New Rule

This evening, I hosted the first of what I hope will become a regular home Poker game. Friends of mine who had expressed an interest in the game were invited, but few showed up with either the bankroll or the confidence (i.e. skill) to play for real stakes, so we just doled out the chips and had fun. All are eager to come back next week and try their hands for real, which is good. Its not Poker unless the stakes are real—even nickels and dimes change the way you play.

I’ve long been a fan of the game and a master of internet “play money” Poker, but not often do I hear it asked: what is it about this game? When people think about games and game design—particularly game developers or students like me—I almost never hear people critiquing classic games, and never ever classic card games. Why on Earth not, I wonder? I think I can assert with reasonable certainty that, taken as a whole, social card games are the most common games in the world. From ladies’ Bridge parties and gentlemen’s Whist in decades past, to kids playing War and Go Fish, college students playing Hearts and Euchre (at least where I come from, in the Midwest), to old guys shooting Pinochle and—last but not least—folks young and old playing in their home Poker games. Yet I find it amazing that my colleagues and peers in game design never mention them, at least from a designer’s perspective.

Examine Poker: strategically, the game is extremely simple. A mere nine ranked, five-card hands from one deck of 52 cards, dealt and weighed within a clean, brief betting structure. Certainly there are endless variations of Poker, but the core rules remain the same: deal the cards, bet, and show down—high hand wins it all. When’s the last time anyone played such a simple game that didn’t use cards? I’ve never seen the like in a modern video game. Even most board games—at least good ones, like Risk or Puerto Rico—have at least half a dozen more rules and several more playing pieces, unless they were developed centuries ago. What can we as game designers learn from this?

I submit, as many have before me, that the soul of Poker (as in all other classic card games) is social. Poker is endlessly interesting because, as all the pros say, it’s ultimately a battle of minds. Wit, nerve, and instinct are what decide a Poker game, even among amateurs who don’t know any better. Few experiences are more thrilling than putting it all on the line on a solid hand and betting the odds that your opponent won’t draw out by some god-awful chance, and few are more satisfying than going heads up against your friends or family and taking them down with a well-timed strike. Poker is a game that, by shifting all the weight of skill and survival to the human element, manages to reinvent itself every time. Every time! Few games I know (save the classics) can claim such universal and eternal appeal.

In fact, I’d argue that internet Poker was perhaps the first (or near the first) true MMO, and that collectively the various Poker websites are easily the most successful MMOs on the market today. Think about it: massive audience, endless variety of encounter, and one hell of a metagame: your money. What could a genre MMO learn from Poker’s example, to help it become less stagnant and meaningless? We can see in games like EVE Online how the introduction of a free economy stimulates deep devotion and loyalty among the player base. EVE’s only trouble is the high cost of entry—not a fault shared by Poker. In fact, its greatest strength is its approachability. Beginners can learn it in a minute… and win! And they’ll be hooked for life, believe me

Tags: Game Criticism //