Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e D&D Poker
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8034763" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I love the general idea. I've dabbled a bit in the past with simulating games within games. For me, a crucial focus is tension. Fictional losses are at a great remove from real losses, so an important problem is how to make players really <em>feel</em> that. With that in mind, I would first of all suggest streamlining the steps.</p><p></p><p><u>Table Stakes</u></p><p>You mention this but do not define it. I think you want a step where everyone commits an equal amount of gp to the game. That is their table stake and they cannot bet more than this. The tension here might be to offer some interacting variants</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Low stakes</strong> - 100 copper, silver or gold, as is right for the group</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>High stakes </strong>- 1000 silver, gold or platinum, as is right for the group</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Open stakes</strong> - you put at least 200 coin down to play, and can bring in more money as the game goes along</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Low limit</strong> - ante and bet are 2 of the coin</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>High limit</strong> - ante and bet are 5 of the coin (alternatively, bet is up to current pot, but I think it easier to use fixed units)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Unlimited</strong> - you can bet whatever you can afford to bet</li> </ol><p></p><p><u>Prior to Deal</u> and <u>Deal</u></p><p>I would consider doing this in one step, each player receiving 5+Int modifier cards. So with Int 12, I get 6 cards. With Int 8, I get 4.</p><p><strong>EDIT</strong> characters with Playing Cards use their skill modifier instead.</p><p></p><p><u>Ante</u></p><p>I think we want <em>all players</em> to have something at stake. So I would simplify to - everyone antes.</p><p></p><p><u>First Betting Round</u></p><p>So the order of this is going to be fixed, right. Whoever has highest passive Deception in round one will always have highest. Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks, then. And Clerics, Druids are the ones most likely to resist them (and secondarily Monks, Paladins and Rangers). Your bluff mechanic is one of your key tension-drivers, as it puts some of what happens outside player control! They might be pulled in for significantly more than they intended.</p><p></p><p>This is going to be fiddly to resolve, it could be something like this</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If you have a dealer (with DM dealing for NPCs) I don't see why one could not just go around the table in the usual order for Poker</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In their turn, a character can <strong>fold</strong>, <strong>bet</strong> (equal to ante), <strong>bluff</strong>, or be <strong>drawn-in</strong> (in response to earlier bluffers)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">To <strong>bluff</strong>, they name any number up to their passive Deception; the round continues; more than one character can bluff; this might be tracked by putting a die in front of each bluffer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If there are bluffs in play, that are higher than acting character's passive Insight, they are <strong>drawn-in</strong> (must bet)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If there are bluffs in play, that are equal or lower than acting character's passive Insight, they can choose to be <strong>drawn-in</strong> (all this really means, is betting anyway)</li> </ol><p><u>Draw Round</u></p><p>I would simplify to just discard down to 5 or fewer cards, then back draw up to 5 if holding fewer. That's because there really isn't much value or tension so far as I can see in over-engineering this step.</p><p></p><p><strong>EDIT </strong><u>Second Betting Round</u></p><p>I want to suggest a refinement here, to allow stakes to escalate a bit more terrifyingly.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In a character's turn to bet, they can also <strong>double</strong>, meaning that what is simulated is an additional round of betting</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Each time a character doubles this round, the betting unit increases by 1x</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Example with five at table, A bets 2cp, B doubles thus betting 4cp, C bets 4cp, D doubles betting 6cp, dealer bets 6cp</li> </ol><p>Doubling this way (in the D&D sense of "doubling") would allow the stakes to escalate in an exciting fashion. Adding tension by getting players suddenly in for more than they might have wanted. Also allowing participants to collaborate to put another out of the game, fostering drama-driving ill-will etc.</p><p></p><p><u>Showdown</u></p><p>This can be another tension-driver, and I think your mechanic goes in the right direction, but could be more exciting if it does not guarantee a win. The cheater risks disaster, and perhaps bootlessly! Perhaps</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In normal table order (around from dealer) characters <strong>show</strong> or <strong>cheat</strong></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If <strong>showing</strong>, they reveal their hand</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If <strong>cheating</strong>, they roll Sleight of Hand, with <em>disadvantage </em>as you say if not dealer, and I would suggest <em>advantage </em>if dealer (just to encourage a bit of lively action)<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Interested </strong>characters (a character can choose to be disinterested) decide as you say between using passive or active Perception, <strong>EDIT</strong> or their Playing Cards skill, in place of Perception</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If their Sleight of Hand is higher than all Perception checks, they look at the deck and must exchange one card, and then reveal their hand <strong>EDIT</strong> with characters drawing do many extra cards, it might be they must also look at discards</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If caught out, you mention table stakes</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The showdown continues (multiple characters can cheat)</li> </ol><p>I think there's no practical way to conceal that cheating has occurred - because dice are being rolled! - hence this system. The cheat gains a huge advantage, but not a guaranteed win.