Rules for a Simple Card Game, Thoughts?

[The Glyphstone]

While doing some worldbuilding work, I wanted to come up with a competitive card-game that could fill the societal role of poker or similar, with a comparative value on bluffing and enough complexity/strategy to warrant being considered a 'professional' game.

Having done so, I'm curious as to whether my creation would pass muster in the real-world as a playable game.

Spoiler: Legacy (V.2.0)

Show

Players: 2

Required: 1 standard deck of playing cards, no jokers

Object: Be the first to score 100 points.

Play:

1) The dealer gives one card at a time, face down, to each player until each player has five cards in hand.
2) Starting with the dealer, each player lays one card, face-up, into one of three sets in front of them – Army, Castle, or Bank, until all five cards are played. Each set must be allocated at least one card.
3) The dealer gives another set of five cards, face down, to each player one at a time.
4) Starting with the dealer, each player adds one card, face-down, into their Army, Castle, or Bank, until all five cards are played.
5) All cards are turned face-up.
6) Starting with the dealer, each player compares the sum total of their Army set against their opponent's Castle set.
1. If the attacking Army is larger than the defending Castle, the attacking player may steal one card from the defending Bank, with a maximum value equal to their margin of victory.
2. If the defending Castle is equal to or larger than the attacking Army, nothing happens.
7) Each player adds their remaining Bank to their Score, then all cards in play are discarded.
8) Begin a new round. Dealer passes to the other player.


Multiplayer (3+, max of 6): Players attack to their left, and defend from their right. At the end of each round, dealer passes the player with the highest current Score.

Spoiler: Legacy (V.1.0)

Show

Players: 2

Required: 1 standard deck of playing cards, no jokers

Object: Have the highest score after 3 rounds.

Play:

1) The dealer gives one card at a time, face down, to each player until each player has five cards in hand.
2) Starting with the dealer, each player lays one card, face-up, into one of three sets in front of them – Army, Castle, or Bank, until all five cards are played. Each set must be allocated at least one card.
3) The dealer gives another set of five cards, face down, to each player one at a time.
4) Starting with the dealer, each player adds one card, face-down, into their Army, Castle, or Bank, until all five cards are played.
5) All cards are turned face-up.
6) Starting with the dealer, each player compares the sum total of their Army set against their opponent's Castle set.
1. If the attacking Army is larger than the defending Castle, the difference is subtracted from the sum total of the defending player's Bank and added to the attacking player's Bank. A Bank cannot be reduced below zero.
2. If the defending Castle is larger than the attacking Army, nothing happens.
7) Each player adds their Bank, plus or minus any changes due to Armies, to their Score, then all cards in play are discarded.
8) Begin a new round. Dealer passes to the other player.


Multiplayer (3+, max of 6): Players attack to their left, and defend from their right. At the end of each round, dealer passes to the left. Shuffle all discards back into the remaining deck if there are not enough to deal ten cards to each player at the start of a round.

In my head, the choice of dividing assets between your three sets offers varying strategies/playstyles, while the combination of face-up and face-down cards, in varying amounts, allows for bluffing and mind-games with over- or under-committing resources.


EDITED

[Amechra]

It seems workable. The one bit that I'm less than fond of is that a victorious army steals points.

Maybe if you took a card from your opponent's bank if you won? Delay turning over the Bank cards until after you take your spoils, so you have a choice between taking a high face-up card from the Bank or an unknown face-down card.

[warty goblin]

The point stealing is, I assume, there because otherwise putting a card in your Bank is always better than putting it anywhere else.

