Could one of you statistics (the science not the RP term) junkies out there do some breakdowns on odds as they pertain to the popular game of Blackjack.
Yes, I'm trying to do a game with it...no, I have no idea what I'm doing.
Thank you.

amiel wrote: Could one of you statistics (the science not the RP term) junkies out there do some breakdowns on odds as they pertain to the popular game of Blackjack.
Yes, I'm trying to do a game with it...no, I have no idea what I'm doing.
Thank you.

Here's something:

Forget the numbers on the cards as far as attribute scores of whatever and just play Blackjack, trying to get as close to 21 as possible without busting.

The success of the action is dependant on getting at least two cards of a matching suits. The more cards with matching suits, the better you do. If you get exactly 21 without matching any cards, it's still a success. If you hit blackjack with matching suits, it's like a critical success. If you bust with no matches, it's a critical failure.

And for character efficacy, raise or lower the "bust" number -- if you're better you might have a limit of 28. If you suck you might bust on anything over 14.

Hi Jeremiah,

It would help a great deal if you explained why you are interested in using blackjack mechanics in a role-playing context.

Many times, people have said, "Find a working mechanic from Some Game, and use it for the basis of a role-playing system!" Universally, the response is "Yeah!" and then a slow, swishing silence. This is one of those little mantras of game culture that lead nowhere.

The question you need to consider is whether, during the game you envision, people are playing blackjack. If so, then you're subverting the imaginative content of the game in favor of simply playing a good card game.

Case in point (positive): Dust Devils uses a poker hand mechanic. However, the people at the table are not playing poker. There is no "bluffing" between GM and player, for instance.

Case in point (negative): rock-paper-scissors in many LARPS. These are essentially the equivalent of "punting" in role-playing terms - there is no system, just a sudden detour into a completely different activity whose fun is derived solely from its own features.

If you're talking about role-playing design, you must begin with role-playing priorities. Then and only then can we discuss (a) whether a blackjack mechanic seems warranted and (b) what features of blackjack would be incorporated.

Best,
Ron

First, my impression of blackjack is that it's hard. If you're going to make your players actually play the game against the GM then they'll lose more often than they will win. Even if your players know how to count cards (unlikely, unless the MIT blackjack team also role-plays) they'll only win around 51 – 53 percent of the time.

This means that you'll have to come up with some better mechanic than the game alone. Either skill points allow players to go above 21, skill allows players to get dealt more than 2 cards - and they pick the two or three they want, or skill changes the composition of the deck to mimic card counting (removing low cards, for example). You'll have to come up with a system before it's worth running statistics on it.

Fortunately for you, blackjack has some spiffy rules that might make interesting meta-game mechanics. I'll include my opinions in parenthesis (and they're only my opinions, mind you).

1. The bet. Normally in blackjack you place your bet before the draw. This could correspond with all sorts of things, from the stakes of the task being resolved (kind of dull) to the scope of the resolution: task, conflict, or scene (more interesting).

2. Surrender. Sometimes in Blackjack you have the opportunity to quit if things are going very poorly. In this case you surrender half the bet, but get to keep the other half. This could be an interesting 'wiff' reducer (Maybe if players surrender the situation gets more complicated instead of being a failure, or maybe they only lose a task instead of an conflict or scene).

3. Double and Split. It is possible to increase your bet during play. You may double your bet right before your last card, and if you have only two cards of the same value you may split them into two hands while doubling your bet as well. The double could be offered in some skilled situations and the split could be offered more often depending on some skill levels or character priorities.

4. Often, the dealer (a name for a GM?) plays by a strict set of rules. They have to draw to 17 points and cannot draw past that. This might present some options for mechanical integration or GMless play.

5. Insurance. If a dealer is showing an Ace, players may bet insurance. This means that they win if the dealer makes blackjack (2:1, no less) and lose the insurance bet otherwise. I have no idea how you'd incorporate this into the rules of a role-playing game, but it might fit some idea you have.

Most of this information is from The Wizard Of Odds

Personally, I'd rather use Baccurat as a mechanic, but that's just me.

People do this all the time. They ask for stats, but do not ask a specific question. What do you want to know? The chance of busting if you start with a particular number and hit? The chance to get 21 exactly? With how many decks, and with what particular rules? What are you asking for?

I'm not sure what Ring is getting at with his claim that it's hard. Blackjack is actually very simple statistically to figure out how to play correctly. If you are math challenged, there are even little cards in most casino gift shops that will tell you exactly when to hit given the cards showing. In an "honest game" this will allow you to win exactly 50% of the time. Which is why all casinos play with house rules that bend the odds in their favor (usually a house 21 or blackjack beats all hands or something like that). This allows them to have their dealers play mechanically (so they cannot be biased), and still come out ahead. That's where that 51% to 53% statistic comes from, a casino cut. BTW, counting cards is easy, it's just hard to do without getting caught, which will get you ejected from a casino (as it will shift the odds to slightly in your favor).

