An elegant game to play with a Tarot pack?
Iain Cheyne
I tried French Tarot, but found the rules and scoring fiddly. What I mean
by an elegant game is one that "has very simple rules, but gives you plenty
to think about" (http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/oricards). For instance,
games like Scopone, Schnapsen, Oh Hell or 99.
Thanks in advance,
--
Iain Cheyne
Remove the numbers and change "invalid" to "net" to reply.
John McLeod
wrote:
>Please could someone recommend an elegant game to play with a Tarot pack?
I see there are no suggestions yet.
>I tried French Tarot, but found the rules and scoring fiddly.
The problem is that all (traditional) Tarot games belong to the same
historical family. If you find French Tarot "fiddly" you will perhaps
find them all fiddly. For example, the card valuation scheme where trump
honours (21, 1, Fool)=5, king=5, queen=4, cavalier=3, jack=2 is common
to pretty well all of them, so if you object to that you are stuck. To
get around it you might, I suppose, try a game such as Vier-anderle -
see http://www.pagat.com/rams/4anderle.html - which is played with Tarot
cards but is not historically a Tarot game at all, but a game of another
type adapted for Tarot cards.
>What I mean
>by an elegant game is one that "has very simple rules, but gives you plenty
>to think about" (http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/oricards). For instance,
>games like Scopone, Schnapsen, Oh Hell or 99.
I'm surprised that you don't find Schnapsen fiddly, which its A=11,
10=10, K=4, Q=3, J=2 card value scheme, or Scopone, with its elaborate
method of deciding who wins the Primiera.
If you could be more specific about exactly which features of French
Tarot bothered you, it might be possible to recommend a Tarot game that
you would find more acceptable.
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk http://www.pagat.com/
Iain Cheyne
news:u4hg5RWl...@pagat.demon.co.uk:
>>I tried French Tarot, but found the rules and scoring fiddly.
>
> The problem is that all (traditional) Tarot games belong to the same
> historical family. If you find French Tarot "fiddly" you will perhaps
> find them all fiddly. For example, the card valuation scheme where
> trump honours (21, 1, Fool)=5, king=5, queen=4, cavalier=3, jack=2 is
> common to pretty well all of them, so if you object to that you are
> stuck.
I do not mind the different values; I mind the fractions:
Bouts (21, 1, excuse): 4.5 points each
Kings: 4.5 points each
Queens: 3.5 points each
Knights: 2.5 points each
Jacks: 1.5 points each
Other cards: 0.5 points each
> To get around it you might, I suppose, try a game such as
> Vier-anderle - see http://www.pagat.com/rams/4anderle.html - which is
> played with Tarot cards but is not historically a Tarot game at all,
> but a game of another type adapted for Tarot cards.
This only uses a 38-card deck and is really for gambling, but you are on
the right track. I do not especially want to play a classical tarot game,
so long as it utilises the pack well.
> I'm surprised that you don't find Schnapsen fiddly, which its A=11,
> 10=10, K=4, Q=3, J=2 card value scheme, or Scopone, with its elaborate
> method of deciding who wins the Primiera.
I do not mind the card values of Schnapsen, because it is such a taut,
finely tuned game - I only played it after reading about it from one of
your posts. Scopone's Primiera is annoying, but the rest of the game is
taut and I have not played any other fishing games.
> If you could be more specific about exactly which features of French
> Tarot bothered you, it might be possible to recommend a Tarot game
> that you would find more acceptable.
What I particularly like:
+The trump suit on traditional decks is beautifully illustrated.
+The bidding is clever and works well.
What I dislike:
+The over elaborate scoring is tedious to learn. I will have to check the
alternative scoring methods to see if any of them are simpler to count
and remember, while retaining the game's subtle balance.
+The bonuses reduce skill.
+I do not see the point of the excuse. You may play it to any trick you
choose, but it always loses - unless a team plays it to the last trick
and wins the trick. Am I missing strategic depth here?
+I am also not keen on how the game moves counter clockwise, but that is
just me being fussy. :o)
In summary, I would just prefer a more skilful, less elaborate game.
