h a l f b a k e r yA hive of inactivity
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This is a card game based on the prisoner's
dilemma. This
could be played at a conference, convention or
party.
Rules:
• Each player starts with 20 cards of one colour
and an
envelope.
• There are one or more discard bins in the area
of play.
• Any player can challenge any other
player to a
game.
• Once two players have agreed to play a game,
each player
puts either 1 or 2 cards in their own envelope.
• Players are free to talk during the game. Players
can make
promises, lie, tell the truth etc.
• After each player has put either 1 or 2 cards in
their
envelope, the envelopes are emptied to reveal
how many
cards were in each envelope
Winning/losing:
There are three possible outcomes for each
game:
» If both players put two cards in their envelopes,
all cards
are discarded.
» If one player puts two cards, and the other puts
one card,
all cards go to the player who put in two cards.
» If both players put in one card, each player gets
to swap
their card.
• After a fixed period of time play stops. The
player with
the most cards (not of their own colour) wins.
The game could be played as teams, with players
on the
same team having the same colour cards.
[link]
|
| |
You could play this with a regular deck. |
|
| |
Nice. Like poker but even less about the cards. |
|
| |
In the best case, the aggressive move (playing two cards) only
yields you the same number of *new* cards as the case where
both players co-operate. Is that intended? |
|
| |
The aggressive/cooperative play nets +1 card for the
aggressive player and -1 card for the cooperative
player, whereas the dual cooperative play nets each
player 0 cards. That's the intention. |
|
| |
I haven't played it yet. It will be tested at a scout camp
in 3 weeks with 300 scouts playing. |
|
| |
Question - do players see the outcomes of other
players' games? This could change the game-playing
tactics - e.g. if you see a player accumulate loads
of cards, you might conclude that this will increase
the probability that when they play you they'll be
prepared to risk putting two cards in. |
|
| |
Also, I think it might be better if card colour is
irrelevant - winning is based just on the number of
cards held |
|
| |
Yes, players can watch the other games. Rumours will
spread about certain player tactics, strategies will vary
as the game progresses. How the games will unfold is
satisfyingly unpredictable. The one predictable
outcome is some players getting annoyed. |
|
| |
The card colour rule is there to prevent the play-
refusers from winning. |
|
| |
You can get round that by not allowing anyone to
refuse a game |
|
| |
It's the card-colour rule which makes the "both co-operate"
outcome +1, not 0. |
|
| |
I think making card colours matter distorts the
game-play. I see the cards as like money and the
winner of the game is just the player with most
'money'. There's no different coloured money. |
|
| |
//It's the card-colour rule which makes the "both co-
operate" outcome +1, not 0.// |
|
| |
Good point. Depending on how long the game lasts,
it might get to the point when players don't hold any
cards of their original colour, thus they are swapping
equal value cards. There's also the possible tactic of
swapping the original colour back to the player. |
|
| |
//You can get round that by not allowing anyone to
refuse a game// |
|
| |
This would be too hard to enforce. Players would
hide, go on long toilet breaks, etc. |
|
| |
I wonder if game play would become too chaotic if a
limited number of third, neutral colors were added into the
mix. |
|
| |
I understand each of those words, but the phrase eludes me. |
|
| |
Ie. left open to too much chance and not enough
strategy. |
|
| |
Here's a way to make this less chaotic and ensure that
everyone plays without having multiple colors. Have
everyone standing in two long rows facing each other.
The players play one round against the person opposite
them, then shift to the right half a body width to play the
next opponent. When someone gets to the end of one
row, they rotate around onto the other row (taking one
turn with no opponent). End the game when every player
has played every other player. Alternately, keep playing,
having people drop out when they are out of cards until
there is one winner. The rules should make it easy to see
the plays of the people nearby so people can make some
guess about each competitor. |
|
| |
With this arrangement, the game might run
smoother/quicker using something like marbles instead of
cards. Each player reaches into their opaque bag and
grabs one or two. They hold their hands out and open
them palm up at the same time. That would be easier to
see at a distance with objects that can't be stacked.
Have discard buckets easily reachable. |
|
| |
[+] This seems like it could be very interesting and fun.
Be sure to let everyone know how this works a the scout
camp. |
|
| |
This game was played at a scout camp. It was moderately successful. The problem was some of the scouts weren't interested and just gave their cards away (which is against the rules). |
|
| |
To prevent people just giving cards away, cards of the original colour should be worth some points (e.g. half of value of other cards). This would mean if you don't want to play, but still want to win points (because of incentives such as minor prizes), you could just hold onto to your original cards and return them at the end. |
|
| |
What no alliances between players A & B to mug C in
the urinals to steal his cards while D acts as look out
then
splitting them? I'm shocked, clearly scouting isn't what it used
to be, kids must have just changed since my day (or were
there just no
prizes this
time
around?) |
|
| |
It was an outdoor night activity on a large camp (300+
scouts). They were all competing for points
(accumulated over many activities throughout the
weekend); the winner taking home perpetual trophy. |
|
| |
I called the game "swap, steal or discard" which was
probably a mistake. After the game had finished I had a
few scouts express surprise that they weren't allowed
just to steal people's cards, and that consequently they
were disqualified. |
|
| |