Using Poker Dice

[iago]

I'm in the process of cleaning up the Evil Hat following a move to another machine, and I've been digging up a few gems here and there.

One favorite of mine that I wrote in a fevered fit and then never took anywhere further was Texorami!, a game that uses poker dice (see the page for an explanation) as its resolution mechanic.  I'm nuts for the things.

The system's good for running western-themed supernatural things, ala Deadlands, perhaps, but as written up, it's set up for doing Amber games (ala Zelazny) that are set in Texorami, the "hang out shadow" of the King of Amber.  Set that aside if it doesn't interest you; it's only peripheral as far as the meat of the game is concerned.

At any rate, I figured I'd air the system here for general perusal, and pair it with a question:  Have you tried using poker dice in your game designs?  And what came of it?

[Lxndr]

I'm not here long right now (packing for GenCon) but I've got to say I've never done that.  On the other hand, I own a set of ten-sided chess dice (four pawns, one of each of the others, with one "infinity" to round it out) and I've been sorely tempted to use THOSE in a game.  Maybe one day...

Didn't someone on here post once about using Starbucks Dice in a game?  Did that go anywhere?

[xiombarg]

You should try running Amber using that system at one of the Ambercons. Could be interesting.

I really like the interaction between attribute and luck, particularly for Stacked attributes -- lots of potential for wild variation, there. An actual statistical analysis of the chances of getting certain hand with certain attributes would be interesting...

[iago]

You should try running Amber using that system at one of the Ambercons. Could be interesting.

I really like the interaction between attribute and luck, particularly for Stacked attributes -- lots of potential for wild variation, there.

Yeah.  I'm very interested in getting a chance to run it at some point, and the idea that even a Stacked attribute only takes you so far is pretty appealing to me.

An actual statistical analysis of the chances of getting certain hand with certain attributes would be interesting...

Well, there is a probabilities file linked from the page... I'll excerpt:

Code:

Mark
Five of a Kind         0  0.00%
Four of a Kind         0  0.00%
Full House             0  0.00%
Three of a Kind        6  2.78%
Two Pair               0  0.00%
Pair                  90 41.67%
High Card            120 55.56%

Sharp
Five of a Kind         0  0.00%
Four of a Kind         1  0.46%
Full House             0  0.00%
Three of a Kind       20  9.26%
Two Pair              15  6.94%
Pair                 120 55.56%
High Card             60 27.78%

Stacked
Five of a Kind         1  0.46%
Four of a Kind        15  6.94%
Full House            20  9.26%
Three of a Kind       60 27.78%
Two Pair              30 13.89%
Pair                  90 41.67%
High Card              0  0.00%

Of course, what these probabilities neglect to explore is how "strong", say, a Stacked pair of Jacks  is against a Sharp Queen or higher, given that if the Sharp hand ever makes a pair and the Stacked hand rolls three dissimilar non-Jacks, the Jacks are beaten ...  At the same time, each rung (Mark, Sharp, Stacked) has a distinct general advantage in the hands.

Another thing I like about this is, like with poker itself, the probabilities really cluster around the bottom few hands in most cases (single pair owns the bulk of the probabilities in all cases, on average) -- which makes the times when a "big hand" results come off as that much more "special".  It's not super-flat, like getting a 20 on a d20, or even (though it has some similarities) an 18 on a 3d6...

[Lxndr]

Variants Questions

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Your Operator variant (is that a poker term?) introduces the new attribute ranking, but gives no possible way to create a character with one (other than using "Hit Me").  So, using the basic character generation rules, how do I make an Operator?

A standard character who's traded nothing in has all Sharps.  Trading one Sharp down to make a Stacked gives a Mark.  Would Operators just let you combine two values WITHOUT the trade?  So, using the Ace I could have:

* a Sharp Ace, and a Sharp King
* an Operator Ace/King (with a Mark), or
* a Stacked King/King (with a Mark)

Is that what you were imagining?  It seems fair to me.  Or were you thinking the Operator would only be allowed on a "Hit Me"?  (As an aside, I'd allow disjoint rankings, just because I'm that sort of guy)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Eights.  

