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?

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?

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...

xiombarg wrote: 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.

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

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?

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

Lxndr wrote: 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)

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

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

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.

Lxndr wrote: 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. :)

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.

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%
[/code]

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%
[/code]

(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"... :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Lxndr wrote: 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.

Lxndr wrote: 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)

(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.

Lxndr wrote: 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.

Fred, how did you calculate those statistics for the various hands? I'm trying to calculate the statistics for Stud hands, including the possibility of Short Straights, and can't figure it out. (I managed to cobble together something for the other hands, since they're relatively simpler, but I'd like to see a statistic spread for Studs w/ Short Straights, and can't figure out how to do it). Btw, through my own number crunching and research, it's possible a short-straight might be worth more than just "between one and two pairs."

On a different note, I finally ordered the 8-siders and they're on their way. I also found a set of 12-sided poker dice... in the set of five, between them, there's supposed to be all 52 cards. The other 8 sides are, apparently, wilds. I'll find out, again, when I get them.

Lxndr wrote: Fred, how did you calculate those statistics for the various hands? I'm trying to calculate the statistics for Stud hands, including the possibility of Short Straights, and can't figure it out. (I managed to cobble together something for the other hands, since they're relatively simpler, but I'd like to see a statistic spread for Studs w/ Short Straights, and can't figure out how to do it). Btw, through my own number crunching and research, it's possible a short-straight might be worth more than just "between one and two pairs."

On a different note, I finally ordered the 8-siders and they're on their way. I also found a set of 12-sided poker dice... in the set of five, between them, there's supposed to be all 52 cards. The other 8 sides are, apparently, wilds. I'll find out, again, when I get them.

Lxndr wrote: On a different note, I finally ordered the 8-siders and they're on their way. I also found a set of 12-sided poker dice... in the set of five, between them, there's supposed to be all 52 cards. The other 8 sides are, apparently, wilds. I'll find out, again, when I get them.

When I actually GET the dice (should be today, maybe today) I'll post a report. I agree, it's potentially frustrating how few combinations one can have... but hopefully, they've figured out a way to maximize the potential useful combinations, even if the odds don't turn out exactly the same.

I also finally found a different set of pictures for a DIFFERENT set of 8 sided poker dice, which were created by Marlboro in the seventies or something like that. If the eight-sided poker dice I'm getting were based off those, then the sides are as follows:

Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Ten, Nine, Seven, Five

I also ordered a roulette wheel, which came today... I'll be posting about that in another thread.

The eight sided poker dice arrived today. I'm sad they weren't like the six-sided poker dice (i.e. interchangeable). But they're still interesting, though likely NOT the quite as useful for Texorami.

(although if you were to use them for Texorami, it would probably work like this: "Roll five dice, and add the card(s) in your hand. Choose the best five.")

Die 1:

• Ace/Clubs
• Queen/Spades
• Jack/Hearts
• Ten/Diamonds
• Nine/Clubs
• Seven/Spades
• Six/Hearts
• Five/Diamonds

Die 2:

• Ace/Hearts
• King/Diamonds
• Queen/Clubs
• Ten/Spades
• Nine/Hearts
• Eight/Diamonds
• Seven/Clubs
• Five/Spades

Die 3

• Ace/Diamonds
• King/Clubs
• Jack/Spades
• Ten/Hearts
• Nine/Diamonds
• Eight/Clubs
• Six/Spades
• Five/um... it's red, but it looks like a spade... but I think it's supposed to be a heart.

Die 4

• Ace/Spades
• King/Hearts
• Queen/Diamonds
• Jack/Clubs
• Nine/Spades
• Eight/Hearts
• Seven/Diamonds
• Six/Clubs

Die 5

• King/Spades
• Queen/Hearts
• Jack/Diamonds
• Ten/Clubs
• Eight/Spades
• Seven/Hearts
• Six/Diamonds
• Five/Clubs



These were weird to type out. If anyone is interested in the 12-sider configuration, it'll take longer.

Lxndr wrote: The eight sided poker dice arrived today. I'm sad they weren't like the six-sided poker dice (i.e. interchangeable). But they're still interesting, though likely NOT the quite as useful for Texorami.

(although if you were to use them for Texorami, it would probably work like this: "Roll five dice, and add the card(s) in your hand. Choose the best five.")

problem with rolling three is... WHICH three? choose them randomly?

Lxndr wrote: problem with rolling three is... WHICH three? choose them randomly?

This deserves entry as a final footnote on this thread:

Someone came across the 24 Hour Games yahoo group I had set up and took up the challenge, independent (near as I can tell) from Forge exposure. The resulting game, Ye Olde West! has been posted to that group's file area and -- you guessed it -- uses poker dice as its central mechanic.

On top of this, the setting is a *real* grabber (for me, anyway), enough so that I'm going to be stealing it to run my own face to face Texorami! game.