If you could tell us how the mechanic works in the game a little, or at least ask a question that has an answer, we can try to get the stats for you, Amiel.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm not sure what Ring is getting at with his claim that it's hard.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more forthcoming:
I wanted a mechanic that had a f/k mix. My immediate solution to this was gambling. I wanted a mechanic that was mostly about directorial control, not success. I saw Dust Devils (jaw drops with creative envy). The base setting I conceived of was "Gun Opera." I pictured a seedy little Hong Kong casino.
As I was going through possibilities blackjack came to mind. I may use it, I may not. I wanted a look at possibilities before I "come to a conclusion" about mechanics. I don't understand baccurat.
I like some of the suggestions (esp. Jareds' and Rings').
This is not "I have to use this idea for a mechanic", this is "this may work...but I need focus and information."
Thank you for the input so far.

Perhaps that last post was a bit incoherent...
I wanted a gambling component to the game. "Gun Opera" is a working title for the flavor of said game(think Jon Woo, Robert Rodriguez, etc...).
I thought upon blackjack for a variety of reasons:


1 A gambling mechanic of this kind forces play where metagame decisions are made for characters by players as a matter of course.
2 It adds flavor.
3 I think card mechanics are nifty.
4 I wanted a way to couch Jake Norwood's "Luck" mechanic to simulate(small s, small s) Jon Woo-esque affairs.
5 I'm somewhat familiar with blackjack as a game.
6 I think blackjack is a game that gets the feel of "unofficial" gambling establishments better than most gambling games (and who wants a craps based mechanic).


Does this clarify?

All makes sense to me, Amiel. The onbly thing I need to know is, what is your question?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: All makes sense to me, Amiel. The onbly thing I need to know is, what is your question?

Well, I've played a few games that use cards, (Not Dust Devils, unfortunatly.)
My impressions:
1)Blackjack and most card games tend to have a high Search/Handeling time. You seem to have a good idea as to why you want to use it, though, so it works, as long as it doesn't come up to often. (I.e. projecting DnD style combat onto cards would be painfull, to many hands)

2)Probablity analysis is pretty meaningless, as it only applies to drawing from a randomized deck. I seem to remember it takes 7 shuffels to radomize a deck, assuming you do it well. Shuffeling between every hand might be possible, but difficult.

That being said, I think it could be an interesting mechanic, esp if you incorperate the betting. Say have all the people interested in taking actions play a hand of blackjack, bet, and then narrate the result based on how people did and how much they bet. Could be interesting.

Hi there,

James N makes a good point in mentioning the betting. For purposes of discussion, I'm going to assume the following:

1) The blackjack hand/round/draw resolves quite a bit of in-game material, as the poker draw does in Dust Devils. So we're not looking at a whole blackjack round for each teeny-tiny action and motion.

2) Going bust (getting higher than 21) is not the same as simply failing (not getting higher than another participant, but not exceeding 21). Rather than busting being a "fumble" or something, it means losing the right to narrate.

Given all the above, I suggest that the bet might be stated as a literal narration "bet" - "I bet that Suzy throws herself in front of Pistol Pete, and takes the bullet meant for Hal!" and so forth.

So when you fail but don't go bust, your stated action occurs, just not as successfully, as fast, or otherwise as "well" as the stated action of the person who won. If you go bust, the action fails and you don't get to narrate.

.... or something like that. Haven't worked it out yet.

Best,
Ron

How about this: at the beginning of the scene, a hand of blackjack is played. Players may narrate based on who got the highest score (under 21). Either highest goes first, or highest goes last, depending on how you feel about whether setting up the scene or having the last word is more desired. Busted means you don't get to play. Maybe you could go twice with a split.
Or, if that's too many people narrating for your taste, only the people who beat the dealer (plus the dealer, of course) get to narrate.

This is my first post on the forge. I'm doing this from Lynx, so the layout's a little different. Is there any "list o' ettiquette" I should read?

yours, etc
Mighty Platypus

Hello there, O strengthful monotreme,

And welcome to the Forge! Nice to have you here.

The place to go for etiquette (and some of it is pretty specialized) is the Site Discussion forum, to the announcement thread that stays perpetually at the top of the thread-list there.

That's a good suggestion about the narration, and I agree that everyone having a hand to work with at once seems like the right approach. But it also seems to me that the discussion can't proceed much further without a better idea of the premise (in all senses of the word in my essay) from Tim's point of view.

Best,
Ron

First off, who's Tim?
Okay, I've thought about this idea some.
Here's what I'm going for. Most goals are accomplished with violence in this game. Also, a PC's morals will come into play.
So, I see overall premise as: Can the person I was help me become the person I want to be?
All PCs will come from a violent past, some even criminal. All PCs will be pushing for some form of redemption...
I'm getting closer.

Oops, not Tim, Jeremiah. Sorry about that ... so many Forgers.

Anyway, excellent - I'll look forward to the next step.

Best,
Ron

A couple of notes: Since I started this thread I've decided to use dice, the blackjack thing seemed "gimmicky" on introspection.
There will be a next step to this game, however, don't do much breath holding. My 'student career' takes precedence over my 'game designer' career. Ron, of all people, will probably understand this.
Also, there will be some sim considerations thrown into this game. I think the futre of narr design will be games that feel more like 'traditional' games i.e. Sorcerer and TROS.
Thank you to everyone who involved themselves in this thread.