If you assume any Mark is an 8, then can you trade a 9 down to form a Stacked 8?  Thus:

Ace/King/Queen/Jack/Ten/Eight-Eight/Mark.  Right?  That seems fair to me.

But, if you have a 9, can you combine that with a Mark, for an Operator?  That doesn't seem quite right:

Ace/King/Jack-Jack/Ten/Nine-Eight/Mark - if you can do that
vs.
Ace/King/Jack-Jack/Ten/Nine/Mark - if you choose not to do that

In other words, if you've got a Nine and a Mark, might as well make it a Nine-Eight and a Mark.  Which just seems odd, but not necessarily a bad thing.  Or do you want this sort of thing only available with Hit Me?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Cheatin' hands seem only possible for NPCs; how can a PC get one?  Only with Hit Me?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[iago]

Your Operator variant (is that a poker term?)

(It's from the phrase "Smooth Operator".  Jury's out as to whether or not that was a good choice, terminologically.)

introduces the new attribute ranking, but gives no possible way to create a character with one (other than using "Hit Me").  So, using the basic character generation rules, how do I make an Operator?

That's something I somewhat intentionally avoided adding in, but the way that I'd do it, myself, would be to allow you to combine a traded-down card with an "adjacent" Sharp card to make an Operator hand.

One issue here, though, is that an Operator hand is somewhat less potent than a Stacked hand, so making the methods of getting them equivalent doesn't sit entirely right with me.   One possible fix would be that you can create an Operator hand "for free" with a card trade-in, but you'd have to spend one of your two points in addition to create a Stacked hand with a trade-in.  

Then again, that potency is pretty "fringey" (I'd have to run up the probabilities to take a look, but really the Five of a Kind hand is the only one an Operator can't get at) in terms of how frequently the high-hands happen, so it's possible an Operator hand looks more attractive in the lower rankings than Stacked -- I'm not sure yet, which is part of why I don't actually attach chargen rules to this variant bit. :)

A standard character who's traded nothing in has all Sharps.  Trading one Sharp down to make a Stacked gives a Mark.  Would Operators just let you combine two values WITHOUT the trade?  So, using the Ace I could have:

* a Sharp Ace, and a Sharp King
* an Operator Ace/King (with a Mark), or
* a Stacked King/King (with a Mark)

Is that what you were imagining?  It seems fair to me.

This works too, and doesn't bring the "points" into it ... I may like this idea more,  but I need to chew on it for a while.

Or were you thinking the Operator would only be allowed on a "Hit Me"?  (As an aside, I'd allow disjoint rankings, just because I'm that sort of guy)

Hit Me is definitely an interesting way to play it, and it's arguable that a "connector" (two adjacent cards) is slightly more potent than an "inside straight" (non-adjacent cards).  If you're a fan of randomness in your character creation, you could even make Hit Me something where you have to specify the attribute you're hitting in advance -- and then just take whatever you got.  e.g., I have a Queen in Moxie, and I say 'Hit Me' -- Nine, Ten, and Ace give me inside straight Operators, King and Jack give me connected Operators, and a Queen gets me Stacked.

If you assume any Mark is an 8, then can you trade a 9 down to form a Stacked 8?

No, you don't consider a Mark to be an 8 -- a Mark is a dead card, or an empty hand, depending on how you want to think of it.  An 8 is something you could only get by trading down a nine -- which would leave you with a single eight, a mark, and nothing to pair it to.  It's a questionable move. :)

This does beg the question of "how do I get an eight-eight, then?" And, well, I'm not entirely sure.   But, I imagine, you could do a "Hit Me", then roll a 9 (to replace your Mark), and then trade that 9 down for another 8, to get 8-8.  Though it's very questionable that you'd have a single eight in the first place, since there's no value in it (you've cheated yourself out of a 9-9 in this example).

