I my previous blog, I talked about why I find some games unbalanced. To recap, in my opinion, a game is unbalanced when it relies too heavily on luck over skill. Or, when the game tips to favor one player over another. In the previous blog, I discussed Clue, which is unbalanced based on that first reason. In this blog, I talk about a game tipping to favor one or more players. In particular, I am blogging about a variation of the game Rummy.

Games that Unfavorably Increase the Odds

Before I talk about Rummy, I want to say I am not completely opposed to games favoring one player over the others. Mainly, because some games are designed to be that way. As the game progresses, the stakes are raised, making it much more challenging to win. Chess is a game in which the odds typically favor the player with the most remaining pieces, but the opposing player hinders themselves by losing pieces and not the rules of the game altering to favor the lead player. Although games like chess are head-to-head, usually, the kinds of games where the odds increase are more collaborative, instead of everyone for themselves.

I had played Space Hulk in college. If you are unfamiliar with this game, it is essentially like the tabletop version of the Alien movie franchise. Players work as a team to achieve a specified objective, but they run out of ammo, or their guns jam, and eventually, they are way outnumbered by deadly, hard-to-kill aliens. That game is tipped a little too much towards the aliens.

In recent years, I have discovered a couple games which are similar, but feel more achievable. Forgotten Island is a game in which players try to acquire four artifacts before the island sinks. As the game progresses, the island sinks faster. Forbidden Desert is the sequel, where the treasures sink under increasingly difficult to remove mounds of sand. Betrayal at House on the Hill is another collaborative game in which, at a specified point in the game, one player becomes the traitor. There are multiple scenarios in which the traitor betrays the others, and usually the end game favors the traitor over the remaining team. This game has incredible replay value based on how the different scenarios play out and the map is constructed.

Those kinds of games, I appreciate the unbalanced favoriting of one side over the other. Rummy, on the other hand…

Rummy

Typically, I dislike most Rummy games. Our friends have a variant of the game I particularly dislike. The reason I do not like Rummy is because it relies heavily on luck of the deal and luck of the draw. There is little, controllable strategy to the game. Based on the initial deal, you can guesstimate which cards to try for, but once you realize others playing are after the same card, your “strategy” is in jeopardy with little room for course correction.

The reason I really dislike our friends’ variant of the rules is because the game heavily favors the leading player(s). While players covertly collect cards they need to start laying cards down in sets and runs, the game is fairly matched, but, like I said, at this point relies mostly on luck of the deal and the draw. There are a couple of minor strategies players can use, but if it does not help enough, it can backfire at the end of the round. This strategy is called “buying”. One form of buying is a player attempting to call dibs on a discarded card. If allowed, the player buys the discard and with the price of drawing an additional random card from the deck.

Buying can be squashed by the player who is taking their turn and they claim the card for themselves. When a buy is squashed, it exposes what card a player seeks to the rest of the table. Whether they need it for a set or run may not be known, but it weakens the player in need who is now denied what they seek.

The other form of buying is during a player’s turn, in which they can “blind buy”, which is drawing the top two cards from the deck. Both of these strategies could help the player get cards they need, but if the cards are not helpful enough, all cards will count against them at the end of the round. Again, a good portion of this strategy is based on luck of the draw.

Once a player has what cards they need to lay down their sets and runs, the game drastically shifts to favor players with cards on the table. If they can lay down all their cards, all other players accumulate points for the cards still in their hands.

Most often, players cannot put all their cards down on the table, but on their next turn, they may add any remaining cards to other player’s cards on the table. The more variety of cards on the table, the more beneficial it is for players trying to get rid of their last few cards. Players who have not played any sets or runs will find it increasingly difficult to even discard a card at the end of their turn.

On each turn, players draw a card (or more with a blind buy) and end their turn by discarding a card. This is yet another way to favor the lead(s) and restrain the lag(s). When a player discards a card playable on another player’s sets or runs on the table, any player with cards on the table may claim that discard to place in the appropriate collection of cards, plus discard an additional card from their hand. Once again, as more and more people are able to lay cards on the table, this makes it much easier for the lead players to continue getting rid of cards, while it makes it much harder for the lagging player to discard something that does not benefit any of the leading players.

If you are a lagging player who sees someone else lay down similar cards to what you are collecting, your strategy is out the window and too late to do anything about it other than dump as many points from your hand as you can while trying not to help a lead player go out sooner.

This is why I find this variant of Rummy incredibly frustrating.

How I would balance out Rummy?

Five Crowns is one rummy game I enjoy playing very much. The game has a couple mechanics to help reduce the unbalanced frustrations. Both games use a double deck of cards, with the exception Five Crowns drops the aces and twos and adds a fifth suit (stars).

First, there are the number of wild cards. Both decks include jokers, which act as wild cards. Rummy includes four jokers in the entire 108 card deck. Five Crowns includes six jokers in the entire deck of 116 cards. However, each round of Five Crowns, one of the ranks is also considered wild, which means each round includes sixteen wild cards, which greatly benefits all players.

Second, when one player “goes out”, meaning they lay down their entire hand of cards on the table in sets and runs, all other players have one more turn with the opportunity to lay down as much as they can by playing any valid runs or sets. This can greatly reduce the number of cards counting against them.

To improve our friends’ rummy variant, I would borrow elements from Five Crowns to improve the balance. Since it uses standard decks, maybe declare aces and twos as always wild, which would bring the wild card ratio to twelve out of 108 cards. Allow players to set down portions of their hand instead of making them wait until all requirements are fulfilled. Maybe a lagging player has a set, but not a run, or vice versa. They could lay down what they have, reducing the number of cards in their hand. However, because the requirements are incomplete, maybe the player cannot player on other player’s cards until both are satisfied, but other players with both can play on theirs. Plus, they are not able to go out, bringing an end to the round, until both are satisfied.

To me, games are meant to be fun. Challenging at times, but enjoyable to play, especially with a group of friends. Why gather together only to be frustrated?

 

What games do you dislike? Do you dislike them because they are unbalanced? Or, is it for other reasons?