Maybe there isn't one? Perhaps I need to design my first game. :o)
Thank you for replying.
Nick Wedd
<ia...@c1h2e3y4n5e.invalid> writes
>What I dislike:
>+The over elaborate scoring is tedious to learn. I will have to check the
>alternative scoring methods to see if any of them are simpler to count
>and remember, while retaining the game's subtle balance.
Are you looking for a different scoring system, or just for an easier
way of counting up the score?
Most players of French Tarot never think of the cards as being worth
n.5, as in your table. They count the cards in twos, as follows:
King or bout with empty card: 5
Queen with empty card: 4
Knight with empty card: 3
Jack with empty card: 2
Two empty cards: 1
>+The bonuses reduce skill.
There is skill in achieving pagat ultimo. Admittedly there is no skill
in holding large numbers of trumps; but the bonus for announcing these
helps the opponents to plan their play.
>+I do not see the point of the excuse. You may play it to any trick you
>choose, but it always loses - unless a team plays it to the last trick
>and wins the trick. Am I missing strategic depth here?
There is plenty of skill in making the best use of the excuse. I'll
give just one very simple example. You hold Queen Knight of a suit and
no other. Your opponent leads the King. You play the excuse, thereby
not feeding him points on his King, and retaining what are now two
winning cards.
By the way - I don't think the excuse wins the last trick unless you
have already won all the previous tricks.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Iain Cheyne
news:4AppenEM...@maproom.demon.co.uk:
> Are you looking for a different scoring system, or just for an easier
> way of counting up the score?
>
> Most players of French Tarot never think of the cards as being worth
> n.5, as in your table. They count the cards in twos, as follows:
>
>>+The bonuses reduce skill.
>
> There is skill in achieving pagat ultimo. Admittedly there is no skill
> in holding large numbers of trumps; but the bonus for announcing these
> helps the opponents to plan their play.
>
>>+I do not see the point of the excuse. You may play it to any trick you
>>choose, but it always loses - unless a team plays it to the last trick
>>and wins the trick. Am I missing strategic depth here?
>
> There is plenty of skill in making the best use of the excuse. I'll
> give just one very simple example. You hold Queen Knight of a suit and
> no other. Your opponent leads the King. You play the excuse, thereby
> not feeding him points on his King, and retaining what are now two
winning cards.
Thank you, I missed this.
> By the way - I don't think the excuse wins the last trick unless you
> have already won all the previous tricks.
This too.
I am not saying that French Tarot is a bad game, quite the opposite. It is
a fine game, but it is too convoluted for me.
I suppose I am after a streamlined version of French Tarot, or a non-trick
taking game that has a similar amount of depth. It probably does not exist.
John McLeod
wrote:
>>>+I do not see the point of the excuse. You may play it to any trick you
>>>choose, but it always loses - unless a team plays it to the last trick
>>>and wins the trick. Am I missing strategic depth here?
>>
>> There is plenty of skill in making the best use of the excuse. I'll
>> give just one very simple example. You hold Queen Knight of a suit and
>> no other. Your opponent leads the King. You play the excuse, thereby
>> not feeding him points on his King, and retaining what are now two
>winning cards.
>
>Thank you, I missed this.
Also, if the bidder leads the King of what you presume to be a long
suit, and you as a defender also have a quite few of them - something
like D-V-8-5 - you might play your excuse to the first round, to make it
harder for the bidder to establish small cards in that suit - and also
to increase the chance that your partners can throw counting cards when
you beat the declarer's last few losers, assuming that they can arrange
to have run out of trumps by then.
Another interesting tactic that is sometimes useful is to lead the
excuse. Since the next player can play any card, this effectively
transfers the lead to that player. You can use this when you want to
lead a suit (to force out the bidder's trumps) which you don't have any
more but the partner sitting after you still has.
>> By the way - I don't think the excuse wins the last trick unless you
>> have already won all the previous tricks.
Correct. You may as well ignore this rule - you can play French tarot
for a lifetime without seeing a hand where someone can wins all the
tricks.