So, let's work through this a little more... I think the Mark and the 8 idea should remain separate.  So when you trade in a card, you get that card one down and an 8. (Ace King Queen Jack Ten Nine becomes King-King Eight Queen Jack Ten Nine).  If you have two eights (say after you trade again and get King-King Eight Eight Jack-Jack Ten Nine), you can combine those to get an Eight-Eight and a Mark (so, King-King Eight-Eight Mark Jack-Jack Ten Nine).

Hmm.  If, before, the most minmaxed thing was King-King Jack-Jack Nine-Nine Mark Mark Mark and under the Eights variant that's King-King Jack-Jack Nine-Nine Eight Eight Eight, then you could have an even more minmaxed sheet of King-King Jack-Jack Nine-Nine Eight-Eight Eight Mark.  Scary, but then again, a Mark is a very bad hand under such a set-up, where most every one else at least has an Eight 'kicker' to break ties.

Cheatin' hands seem only possible for NPCs; how can a PC get one?  Only with Hit Me?

I thought I'd put something in the Cheatin' section that talked about this... one idea would be to make it possible on a Hit Me that matches a Stacked attribute.  Another might let you trade in a run of 3 (Ace, King, Queen) for a Cheatin' hand matching the lowest of the run (so Ace, King, Queen would  become Q-Q-Q, Mark, Mark).

In general, though, having a guaranteed three of a kind is almost too much for a "starting" character, so I'd probably restrict it to NPCs and characters in ongoing games -- but that's personal taste.

[Lxndr]

Forgive me if I babble too far, but sometimes something just lodges in my head and I tinker with it for a while.  That's how Snowball came about, for instance.

   I'm not sure how appropriate this is, but it's a poker term, too, so I'll give it as a suggestion.  How about instead of "Operator" you have "Stud" hands?  That way your progression goes Sharp/Stud/Stack and you get a nifty S thing going on.  Sure, it's broken on "Mark" but, well, that helps Mark stand out.  I'm weird that way, but I think that's an advantage.  :)

   Okay, so combining a lot of your other points, let's assume the following (since I'd rather not have random chargen if possible):

* The suggestion I gave earlier for creating Studs (nee Operators) in chargen is true, and
* Eight and Marks are separate.

This question and answer presents itself:

Q: If you create a Stud, as opposed to a Stack, do you get a Mark or an Eight?  

A: I'd be tempted to say Studs give Eights, but Stacks give Marks.  That way, you "pay" a little more for a Stack.  But that's just my gut feeling on the matter.

So:
* A sharp Ace, and a sharp King
* A stud Ace/King, with an Eight, or
* A stacked King/King, with a Mark

Thus you could have King-King/Jack-Jack/Nine-Nine/Mark/Mark/Mark, or Ace-King/Queen-Jack/Ten-Nine/Eight/Eight/Eight.  The second of which could be min-maxed even further to Ace-King/Queen-Jack/Ten-Nine/Eight-Eight/Eight/Mark, Or, if you want to maximize your high cards instead of potential straights, for some reason, Ace-Jack/King-Ten/Queen-Nine/Eight-Eight/Eight/Mark.

Sharps are ostensibly more useful than studs (though I'd like to see adjacent and non-adjacent Stud numbers crunched), but the studs give you eights, while a sharp gives you a Mark.  That feels "balanced" to me, at least conceptually.

Then, to continue my rolling thoughts, I'd allow a Hit Me to do any of the following (assuming no Cheating rules are in effect):

* Replace a Mark with a card
* Create a Stud or Stack out of a Sharp
* Replace a single card from a Stud or Stack (yes, if you WANT to, you can put a lower card in place of a higher one - maybe making a 9/9 looks better than that 10/9)
* Drop the roll entirely (no rerolls, in other words - but heck, there's NO starting character that doesn't have at least one Mark, or a Sharp that )

I don't want to think about how Cheating would affect that, especially if you allow three-card Studs (8/9/Queen?).  My first thought is that a three-card hand (Monty, let's call it, from "three card Monty" and having an alphabetical counterpoint to the Mark) would cost 2 points to get, but otherwise be treated the same.

