I come back to when I said, "It depends on how you want to define bombs". Let's get that coffee Jeff offered and then we'll talk about how bombs are used. Once we've got that covered, I can talk about what I'll call "catalysts". They act in the same way as bombs but people don't really call them bombs. Or "catalysts", for that matter. I just made that up, but I think it fits. Jeff? Coffee?
Way ahead of you...
I think that's it for today. I believe the stage has been set up enough at this point. If there's a type of bomb you think I've missed, please send me a geekmail and I'll see if I can work it in. So, the next entry is going to go into a bit deeper detail on how bombs affect the play experience in climbing games. Sorry for the tease on "catalysts" but I imagine some of you will already know where that might be headed. No hints, please.
Also, no climbing/trick-taking debates, please... Crickets.
Credit to fogus for the Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! pic. And crayc30 for the Krass Kariert Stop card image. The other image is from a 4P solo-test of Rooster, with two Tarot decks.
- [+] Dice rolls
If you haven't read the Preamble, you may wish to do so before proceeding: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/87113/preamble.
If you're unfamiliar with Climbing Games, you can read a bit about them here: https://www.pagat.com/climbing/
By the time we have crossed from the heavy entrance door to the most comfortable seats in the house, Jeff--the patron--has poured and served our regular beverages without a word being uttered; the tab has resumed.
I’ve begun tinkering with climbing card games again and you've graciously agreed to help test the 2 player version of my latest pasteboard contraption. My Sticheln and French-suited decks have been cobbled together with the current card distribution; as I riffle the cards on the table between us, I begin to go over what I think is working. And what is not. Mostly not...
The combos seem fine. There's singles and pairs and triples, of course; the standard Sets. Almost every climbing game has those in them. Some only have those. Or those plus 4-of-a-kinds. Most versions of President, for instance. Who's the Ass? is essentially double-deck President, so it has Sets up to 8-of-a-kinds; and the The Great Dalmuti goes up to 12-of-a-kinds, but only for one rank. Gou Ji gets you up to 16-of-a-kinds but it also has you holding 36 cards at a time, so I probably don't want to go there.
Gou Ji. I don't know how to pronounce it. It's a fixed-partnership game for 6 players; 3 vs 3. I'd really like to try it but I think it might be hard to find five other players who'd be willing to play a game where you're holding that many cards. It's a bit much. Maybe if I buy some Canasta card holders...?
Tiles, maybe? Like in Lexio.
That could work. But I'd like to be able to play my game with regular cards, so I don't think I want to go there just yet.
People like tiles. They're "clacktastic"!
Yeah. I like that too. But I also like to be able to play my games wherever I am; it's easier to carry around a couple of decks of cards than a box full of tiles. Doesn't matter how scrumptious they are. So, we'll stick with cards for this one.
Maybe. Where was I? Sets. The game has Sets like everything else.
You said "almost" all earlier. Which ones don't have Sets?
Well, it might depend on how you define "Set". If you think a single is not a Set, but pairs and triples are, then Ohio would be climbing without Sets. You only play singles; each single needs to be lower than the last. I suppose it's more of a "digger" than a "climber"... Anyway, there's also Prime Number. It's like Daihinmin, or Dai Fugo, but instead of Sets of equally ranked cards you play one or more cards to form a prime number; each card is a digit in that number. So, 5-3 would be 53, which is prime. The other player needs to play a higher prime using the same number of digits, or pass. It's still sort of like Sets, but not quite.
You have to do math?! Who memorizes prime numbers?
Don't worry. I won't be using that kind of combo in my game; it's just an example. Though it is kind of neat...
You can't do primes.
It's my game...
Okay. I was just kidding... Or was I...?
What do you have other than Sets?
There's Sequences. Or Runs. Those are like Haggis' right now: three or more consecutively ranked cards in the same suit. Like Gin Rummy. They need to be in the same suit to apply pressure on people to use their wild cards; they need to be three or more for the same reason. A lot of games let you have unsuited runs of 5. Straights. Sometimes they can only be that length--like in Guan Dan (Throwing Eggs) or the different variations on Big Two, including Lexio or Gang of Four, where the larger combos are only ever poker hands (well, other than Gangs, but we'll get to those later). More often they can be longer, like in Tichu or Dou Dizhu and, its offspring, Chimera.
Some games let you have unsuited runs that are 3 or longer. The Bum Game, would be one. Also Dai Fugo, or Millionaire, that I mentioned earlier, and Tien Len (Thirteen), and Big Three. There are even a couple that let you have runs of 2 or more cards. Those are pretty rare. There's Clubs and there's a Decktet version of Haggis called Caravan; I'm not aware of any others that do that.