>I am not saying that French Tarot is a bad game, quite the opposite. It is
>a fine game, but it is too convoluted for me.
>
>I suppose I am after a streamlined version of French Tarot, or a non-trick
>taking game that has a similar amount of depth. It probably does not exist.
Tarot cards were invented for trick-taking games. The special series of
21 cards were added to function as trumps. Therefore any non
trick-taking game with Tarot cards is almost by definition not a
traditional Tarot game.
There are a few non trick-taking games - some fishing games and some
gambling games where you need cards totalling as near as possible a
given number, as well as the gambling trick-taking game I mentioned
before.
My favourite Tarot games are Hungarian Tarokk
http://www.pagat.com/tarot/xx-hivas.html
and better still - Illustrated Hungarian Tarokk
http://www.pagat.com/tarot/illusztr.html
I think these are elegant, because although the rules are elaborate, all
the complexities have a tactical point. You may disagree, however, and
you may also find they don't meet your criteria because they only use 42
cards, whereas it seems that you want to play with a 78-card pack.
The simplest kind of 78-card Tarot game is the one where you deal 25
cards each to three players, or 19 each to four players playing as
partners. The dealer takes the remaining three or two cards, and
discards an equal number (but not trumps, the Fool or Kings). The player
to dealer's right leads and you play out the tricks (anticlockwise). You
must trump if void of the suit led, but there is no requirement to
overtake in trumps. The Fool can be played to any trick - it cannot win
the trick but the player keeps the card. If the Fool is led, the next
player plays any card and that determines the suit of the trick. At the
end count 4 points for the Fool, the XXI, the I and each King, 3 for
each Queen, 2 for each Cavalier, 1 for each Jack and an extra 1 for each
trick and another 1 for the dealer's two or three discarded cards (total
78 points with 3 players, 72 with 4 players). With three players each
pays or receives according to points over or under 26; with four players
each team pays or receives according to the difference from 36.
In the 18th century there were many varieties of Tarot that were almost
like this. The game of Scarto played in Piedmont and the Swiss game of
Troccas - see http://www.pagat.com/tarot/troccas.html - are still quite
close to it. Often a few extra wrinkles were added to make the game more
interesting, such as a bonus for winning the last trick with the I
(Pagat) or a King. If you also add compulsory declarations of certain
combinations of cards, which are helpful during the play in allowing the
players to make positive or negative inferences about the location of
cards, you get something like Danish Tarok - see
http://www.pagat.com/tarot/dantarok.html
I hope this helps.
Iain Cheyne
> Another interesting tactic [snip]
OK. The excuse is an interesting addition to the skill of the game.
>>> By the way - I don't think the excuse wins the last trick unless you
>>> have already won all the previous tricks.
>
> Correct. You may as well ignore this rule - you can play French tarot
> for a lifetime without seeing a hand where someone can wins all the
> tricks.
I am complaining about exactly this kind of thing.
> My favourite Tarot games are Hungarian Tarokk
> and better still - Illustrated Hungarian Tarokk
>
> I think these are elegant, because although the rules are elaborate,
> all the complexities have a tactical point. You may disagree, however,
> and you may also find they don't meet your criteria because they only
> use 42 cards, whereas it seems that you want to play with a 78-card
> pack.
I might give them a go. I accept your point about all the embellishments
having tactical significance.
> The simplest kind of 78-card Tarot game is [snip]
Excellent, that is much closer to what I was after. Unfortunately, it has
no bidding, but all the unnecessary chrome is stripped out.
> In the 18th century there were many varieties of Tarot that were
> almost like this. The game of Scarto played in Piedmont and the Swiss
> game of Troccas - see http://www.pagat.com/tarot/troccas.html - are
> still quite close to it. Often a few extra wrinkles were added to make
> the game more interesting, such as a bonus for winning the last trick
> with the I (Pagat) or a King. If you also add compulsory declarations
> of certain combinations of cards, which are helpful during the play in
> allowing the players to make positive or negative inferences about the
> location of cards, you get something like Danish Tarok - see
> http://www.pagat.com/tarot/dantarok.html
These games do look interesting. I will start with your streamlined Troccas
and work my way up. Danish Tarok looks like fun, although that too will
require some study. Maybe I will get into Hugarian Tarokk eventually...