Btw, since Three-Card Studs are possible in this variant, I'd suggest the player be allowed to make the best possible hand out of his roll, even if it means dropping one of the cards in his hand (so mr. 8/9/Q could roll 8/8/9 and drop the Q to get a full house).

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It occurs to me, also, that between "Hit Me" and "Hole Card" you have your character improvement mechanic.  Consider this:

Every blah*, you may choose one statistic and roll a Hit Me for that statistic for free or you may choose a new Hole Card.  If using Cheating, you can choose to hold onto a Hit Me until you get a 2nd one, if you want a three-card hand, but if you have one, it can be improved as per normal.

*blah is "story" or "session" or "whenever you pay the GM ten dollars" or however you want to define it.

[iago]

Forgive me if I babble too far, but sometimes something just lodges in my head and I tinker with it for a while.  That's how Snowball came about, for instance.

No problem.  You're doing a great job of developing the 'Advanced Version' of Texorami! -- with all the variants in play.

I'm not sure how appropriate this is, but it's a poker term, too, so I'll give it as a suggestion.  How about instead of "Operator" you have "Stud" hands?  That way your progression goes Sharp/Stud/Stack and you get a nifty S thing going on.  Sure, it's broken on "Mark" but, well, that helps Mark stand out.  I'm weird that way, but I think that's an advantage.  :)

Yeah -- that's probably the way to go.  I'd been stuck on the whole Stud thing not quite fitting, but why should I care?  It's just a flavorful term, and I'd be happy to use it here.

(snipping a lot of bits here)

Sharps are ostensibly more useful than studs (though I'd like to see adjacent and non-adjacent Stud numbers crunched), but the studs give you eights, while a sharp gives you a Mark.  That feels "balanced" to me, at least conceptually.

You're getting the terms confused here.  Where you're saying 'Sharp' you mean 'Stacked'.  Otherwise, youre right on track.

Then, to continue my rolling thoughts, I'd allow a Hit Me to do any of the following (assuming no Cheating rules are in effect):

* Replace a Mark with a card

You're leaving out the ability to upgrade a sharp to a bette  card, if you wanted.  Someone might want to replace an 8 as well.

* Create a Stud or Stack out of a Sharp
* Replace a single card from a Stud or Stack (yes, if you WANT to, you can put a lower card in place of a higher one - maybe making a 9/9 looks better than that 10/9)

Arguably, a 9-9 *is* better than a 10-9 in a few cases -- most notably, since only three dice are being rolled, a 9-9 has a shot at a 5 of a kind, which a 10-9 never does.

* Drop the roll entirely (no rerolls, in other words - but heck, there's NO starting character that doesn't have at least one Mark, or a Sharp that )

A Sharp that ... what? :) Don't leave us hangin'!  I figure you mean "A sharp that can be upgraded or turned into a Stud".

I don't want to think about how Cheating would affect that, especially if you allow three-card Studs (8/9/Queen?).  My first thought is that a three-card hand (Monty, let's call it, from "three card Monty" and having an alphabetical counterpoint to the Mark) would cost 2 points to get, but otherwise be treated the same.

Well, sure. And you have to build it off of a Stacked or a Stud.

Btw, since Three-Card Studs are possible in this variant, I'd suggest the player be allowed to make the best possible hand out of his roll, even if it means dropping one of the cards in his hand (so mr. 8/9/Q could roll 8/8/9 and drop the Q to get a full house).

Better make that example something other than involving 8's, since 8 can't be rolled: it's not on the nine-through-ace poker dice at all. :)  Eights are *very* weak cards to have, because of that -- which is why they're in the variant section.

It occurs to me, also, that between "Hit Me" and "Hole Card" you have your character improvement mechanic.

Yeah.  No argument.  It's just that each "point" is so very potent when it's spent, that you may as well consider it equivalent to jumping up "a level" in a level-based game, in terms of the sudden improvement conferred.

Not that that's bad.  This is a low-detail system.

[iago]

I ran some numbers (which could be completely wrong) on the chances of a Stud hand producing various kinds of rankings.  This is what came out of it.