I think this mostly balances out, although I have a suspicion that putting cards in Army is, by and large, the winning play. The worst that can happen with a card in Army is that you didn't need it (already maxed out opponent's Bank + Castle), and it can potentially alter the delta between your scores by up to 2x the card's value. Bank only gives 1x at most, and without Castle investment actually has negative value. Castle investment can only ever pay off 1x the investment in your Bank, which I think makes it come out behind as well. I suspect, though have not proved, that having the army only steal .5 * max(max(castle - army, 0), bank) would balance things somewhat better

Given how weird traditionally derived card games generally are (I mean just look at Cribbage for crying out loud) I suspect there would be some extra layers added on, to do with the positions and combinations of certain cards. If you lay a run or set or flush in some position, perhaps its worth more, or black cards count extra in the Castle, while Red count higher in the Army, stuff like that. Since you get 10 cards, you've got good odds of getting various Poker/Rummy sets. You could get clever here for example, and have Jacks/Knaves steal more than their face value, but be cancelled by Aces, or something like that.

That said, I'm intrigued enough by the basic structure, I think I'll try playing a couple hands with the girlfriend next week when she's back in town, if you don't mind.

[Cespenar]

Ran a couple of scenarios in my head, and it looks kinda balanced. The thing that pops out to me:

Since bank is both half as strong as army/castle, and gives your enemy a pool to steal from, it feels like all of the plays would go to the army and castle, with no cards ever put into bank (other than the forced ones). Balance-wise, I can't find much wrong with it, but it kinda narrows the actual tactical freedom from what it looks like at first glance.

The other, more concerning issue would be the sheer power of luck. You can't bluff anything if your cards suck. Poker circumvents this by letting players pass, so that you can scare your opponent into passing even if you have a weaker hand. You may consider a mulligan and/or passing option, maybe.

Still, seems legit for me. For worldbuilding consideration, it's more than enough. The card taking idea above sounds fine as well, for spicing things up.

[Amechra]

I mean just look at Cribbage for crying out loud

cribbage is perfectly reasonable and logical i will fight you in real life

(You aren't wrong - I've been playing Cribbage since I was five, and there are still some rules that I'm a bit foggy on. I mean, mostly just the Jack-related ones.)

[The Glyphstone]

I'd love to see people try playing it, since I can't do it myself due to a lack of people to play with. Stuff like the dominant value of investing in Army is a detail I wouldn't have though to do math on, and could be changed.

[TheStranger]

I haven't done the math on this, but it seems like the dealer is at a disadvantage because any points they can steal on their initial attack can be stolen back, but the other player doesn't have that problem. So the second player can load up on Army instead of Castle or Bank, knowing that the most they can lose from having a weak Castle is whatever they put in their Bank, and they can steal it back if their Army is big enough. The dealer, on the other hand, has to have enough Army to steal something and also enough Castle to keep it from being stolen back. But I haven't done the math or actually played any hands out, so maybe there's a strategy for the dealer that defeats an opponent who loads up on Army. But if not, a three-round game is pretty asymmetrical - the dealer on the first/third rounds has a big disadvantage overall.

[The Glyphstone]

Could make it 4 rounds, that is a point. I made it 3 rounds only so 2 players could finish a game with one deck.

After thinking about the army-bank problem a bit as well, what if it was changed so that a victorious Army could, as suggested, steal one card from the enemy Bank with a max value of the margin of victory? This reduces the overpowering swing value of a massive army since you can only swipe one card, and adds uncertainty since only the first few bank cards will have a known value.

Overcomitting wastes cards, undercommitting could mean you win without enough to steal anything. And since a bank will always have at least 2 cards, you will never end a round with zero points - not a balance issue, but very good for player psychology in a multiround game.

[TheStranger]

Could make it 4 rounds, that is a point. I made it 3 rounds only so 2 players could finish a game with one deck.

Unless you have a 60-card deck or I missed something, I don't think 3 rounds works for one deck either. I think most games of this sort play to a number of points rather than a number of rounds, though. If you just play to 200 or so, who deals first doesn't matter as much.

After thinking about the army-bank problem a bit as well, what if it was changed so that a victorious Army could, as suggested, steal one card from the enemy Bank with a max value of the margin of victory? This reduces the overpowering swing value of a massive army since you can only swipe one card, and adds uncertainty since only the first few bank cards will have a known value.

