I saw this post about using Poker Cards instead of dice.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26195.msg251157#msg251157
Has anyone else experimented with that?
Here's my shot at it. I think I've managed to capture all the mechanical features of Dogs resolution:
http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Dogs_with_Cards (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Dogs_with_Cards)
I'd love some feedback on it!
Paul
awesome.
I'm checking it out now.
Every time I think about matching or beating the card to defend, I can't help but think of the game Duell by Reiner Knizia.
(http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/9735)
Paul, if you're still around, was wondering if you ever got around to play-testing your creation.
Or if anyone else has, for that matter.
Quote from: Paul T on November 21, 2008, 04:32:45 PM
Here's my shot at it. I think I've managed to capture all the mechanical features of Dogs resolution:
http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Dogs_with_Cards (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Dogs_with_Cards)
I'd love some feedback on it!
Paul
Hello,
I haven't playtested the rules "full-on", in an actual game, sadly. But I have run a large number of single conflicts, and they worked very well.
The only thing I would consider changing is how "troublesome" traits work. It's possible that they need to be "troublesome" more consistently. If that's the case, you can take another deck of cards and pull all the cards that are higher than an 8 (9, 10, J, Q, K). That becomes the "troublesome deck", from where you draw for those traits. But so far I'm not convinced it's necessary--the rules seem to work OK as written.
Please let me know if you get a chance to give it a shot.
Cheers,
Paul
Quote from: Paul T on August 12, 2009, 12:22:18 PM
It's possible that they need to be "troublesome" more consistently.
I'm no mathematician, but how often (statistically) does your method produce fallout versus the original dice method?
I honestly can't say--I haven't run the numbers on it.
It IS based on the same math as the original system, so it preserves its principles and tendencies. But it is entirely possible that it generates fallout a little less often. So far, in tests, it felt about right, but maybe a little less common.
I may have a chance to playtest the rules this Saturday, incidentally. Stay tuned!
Quote from: Paul T on August 13, 2009, 02:05:21 PMIt IS based on the same math as the original system, so it preserves its principles and tendencies.
How did you handle the fact that drawing cards removes skews the odds of later draws (i.e. since you drew the Ace of Diamonds, it is no longer possible for the Ace of Diamonds to come up on the next draw). Or, asked another way, how would a card-counter game the system?
I really can't say--it's not a concern of mine.
Quote from: Wordman on August 18, 2009, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: Paul T on August 13, 2009, 02:05:21 PMIt IS based on the same math as the original system, so it preserves its principles and tendencies.
How did you handle the fact that drawing cards removes skews the odds of later draws (i.e. since you drew the Ace of Diamonds, it is no longer possible for the Ace of Diamonds to come up on the next draw). Or, asked another way, how would a card-counter game the system?
couldn't you always use two decks shuffled together?
and then, after any conflict, you re-shuffle?
That's pretty much how I would expect anyone to use those rules, yeah. (Although you can get away with one deck if you only have two or three people playing.)