Playing in-character games at the gaming table — having the players themselves play a few hands of poker in a western RPG, for example — can be a lot of fun, and they’re a neat way to immerse the group in the game world. Depending on how you use them, though, they also have the potential to be a distraction.
Here are 3 tips for getting the most out of games within games.
As a general rule, I enjoy playing in-character games — heck, I’ve written a few of them: I wrote “Three Games of Chance” for Poor Gamer’s Almanac #5, and the Idle Hound section of Nightmarket – Games of Chance. These 9 games are all designed to be played using a mix of player skill and PC skill, and can be incorporated easily into the party’s trip to a fantasy gambling hall.
Three Dragon Ante, a card game based on a tavern game played by D&D characters, is also a great example of a game within a game. Need a break from killing monsters? Get the party together in an inn for a game of Three Dragon Ante — and play it out with your group.
In a way, these kinds of games are a lot like mini-games in video games: They break up the flow, challenge you in different ways and don’t tend to have a major impact on the main portion of the game.
Based on my experience playing games within games, here are 3 simple tips for using them well:
- Mix PC skill with player skill.
- Keep it short.
- Cheating is fun!
By allowing both player skill (how the game is physically played) and PC skill (“Samwise has Gambling 7”) to influence the outcome, you accomplish two things: Players who aren’t good at the mini-game can still have their characters do well, and you can incorporate elements that are tough to handle at the gaming table — like cheating.
Keeping in-game games fairly short — and not using them too often — will help you stay on track within the session. Playing out a full game of poker, for example, can take several hours; playing a couple of hands is probably a better approach. Games within games tend to work best as a change of pace (although you could make them the centerpiece of an adventure centered around a gambling hall).
And last but not least, cheating is the best part. Nothing makes some players (myself included!) happier than hoodwinking hapless NPCs — and getting caught is half the fun. Having the NPCs cheat is also a great way to get a rise out of the players, and the consequences can be a springboard for adventure in their own right.
What do you think of games within RPGs? Do you enjoy including them in your games, or do you find them to be too much of a distraction? Have you ever used one and had things go exceptionally well — or poorly?
I have done it a few times in games. I had a d20 Modern game that was set in Vegas, and we use to open the game with a few hands of Poker, as a way to warm up the players.
Also, one of the PC’s was a professional gambeler, and challenged an NPC (who was a high roller) to a hand of blackjack to determine the price for the job the NPC was hiring the PC’s to do. We broke out the cards right at the table, and played the hand out. The PC beat me, and they got the job for almost twice the original offer.
No, I’ve never used it. I know that it’s popular (WEG had Sabbac, 3 Dragon Ante for D&D), but it’s never really fit in to a game I’ve been playing.
As an aspiring game designer, I really, really like Three Dragon Ante. I bought it fearing that it was probably just gonna be some gimmicky poker-variant with dragon art, but it’s really, really well balanced and fun, IMHO. It’s easily one of my favorite non-collectible card games. The whole mechanic of only triggering the powers on lower-powered cards is very elegant and powerful.
But I guess that’s not really relevant to the discussion here…
Phil: I love the idea of starting a Vegas-themed game with a couple hands of poker — that’s awesome! It sounds like an ideal way to get everyone into the zone for the evening.
Scott: I’m curious — what’s kept you from trying games within games? Is it just a matter of taste, or of never finding a good situation to do so?
Ian: It’s interesting that TDA is both a game within a game and a standalone product — smart marketing on WotC’s part! I actually can’t think of any other examples of this, as the RPG mini-games I have experience with have all been part of the games they’re associated with.
I never use games within games because I have never seen it work with large groups of players–which is what I prefer to run. I suppose if you had a mini-game that really kept 7-9 people interested it could work.
PC/NPC contests that I’ve GM-ed include:
* Arm-wrestling
* Poker
* Chili cookoff
Probably a few others. Mostly, though, I’ve not actually had the PC’s *do* their part of the contest. Generally, I just decide on a mechanic to use (like opposed rolls) and use that. Real games (and especially chili cookoffs 😉 ) take too long to resolve properly, and, like Crazy Jerome mentioned, with a larger group it’s hard to keep every player involved.
On the other hand, the un-involved PC’s have often entertained themselves by betting on the outcome, for or against, amongst themselves and with NPC’s. So that’s proven to be a roleplay opportunity. Again, though, it’s best served when the rounds of the challenge resolve quickly. Otherwise it gets old quickly.
I love playing board games and even some card games, but I prefer a session to be “game homogenous”.
-David
CJ and David: It’s interesting to see your perspectives on this. 🙂
Mostly, I’ve never really run a game that made me think about it. Usually any gambling (or the like) is a character quirk, not a group’s quirk.
If I had a smuggler player who liked playing Sabbac, it might have come up.
