Re: [Unity_Games] Re: Session Report: Unity Games 6
- On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:32:54 -0000
brosiuse <clairebrosius@...> wrote:
> --- In Unity_Games@yahoogroups.com, J C Lawrence <claw@k...> wrote:Hehn. If I work hard enough I may yet catch up.
>> The cards suck. Badly. They are small, fiddly to handle, and a pain
>> to constantly shuffle (you're supposed to reshuffle the stack on each
> We play Samarkand with two variant rules that are designed to address
> what we perceive as flaws in the printed rules. I found it
> interesting that you commented on both of these flaws.
> We play that you only reshuffle the stack when someone needs to draw aRather than reshuffling all the time we just spread the cards in a mess
> card and there are none left in the draw pile.
at one end of the table. Sold cards were just stirred into the mess,
and the mess then well stirred. It seemed to work as a way to honour
the mechanic, but really just accentuated the lousy bits design.
I thought about just not shuffling the deck (or stirring) on each trade,
but didn't like the idea. Not shuffling would have meant that the
probability of drawing a particular card was relatively constant until
the draw pile exhausted and players discarded down. Conversely with
reshuffling on each market sale the probability of drawing a particular
card type changes (sometimes violently) with each trade.
Take an example case where the draw pile falls say to 12 cards and a
player trades in 6 lamps. With your variation nothing changes with the
draw pile probabilities due to the trade for immediately subsequent
players. PlayerFoo drawing a card after the trade has the same draw
probabilities as he did before the trade. With the constant reshuffling
rule all subsequent players would instead have a minimum guarantee of a
50% chance of drawing lamps after the shuffle (it would presumably be
lower before the shuffle), while the probabilities of all the other card
types would have dropped massively. This makes trading when the deck is
small a useful screw mechanic if you think other players are trying to
buy different cards than you are trading in.
> We also play that the 12-card limit only comes into play at this point<nod>
> in time. So you wait until the draw pile is empty and need a card.
> At that point everyone discards down to 12. You reshuffle and
> continue on.
>> nip in for the $10 collection, but the dice factor -- the only way toThis makes sense. I like it. The dice rolls are just too cheap,
>> travel at speed -- adds so much randomity while also being so
>> exceedingly attractive that it seems to overwhelm the rest of the
>> game's sound design points.
> We make the price for a die roll $10 instead of $5. We think that
> typically the die is a bad choice even at $5, but we'd like to reduce
> die rolling (too much of it ruins the game.) At $10 a pop, you won't
> see nearly as much die rolling.
especially when you've a hand of cards to trade and just want to get to
the right city.
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@... He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.