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, the idea is to ramp tension with each mechanic. I like that you cap the betting to two rounds.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8034763, member: 71699"] I love the general idea. I've dabbled a bit in the past with simulating games within games. For me, a crucial focus is tension. Fictional losses are at a great remove from real losses, so an important problem is how to make players really [I]feel[/I] that. With that in mind, I would first of all suggest streamlining the steps. [U]Table Stakes[/U] You mention this but do not define it. I think you want a step where everyone commits an equal amount of gp to the game. That is their table stake and they cannot bet more than this. The tension here might be to offer some interacting variants [LIST=1] [*][B]Low stakes[/B] - 100 copper, silver or gold, as is right for the group [*][B]High stakes [/B]- 1000 silver, gold or platinum, as is right for the group [*][B]Open stakes[/B] - you put at least 200 coin down to play, and can bring in more money as the game goes along [*][B]Low limit[/B] - ante and bet are 2 of the coin [*][B]High limit[/B] - ante and bet are 5 of the coin (alternatively, bet is up to current pot, but I think it easier to use fixed units) [*][B]Unlimited[/B] - you can bet whatever you can afford to bet [/LIST] [U]Prior to Deal[/U] and [U]Deal[/U] I would consider doing this in one step, each player receiving 5+Int modifier cards. So with Int 12, I get 6 cards. With Int 8, I get 4. [B]EDIT[/B] characters with Playing Cards use their skill modifier instead. [U]Ante[/U] I think we want [I]all players[/I] to have something at stake. So I would simplify to - everyone antes. [U]First Betting Round[/U] So the order of this is going to be fixed, right. Whoever has highest passive Deception in round one will always have highest. Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks, then. And Clerics, Druids are the ones most likely to resist them (and secondarily Monks, Paladins and Rangers). Your bluff mechanic is one of your key tension-drivers, as it puts some of what happens outside player control! They might be pulled in for significantly more than they intended. This is going to be fiddly to resolve, it could be something like this [LIST=1] [*]If you have a dealer (with DM dealing for NPCs) I don't see why one could not just go around the table in the usual order for Poker [*]In their turn, a character can [B]fold[/B], [B]bet[/B] (equal to ante), [B]bluff[/B], or be [B]drawn-in[/B] (in response to earlier bluffers) [*]To [B]bluff[/B], they name any number up to their passive Deception; the round continues; more than one character can bluff; this might be tracked by putting a die in front of each bluffer [*]If there are bluffs in play, that are higher than acting character's passive Insight, they are [B]drawn-in[/B] (must bet) [*]If there are bluffs in play, that are equal or lower than acting character's passive Insight, they can choose to be [B]drawn-in[/B] (all this really means, is betting anyway) [/LIST] [U]Draw Round[/U] I would simplify to just discard down to 5 or fewer cards, then back draw up to 5 if holding fewer. That's because there really isn't much value or tension so far as I can see in over-engineering this step. [B]EDIT [/B][U]Second Betting Round[/U] I want to suggest a refinement here, to allow stakes to escalate a bit more terrifyingly. [LIST=1] [*]In a character's turn to bet, they can also [B]double[/B], meaning that what is simulated is an additional round of betting [*]Each time a character doubles this round, the betting unit increases by 1x [*]Example with five at table, A bets 2cp, B doubles thus betting 4cp, C bets 4cp, D doubles betting 6cp, dealer bets 6cp [/LIST] Doubling this way (in the D&D sense of "doubling") would allow the stakes to escalate in an exciting fashion. Adding tension by getting players suddenly in for more than they might have wanted. Also allowing participants to collaborate to put another out of the game, fostering drama-driving ill-will etc. [U]Showdown[/U] This can be another tension-driver, and I think your mechanic goes in the right direction, but could be more exciting if it does not guarantee a win. The cheater risks disaster, and perhaps bootlessly! Perhaps [LIST=1] [*]In normal table order (around from dealer) characters [B]show[/B] or [B]cheat[/B] [*]If [B]showing[/B], they reveal their hand [*]If [B]cheating[/B], they roll Sleight of Hand, with [I]disadvantage [/I]as you say if not dealer, and I would suggest [I]advantage [/I]if dealer (just to encourage a bit of lively action) [LIST=1] [*][B]Interested [/B]characters (a character can choose to be disinterested) decide as you say between using passive or active Perception, [B]EDIT[/B] or their Playing Cards skill, in place of Perception [*]If their Sleight of Hand is higher than all Perception checks, they look at the deck and must exchange one card, and then reveal their hand [B]EDIT[/B] with characters drawing do many extra cards, it might be they must also look at discards [*]If caught out, you mention table stakes [/LIST] [*]The showdown continues (multiple characters can cheat) [/LIST] I think there's no practical way to conceal that cheating has occurred - because dice are being rolled! - hence this system. The cheat gains a huge advantage, but not a guaranteed win. Anyway, the idea is to ramp tension with each mechanic. I like that you cap the betting to two rounds. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e D&D Poker
Top