Anyway. I need mine to be shorter than 5 because, when the run needs to be suited, 5 is a bit too hard to make; but I also need them to be longer than 2--though I do like the idea--because those are too easy to construct with wild cards; and then they're also too easy to confuse with pairs. So, 3. As a minimum.
What's "Throwing Eggs" like?
It's kind of like Guo Ji, but for 4 players, and it has more variety in its combos. It's really great and that one only has a hand size of 27 cards.
Only 27. Yeah, that's much better...
Here, Jeff arrives with two plates of apple crisp, still warm from the oven, paired with home-made vanilla bean ice cream; two teensy cups of Ristretto appear as well. I don't know how he carries them...
What comes after Sequences?
Multiple Sequences. Stairs, Plates, Tubes. That sort of thing.
It's two consecutive 3-of-a-kinds, in Throwing Eggs. Plates are also from that game. They're like multiple sequences in other climbing games but they're limited to exactly three consecutive pairs. Most of the other games, like Tien Len or Fight the Landlord, let you play three or more; Tichu and Haggis allow two or more (but Haggis' Stairs are a little different from Tichu's). Big Three lets you play three or more consecutive 3-of-a-kinds or 4-of-a-kinds. With its wild cards, Haggis lets you get up to playing two or more consecutive 6-of-a-kinds (in 3 player); and the game we're working on here, Rooster, let's you play consecutive 10-of-a-kinds (with 4 players). So. Pretty big. Maybe too big for the 2 player version...
So, you've got Singles and Sets, and you have Sequences of Singles and Multiple Sequences of Sets. Any other options?
Sure. There're some more Poker hands that get used in the Big Two type games: flushes, full houses, and straight flushes. I don't think flushes would work in this game and it already covers straight flushes--all of the sequences have to be in the same suit already--so I don't need those. I don't think I need full houses when I have consecutive 3-of-a-kinds. I know people who miss them, from Tichu. Chimera has them but they don't work as well here. For one thing, it becomes too easy to get rid of cards when you can make full houses using wild cards. Full houses are more common than consecutive triples, so you'll get them more often, naturally--I need you to want to spend your wild cards to make the bigger combos so that there's tension between crafting big plays versus saving your wilds for bombs.
Before we get to bombs, is there anything else, other than Poker hands, that gets used for combos?
Oh, yes. There's more. Chimera and Fight the Landlord have variations on the full house called "attachments": you can attach a single card or any two cards, they don't have to be a pair, to a three of a kind and that is a valid combination for those games. And then you have something called a "Quadplex Set" which is one name for two different things. One is a 4-of-a-kind (a Quad) plus any two cards, doesn't have to be a pair; the other is a Quad plus any two pairs, they don't have to be consecutive or anything like that. They're a bit unusual, but you get used to them. Still. I can't use those. For the same reasons I can't use full houses, but even more so, as these are even easier to construct... And they have a fair number of cards in them, so they empty your hand pretty quickly.
Why would that matter?
Hand emptying speed changes how the games feel. Some games will have faster speeds--the ones with larger combos and more varieties of them--and the others will be slower; the experience you want the players to have will depend greatly on how quickly or slowly they can get rid of their cards. You have to find the right balance if they are going to get the feelings that you want them to have.
You've got some huge combos.
True. But they are rare. You'll almost always need to spend wild cards to create them; they come at a cost in power and flexibility. Getting that feeling of tension around whether or not to pay that cost is really what my games are about.
Are we getting to Bombs now?
Sure. There's probably some regular combos I've missed but maybe we'll remember those later. In the meantime, can I get you another drink?
Jeff? Another round, please. Thanks.
I think that's good for now. Next time, I'll start writing about the games with bombs. Eventually, I'll get a bit more into about how the different combos, and hand sizes, affect the experience of the game. These early articles are setting the stage for other articles where, hopefully, I'll manage to provide some insight that is more than an inventory of what is available in climbing games now. Still, please do let me know in the comments if there are other non-bomb combos I haven't touched on yet and I'll talk about those before moving onto bombs. Note: I know I haven't mentioned Frank's Zoo. I will. It's sets but with an unusual ranking, different topic, I think. Thanks.
Credit to EndersGame and LurkingMeeple for two of the images used in this article. The hand of cards arranged in a jagged array is from pagat.com, the Bao Huang page, so credit goes to John McLeod.
The end images are from playtests of Rooster and 4P Haggis.
- [+] Dice rolls