Overcomitting wastes cards, undercommitting could mean you win without enough to steal anything. And since a bank will always have at least 2 cards, you will never end a round with zero points - not a balance issue, but very good for player psychology in a multiround game.

I think only stealing one card works, but I don't know how much tying it to margin of victory adds. I think "beat their Castle, take a card, "works better, personally. You still have the concern about over/under-committing, but needing enough value left over feels arbitrary and frustrating.

Incidentally, I was thinking about how to actually play this with real cards, and it occurred to me that it would be kind of confusing which stack was which. So as a worldbuilding detail, you might try something like Castle cards are played upright, Bank cards are played horizontally, and Army cards are played diagonally. Or have tables/game boards marked with boxes to play the cards in.

Also, since your first post asked about level of complexity/strategy, this feels like it's a rung below poker in that regard. More on the order of cribbage, I think. Which is still a fine game, but not likely to be featured on ESPN anytime soon.

[tyckspoon]

Incidentally, I was thinking about how to actually play this with real cards, and it occurred to me that it would be kind of confusing which stack was which. So as a worldbuilding detail, you might try something like Castle cards are played upright, Bank cards are played horizontally, and Army cards are played diagonally. Or have tables/game boards marked with boxes to play the cards in.

Could just be tradition/in the rules to play in a specific order, like left to right you play Army, Bank, Castle. If your opponent is across from you in a head to head that should have your Armies and Castles conveniently placed so that the stacks you need to directly compare are placed opposed to each other, with the Banks in the 'neutral' center position. And in a larger game you are always placing the stack toward the direction where it's relevant - your Army compares to the cards to your left and your Castle compares to the cards to your right.

[warty goblin]

I think only stealing one card works, but I don't know how much tying it to margin of victory adds. I think "beat their Castle, take a card, "works better, personally. You still have the concern about over/under-committing, but needing enough value left over feels arbitrary and frustrating.

Incidentally, I was thinking about how to actually play this with real cards, and it occurred to me that it would be kind of confusing which stack was which. So as a worldbuilding detail, you might try something like Castle cards are played upright, Bank cards are played horizontally, and Army cards are played diagonally. Or have tables/game boards marked with boxes to play the cards in.

Also, since your first post asked about level of complexity/strategy, this feels like it's a rung below poker in that regard. More on the order of cribbage, I think. Which is still a fine game, but not likely to be featured on ESPN anytime soon.

I like needing the margin of victory to steal a card, since it incentivizes a risky strategy where you only put high value cards in the Bank, and dump the rest in your Castle. Basically you are gambling that you can limit the overrun of your Castle to less than the value of the lowest card in the Bank, which means you get credit for card count that would otherwise have had to go into your Bank.

[The Glyphstone]

Unless you have a 60-card deck or I missed something, I don't think 3 rounds works for one deck either. I think most games of this sort play to a number of points rather than a number of rounds, though. If you just play to 200 or so, who deals first doesn't matter as much.

Because I'm a moron. I was picturing a 60-card deck in-world for some reason I can't remember, and somehow transposed that to a 52-card deck.

Playing for a points total, though, does make more sense. If nothing else, it encourages more risky play from the player who is behind. The exact total of points needed I don't know though - maybe if WG does do some trial hands, they can tell me what the typical points-per-hand gain is.

Also, since your first post asked about level of complexity/strategy, this feels like it's a rung below poker in that regard. More on the order of cribbage, I think. Which is still a fine game, but not likely to be featured on ESPN anytime soon.

Honestly, cribbage seems like a sweet spot I can be happy with. Conceptually, this game would have been closer to cribbage/bridge anyways, as a competitive game between nobility/aristocrats. If it's complex enough can be said that being a skilled game-player would be seen as a positive trait in social circles, then I'm all set. More poker or cribbage, less gin rummy or Go Fish.