Interestingly, whether a Stud hand is disjoint or not didn't have impact on the probabilities.  What *did* have impact, though, was whether or not you had an end-card (Ace or a Nine) in your hand, since that limits you to getting a straight in "only one direction".

When dealing with an Ace or Nine Stud hand:

Code:

   5 OAK  0.00%
   4 OAK  0.93%
 FullHse  2.78%
Straight  2.78%
   3 OAK 12.96%
  2 Pair 22.22%
    Pair 50.00%
    High  8.33%

When dealing with a hand that doesn't have an Ace or a Nine (Straight chance doubles, and the likelihood of a High Card hand diminishes):

Code:

   5 OAK  0.00%
   4 OAK  0.93%
 FullHse  2.78%
Straight  5.56%
   3 OAK 12.96%
  2 Pair 22.22%
    Pair 50.00%
    High  5.56%

(When including eights, I believe an Eight-Nine is just as limited as a Nine-Ten (only one direction to expand in)).

Furthermore, clearly, an Ace-Nine hand is the worst Stud hand you can have, since when adding three cards (dice) to it, there's no way to get a straight out of it.  (Ace-King-Queen-Jack-Nine, Ace-Queen-Jack-Ten-Nine).  So all that hand gets you is that you have an easier time making top or bottom pair.

Just a little something to complicate the nature of the "rankings"... :)

[Lxndr]

Yeah, I mixed up the terminology in that one sentence.  Sorry bout that.  More of my ramblings:

You're leaving out the ability to upgrade a sharp to a bette card, if you wanted. Someone might want to replace an 8 as well.

Let's say you've got an 8, and you roll an ace.  What's the better option, replace the 8 with an ace, or combine them into a "stud"?  My assumption is that the upgrade of any sharp isn't another sharp, but a stud.  Granted, the Ace/8 combo is probably one of the most useless combinations to have, since you can't even get a straight off it, but there's no HARM in keeping that 8 around until you upgrade it through replacement.

Arguably, a 9-9 *is* better than a 10-9 in a few cases -- most notably, since only three dice are being rolled, a 9-9 has a shot at a 5 of a kind, which a 10-9 never does.

Exactly!  Which is why I was allowing replacements to be lower cards as well as higher ones.

Well, sure. And you have to build it off of a Stacked or a Stud.

Better make that example something other than involving 8's, since 8 can't be rolled: it's not on the nine-through-ace poker dice at all. :) Eights are *very* weak cards to have, because of that -- which is why they're in the variant section.

But an 8 could still potentially be in there, if you've got a greedy player who thinks to himself, "Hmmm, I've got an 8/9, but I want a three card monty, let's spend two points and go for the gold.  A-HA, a Queen!"  8/9/Q is potentially more worthwhile than just taking that 8/9 and turning it into a 9/Q.

Yeah. No argument. It's just that each "point" is so very potent when it's spent, that you may as well consider it equivalent to jumping up "a level" in a level-based game, in terms of the sudden improvement conferred.

Not that that's bad. This is a low-detail system.

That it is.  It's much like a level.  Which is why the advancement system was suggested to be "after each blah."  I personally like the "after each time you give the GM ten dollars" method, but I don't think that should be official.  wink

By the way, thanks for running the numbers.  As you can tell, I noted above (before I read your numbers, I should note) that A/8 is quite the ugliest hand there could possibly be.  At least an A/9 hand doubles the possibility of a pair (and a 2 pair, and quite possibly a full house).  The A/8 is basically worthless.  K/8 isn't any better.

Although... if you have a Wild Card die, you should be allowed to set it as an "8" if you really wanted.  You'd have to have one sorry-arsed hand otherwise to do that, though.

[Lxndr]

http://www.dozensofgames.com/8sidpokdic.html

Don't haev much to say about these right now, but I'm curious what 8-sided poker dice might do to this game.  ;)

( http://www.dozensofgames.com/cheseqdic.html from the same site are the chess dice I own)

[iago]

Let's say you've got an 8, and you roll an ace.  What's the better option, replace the 8 with an ace, or combine them into a "stud"?  My assumption is that the upgrade of any sharp isn't another sharp, but a stud.  Granted, the Ace/8 combo is probably one of the most useless combinations to have, since you can't even get a straight off it, but there's no HARM in keeping that 8 around until you upgrade it through replacement.