I appreciate the help. Thanks to you and Nick.
Tom Sloper
>I suppose I am after a streamlined version of French Tarot, [snip]
Oh!! That wasn't clear from the original post.
>It probably does not exist.
You are allowed to make up your own (there are no "Tarot Gendarmes" who will
"arête" you for not using standard rules). The "three rules on table rules"
are:
1. You can come up with any special rule or interpretation you desire, so
long as:
a. The folks who play with you agree.
b. You are prepared to work out solutions to problems that may arise from
your special rule or interpretation.
c. You are prepared to drop your special rule or interpretation when joining
other tables.
2. At your table, tell newcomers what the table rules are. Those folks will
have to adapt. Be nice about it.
3. At someone else's table (at which you have not played before), ask them
what the table rules are. You will have to adapt. Be gracious about it.
So if you just don't like half-points, make'em whole. Fiddle with the
scoring, fiddle with the rules all you like. Play around with the game and
try stuff until you find something you enjoy. Games are for fun, so just
have fun! - Tom
--
Tom Sloper - Game Designer, Producer, Consultant, Author, Speaker.
Sloperama Productions. Services for game developers and publishers; "Making
Games Fun, And Getting Them Done." http://www.sloperama.com/business.html.
20+ web pages of helpful free information and bulletin boards for game
industry aspirants; a new article every month.
http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html.
The Maj Exchange. 100+ web pages of free information and bulletin boards
about the games of mah-jongg and hanafuda.
http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html
Los Angeles, CA 90066, USA.
Tel: (310) 915-9945, Fax: (310) 745-0925, Cell: (310) DIG-SURF
tom...@sloperama.com
Iain Cheyne
news:CKKJ9.318304$QZ.47597@sccrnsc02:
> Iain Cheyne wrote:
>
>>I suppose I am after a streamlined version of French Tarot, [snip]
>
> Oh!! That wasn't clear from the original post.
It was not clear within my head when I wrote the original post.
> You are allowed to make up your own
Thanks for the advice. I might very well do that. I am normally loathe to
mess around with the rules of games that have evolved over years, but in
the case of these games some slight cosmetic surgery is required! For
instance, I was reading the rules of Troccas in more detail today and I
noticed this:
The ranking of the cards in the suits from high to low is:
* in cups and coins; k, q, c, j, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10;
* in swords and batons; k, q, c, j, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
What is the point of that? Are they deliberately trying to confuse people?
I am considering going through these Tarot games and streamlining them, so
that they are easier to learn and play, while retaining the skill and
interesting mechanics of the original. I might even set up a website to
hold the rules on. We'll see...
Nick Wedd
<ia...@c1h2e3y4n5e.invalid> writes
>I was reading the rules of Troccas in more detail today and I
>noticed this:
>The ranking of the cards in the suits from high to low is:
>* in cups and coins; k, q, c, j, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10;
>* in swords and batons; k, q, c, j, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
>What is the point of that? Are they deliberately trying to confuse people?
I think that ordering was used in the earliest tarock games. It has
been simplified in some modern forms of tarock.
But how about the way whist players removed the 1 from its proper place
in the suit, and moved it to above the court cards! That may well have
been done to confuse.
Nick
P.S. You'd better not even look at the rules of kaiserjass,
http://www.pagat.com/karnoeff/kaiserja.html
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Iain Cheyne
> P.S. You'd better not even look at the rules of kaiserjass,
> http://www.pagat.com/karnoeff/kaiserja.html
I couldn't help it. Maybe some people like being confused?
--
Iain
David Parlett
iainatcheyne...@spamgourmet.com (Iain Cheyne) wrote:
Maybe some people don't find it confusing!
--
David Parlett
d...@davidWIGparlett.co.uk (Remove WIG to reply)
For books and games visit www.davidparlett.co.uk