Could just be tradition/in the rules to play in a specific order, like left to right you play Army, Bank, Castle. If your opponent is across from you in a head to head that should have your Armies and Castles conveniently placed so that the stacks you need to directly compare are placed opposed to each other, with the Banks in the 'neutral' center position. And in a larger game you are always placing the stack toward the direction where it's relevant - your Army compares to the cards to your left and your Castle compares to the cards to your right.

That's exactly how I pictured it, in fact. The first-draft image was a pyramid arrangement with Army-Castle in the front and Bank behind, but that took up more space and so Army-Bank-Castle in a horizontal row did the same job, exactly like you describe.

I like needing the margin of victory to steal a card, since it incentivizes a risky strategy where you only put high value cards in the Bank, and dump the rest in your Castle. Basically you are gambling that you can limit the overrun of your Castle to less than the value of the lowest card in the Bank, which means you get credit for card count that would otherwise have had to go into your Bank.

I could also see a more conservative strategy where you fill your bank with low-value cards, trusting that only one of them can be stolen, and invest heavily into Army to try and swipe a high-value card from your opponent and come out ahead in the exchange. Or a bluff-based variant where you have visible low-value cards and hide a high-value card in their midst face-down to try and sneak it past them. Do tell us what your experiments bring, if you get the chance.

[Amechra]

The 60 cards thing made me realize something - what does a deck of cards look like in your world? The modern French suits (Hearts, Spades, Clubs, Diamonds, each going from Ace to King) are the product of a lot of evolution.

Do you have face cards? How many face cards do you have, and how are they valued? Heck, do you even have suits?

[The Glyphstone]

The 60 cards thing made me realize something - what does a deck of cards look like in your world? The modern French suits (Hearts, Spades, Clubs, Diamonds, each going from Ace to King) are the product of a lot of evolution.

Do you have face cards? How many face cards do you have, and how are they valued? Heck, do you even have suits?

Spoiler: since its mildly off topic

Show

Thinking about it, I think the 'standard' deck of cards in-world will be a 55 card set. Five suits, corresponding to the five moons/elemental planes. Each one has 10 pip cards, and one face card, the Immortal/Enlightened. The Immortal has a value of ten, but will always break a tied hand or set in its favor (unless both sides have an equal number of immortals).

[trust]

Sounds good to me! I was also thinking about making up my own game... kinda difficult though to not be similiar to any existing game... as there are SO MANY games out there lol

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I have a suspicion that putting cards in Army is, by and large, the winning play.

With two players this definitely seems like the case. (If I'm not misinterpreting stuff.)

Castle is the worst bet, because anything you have more than your enemy has in army basically goes to waste. You can also fulfill the role of the castle by putting the same cards into army. They steal from your bank, you steal from theirs, so you're basically subtracting.

Bank is okayish by itself, because every point in there is one point for you.

But every point in army is two points for you, after substraction of the enemy castle and the enemy army. So it seems to me like in general putting everything into army and just hoping you have a bigger point total than the other guy is the best play.

If no money can get stolen if there wasn't anything in the bank this only reinforces the strategy. If you're not getting any money because they didn't put anything in the bank, you're surely not going to give them anything by putting cards into your bank.



I like the general idea of the three resources, but I don't think this gets anywhere near a balance. Although there is usually only one way to really test a game idea, and that's to play it.

The multiplayer concept is also interesting because of the asymmetry, but precisely because of this I would also add some sort of mechanism for changing the direction of play or moving around the players. You don't want to be doomed because the player in front of you plays hyper aggressive so you never get to keep any money, you want to be able to find the best play versus any two opponents at any point.

[The Glyphstone]

So I've gone and edited in a second-draft version based on feedback - primary notable changes are modifying Army-Bank interaction so you can steal a maximum of one card as discussed, changing the Win Condition to a points total, and modifying Multiplayer so the current leader (highest score) will always be the Dealer (thus at a disadvantage).