Scott: I don’t think I’d thought about myself until I played a game of Bunnies & Burrows back in college — there’s a game in B&B called Petals that almost fits the “game within a game” mold, and it’s a lot of fun. That opened my eyes to this relatively minor — but interesting — aspect of RPGs.
In my campaign there’s a gambling game that I named “Shipwreck”.
It’s somewhat resembles a card game called “Race”.
Each participating team must steer a ship through a set of course (number of rounds played, decided at each table).
Each team consists of a captain and a navigator (two players).
The navigator’s job is to evade tricks, while the captains job is to play tricks on other teams.
There are two versions for the game, a dice game based mainly on luck, and a more strategic one based on cards.
I’ve ran the dice version for the group twice now, it’s quite fun and doesn’t take long to play (it’s for those who really like to throw dice) and my players really like it.
I might post the actual rules on our group’s blog, since now that I think of it, it could be great fun not only for my group 🙂
Anyway, I’ve read about Three Dragon Ante and if it’s good, I’ll incorporate it in my game also.
Thanks for the link, DM T. I took my comments over to your blog. 🙂
I have pretty much never use a game within a game. The exception is Deadlands where spell casters draw a poker hand to determine the strength of their spells. I think this is a cool way to include a game within a game, though hard to balance.
The problem with game within a game is what is the purpose. If the purpose is to simulate what the characters are doing, then one’s character is only as good at the game as the player is (unless you have some mechanics that allow the player to “cheat”). Another way is if, like in Deadlands, the game is used to generate probabilities and does not depend on player skill (the character is not gambling on the poker hands in Deadlands, nor does he have to bluff, though he does need to understand the probabilities, but we also expect that in any game system with a fortune mechanic, also, Deadlands allows more skilled characters to draw more cards, adjusting the probabilities). If the game is just to pass time, then you have to ask whether it’s something all the players will enjoy, and what affect it will have on pacing (such things can be fun, I can also preparing a special meal for the players to coincide with an in game banquet or party).
Frank
Most of the replies so far center around traditional game-in-game stuff like dice and cards. I go into something a bit different.
One of the failings of the Shadowrun system (FASA) is Hacking. There were entire supplements that dealt with this, so it was in effect, a game within the game. The problem? SR was mainly geared towards a “team” with fighter types, drivers, hackers, mages, etc. So, when it was time to hack (or “Deck” to use game terms) if you did it by the book, the decker would have this mini game that could go on for a very long time (as in, the other players go out to eat). Naturally, this was modified in practice to just a few die rolls between player and GM.
The bottom line; a game in a game must include all players to be fun for all I think or it will get old quick.
Frank and Judas: You both made a lot of points that ring true for me, based on my experience with games within games: involve the whole group, have a purpose in mind, and so forth.
But in terms of your examples, I don’t consider drawing Poker hands in Deadlands or running the Matrix in Shadowrun to be games within games.
Both are part of the game mechanics, although the Poker hands do involve props and have a more standalone feel, and they don’t really involve the players in the same way that, say, tossing down some Three Dragon Ante would.
I agree that decking in SR becomes a sub-game within the larger game, but it doesn’t stand on its own in any way — it just happens to take place separately from the main game.
Does that make sense?
Right, I wouldn’t really classify the poker hands in Deadlands as a game within the game.
So basically I see no real use for a game within a game, except as a fun diversion.
Frank
Frank: They can have other uses, if they fit your style, but they definitely work well as fun diversions. 🙂
I agree that it might be outside the threads definition of a sub-game. It sure felt like a sub-game at the time tho 🙂
Being the “gun guy” I spent the time reading one of the arms supplements the first time a real “Decking” session unfolded. In later games it was greatly streamlined.
I suspect I’m clouding the waters with my terminology — especially saying “game” too often. 😉
Game within a game: Stands alone, more or less, and the rules for it fall outside of the game mechanics. Most importantly, played by the people sitting around the table, not just their characters.
Sub-game: An offshoot of the game mechanics that doesn’t stand alone and isn’t played out at the table (at least, not in the same way).
Decking is a perfect example of a sub-game — and based on my experience (years ago) with SR, a pretty lousy one. And I agree: Decking definitely felt like it wasn’t happening in the same game as the rest of the game. 😉
I enjoy games within games in D&D and other RPGs. It’s especially fun to make games and other forms of entertainment part of your setting/world.
The dinosaur races in Tomb of Annihilation proved very popular with players, and added a nice layer of culture and engagement in the setting for example.
Years ago I created a simple card game for a campaign, and people in the world played it sort of like a CCG, traveling the circuit, or just playing in taverns or around the campfire. There was more than one session where the players spent the whole time doing stuff related to it!
There’s an article on the Nerdarchy website about a recurring NPC in a campaign that hides in various dungeons, challenging characters with a game of Muggins for prizes, if they can find him. Neat idea!