Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Pairs» Forums » Variants

Subject: Smaller or Bigger Decks? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Carlos Luna
Spain
Rubí
Catalunya
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I would like to know is someone has tried to play pairs (the basic game) with a smaller or a bigger triangular deck (such as the 36 card deck that goes from 1 to 8 or the 78 card deck that goes from 1 to 12).

As far as I understand the inner workings of the game the only change that should be done to the standard rules is the amount of points that make you loose a game (60/# players + 1 with the 55 card deck that goes from 1 to 10).

Is the game broken if I change the size of the deck? It becomes more random or more strategic as the size varies? There is a clear lower or upper limit for the deck size? Has the actual size (55 cards) been chosen just because it fits the "poker deck standard" or there are some numerical advantages that I'm ignoring right now?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James R. Gracen
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see why a Great Dalmuti deck (1-12) couldn't be used, especially for larger Pairs games.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carlos Luna
Spain
Rubí
Catalunya
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
CavemanLogic wrote:
I don't see why a Great Dalmuti deck (1-12) couldn't be used, especially for larger Pairs games.


I'm a little bit more interested in the smaller deck (1-8 -> 36 cards) but besides that what I want to understand is how the game changes and how can I adapt the rules (namely the loosing points limit) to maintain the same look & feel of the original rules.

I mean, I don't think there is something special about the 55 cards deck and I'm quite convinced that the game can work equally well with another triangular deck, but I suppose that you can have greater control with a smaller deck (so the game becomes more strategic) and less control with a bigger deck (so the game becomes more random). Perhaps adapting the point limit to 60/#players - 1 for the 36 cards deck and to 60/#players + 3 for the 78 cards deck is enough to compensate all of this.

On the other hand, it is possible that the 55 cards deck is the sweet spot between too random (so your decisions are not meaningful) and too strategic (so the optimal strategy is always the same).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One thing I know for sure is that it won't work very well with a 1-card triangular deck
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carlos Luna
Spain
Rubí
Catalunya
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
One thing I know for sure is that it won't work very well with a 1-card triangular deck


Ok, so we have a general lower bound...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Heiko Günther
Germany
Saarbrücken
Saarland
flag msg tools
designer
Coming soon: Peak Oil Spillover!
badge
I spent 100 GG so you can read this.
Avatar
CarlosLuna wrote:
qwertymartin wrote:
One thing I know for sure is that it won't work very well with a 1-card triangular deck

Ok, so we have a general lower bound...

Well, assuming you deal 5 cards into the out-of-game stack, and at least one to each player before actually starting to play, I would say we could also rule out the 3-, 6-, and 10-card triangular decks as playable...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Geraghty
Ireland
Kilkenny
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you want to try an 80 card deck that goes from 0(two of them)-12, check out 12 Days.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.