True; I think my replacement comment was made without factoring in all the new variants and whatnot you've introduced. :)

(Sorry about the delay -- had to run off to the east coast and buy my house.)

[iago]

http://www.dozensofgames.com/8sidpokdic.html

Don't haev much to say about these right now, but I'm curious what 8-sided poker dice might do to this game.  ;)

( http://www.dozensofgames.com/cheseqdic.html from the same site are the chess dice I own)

Very interesting.  I'm sure a Texorami! variant could be done up using both of those (the chess one would be a little weird with Texorami! rules, though -- I'm thinking about each person rolling a small number of dice and then playing a mini chess-game with the pieces that result on a small grid to determine results... but that would be pretty time-consuming).

Edit: Actually, after looking at the picture of the d8 poker dice, it looks like they introduce the possibility of adding a Flush to the list of results, which normal d6 poker dice don't account for.  Intriguing...

[Lxndr]

(I am now back from GenCon.  Woo!)

Yeah, Ace/8 is THE most useless combo to have, but what's the harm?  I suppose if you're saying Studs remain optional, then yeah, you can replace a card with a higher one.  But, well, I like Studs.  :)

The other idea I had:  Short Straights

A Short Straight (4 numerical cards in order) is apparently better than a pair, but worse than two pair, if I remember my poker right.  This works out to a 1/36 chance to get one in any particular roll of 3 dice + 1 value, though in the case of some Studs, some of that 1/36 would wind up being a full Straight.  

I like this variant because it helps to separate Marks from Eights a bit more.  Without this variant, an 8 and a Mark effectively have the same odds combinations.  With this variant, the 8 now can reach the Short Straight, which the Mark cannot.

In addition, this would make such interesting aberrations as the Ace/8 Stud slightly better than having just the Ace alone, since it increases the chances of getting a short straight (J/10/9 and K/Q/J both become slightly more inviting combinations to roll).

What do you think?


I'm going to be picking up the D8 poker dice since, right now, I can't really tell what the sides are supposed to be.  If you've figured them out by the picture, please let me know.  :)  The opportunity for a Flush hand would be interesting to have...

As for the chess dice, I'm sure you could do something with Texorami and them, but I think they're different enough they probably desire/want their own system.  Texorami is set up to handle poker hands really well, but something like chess seems - too different.

Thanks to Texorami, though, I'm potentially brainstorming a chess dice game.  If it turns into something, I'll post it.  I'm loving Texorami, though, so I'm gonna try not to derail this thread with the chess stuff.

[iago]

What do you think?

I think the Short Straights idea is a great one, if you're looking for a lot of complexity in your Texorami! game (which you are, at least by the posts).  I think, personally, I'd run the game without eights, at the least, and try to keep my variants to a minimum -- but that's because I like to keep "system" pretty simple for my players.

I'm going to be picking up the D8 poker dice since, right now, I can't really tell what the sides are supposed to be.  If you've figured them out by the picture, please let me know.  :)  The opportunity for a Flush hand would be interesting to have...

My theory is that across the whole set of dice, you've got ace through ten (could go to nine, who knows, but ace through ten is 5 dice and I think that it's built on the idea of a set of five).  There are 40 total faces, so I think each card shows up on one of the five dice with one of the four suits, twice. (5 cards * 4 suits = 20, 40 / 20 = 2).  But that's just a theory.

As for the chess dice, I'm sure you could do something with Texorami and them, but I think they're different enough they probably desire/want their own system.  Texorami is set up to handle poker hands really well, but something like chess seems - too different.

Yeah.  I realized that mid-sentence.

Thanks to Texorami, though, I'm potentially brainstorming a chess dice game.  If it turns into something, I'll post it.  I'm loving Texorami, though, so I'm gonna try not to derail this thread with the chess stuff.

Sure thing.  I'll be interested in where you go with that.