Three Dragon Ante - any good?

[Zander]

I'm thinking of getting WotC's Three Dragon Ante (3DA) card game. Apparently, there are optional rules that allow you to play in character so your PC's stats affect the game. Has anyone here tried this game in or out of character? What did you think of it? Any good?

 

[Lalato]

There's a discussion of the game over at Maxminis...

http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9744


--sam

 

[Echohawk]

I'm thinking of getting WotC's Three Dragon Ante (3DA) card game. Apparently, there are optional rules that allow you to play in character so your PC's stats affect the game. Has anyone here tried this game in or out of character? What did you think of it? Any good?

We've played several games out of character, and we like it. It works very well for more than three players, and okay for two or three players. (More players are good!)

The optional rules for in character play are fairly light -- mostly a case of a character with a high skill being able to change the impact of one or two cards very slightly. Nothing very significant. To be honest, I'm a little dubious about using the game in character, simply because a game of 3DA typically takes more than an hour to play. I think that taking an hour or more out of a D&D game to play in character would interrupt the flow of the game more than my group would like.

But the game is worth buying just for its value as a casual card game. It is very easy to learn, and yet the intricacies of the ante/flight building dynamics are surprisingly complex. Plus, the cards are really pretty.

Just don't get me started on the design of the box. The darn thing just won't stay shut, because the little clip is the same size as the hole it is supposed to fit into, and won't stay put. Mine is now sealed with a strip of sticky tape :\

 

[Zander]

There's a discussion of the game over at Maxminis...

http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9744


--sam

Thanks for the link, Lalato. A very useful review and thread.

 

[Zander]

Echohawk,

Thanks for the review. There seems to be some consensus that the game is better with more people. It's supposed to be for up to 6 players. Do you think it would be any good for more than that, say 8 players at a con?

There also seems to be some agreement about how rubbish the box is. I believe there are fantasy-themed boxes you can get for Tarot cards. Maybe one of these will do.

Thanks again.

 

[Ambrus]

I'll give you my impression of the game as what it's supposed to be; a widely played game in most fantasy D&D settings. I've bought a deck and tried a test game by myself to learn the rules and some basic tactics. Overall I think it's an entertaining game to play and gamble with. I didn't have the feeling however that I was playing a game that my PC would be likely to encounter in a roadside tavern which I believe was the intention of the game's designer. What I mean is, it seems too complicated a card game for commoners in a fantasy setting to play regularly. It's seems more like a modern CCG (with each card having its own paragraph of special rules written at the bottom) rather than a simple card game which any commoner could easily remember all the rules to.

It also doesn't really look like a game prop either; if a PC pulled this deck out of his backpack it would look out of place in a D&D inn. I'd imagine the craftsman/artist who would hand paint these cards in a D&D setting wouldn't be able to scribe a tiny paragraph of special rules at the bottom of each card. Cheap decks probably wouldn't have the rules written on them at all, counting on the players to simply know the relevant rules from having played the game before. Conveniently scribed rulebooks would also be unlikely to exist I'd imagine. That of course would lead to different rules being used in various communities which would cause a lot of confusion and heated arguments when travelers tried playing the game in neighbouring towns.

The rules to play the game are fairly solid, though like any game with so many added on rules (like every CCG) there are situations that leave you scratching your head. I'd imagine that such situations would often lead to bar brawls as each PC or NPC interprets the rules differently. The rules for actually winning the game also left me a bit puzzled. For instance, everyone starts the game with a "hoard" of 50 gp. The game progresses with each player winning or loosing hands and his "hoard" either increasing or decreasing. Play ends when one player has lost all his money and the player with the largest hoard is declared the winner. What isn't clear is what being the winner means; does each player get to keep his winnings or does the winner get all of the players' hoards? Again, I'd expect a bar brawl to be the result of playing this game in an unfamiliar inn.

The interesting thing about the game is that the flow of the game can shift quickly and unexpectedly with the right cards in hand. Hoards can increase and decrease unexpectedly. I did find however that if playing the game as written could take a good while since it seems hard to make another player loose his entire hoard, thereby ending the game. I'd imagine the game would make more sense if it were played like poker, with individual hands being played in turn and the game ending whenever the players are simply willing to stop playing, with each player keeping his own winnings.

 

[Ghostwind]

I played it at the store last Saturday night and found it to be quite fun. However, 3-5 people are definitely the optimal numbers of players.

 

[Echohawk]

The interesting thing about the game is that the flow of the game can shift quickly and unexpectedly with the right cards in hand. Hoards can increase and decrease unexpectedly. I did find however that if playing the game as written could take a good while since it seems hard to make another player loose his entire hoard, thereby ending the game. I'd imagine the game would make more sense if it were played like poker, with individual hands being played in turn and the game ending whenever the players are simply willing to stop playing, with each player keeping his own winnings.

I like the fact that it is rather tricky to make another player loose his or her entire hoard. Unlike many other card games (or games in general), the person coming last isn't at a massive disadvantage. (Aside: This seems to be a particular problem for the Paranoia Mandatory Bonus Fun Card Game, but given that it *is* a Paranoia game, that's to be expected ) In our games, we frequently had someone in debt in the middle of one gambit, only to pull off a suddenly surprising recovery before the end of that gambit. But, as Ambrus notes, this does mean that the game can go on for a while.

 

[Zander]

The problem of the game lasting too long seems to be a common one. Someone on the thread mentioned by Lalato (above) suggested two variants: a 5 gambit game and a 10 gambit game. The former is apparently quite short while the latter is fairly long. What do those of you who have played think of these limits? How many gambits is most fun?

 

[Zander]

I'll give you my impression of the game as what it's supposed to be; a widely played game in most fantasy D&D settings... I didn't have the feeling however that I was playing a game that my PC would be likely to encounter in a roadside tavern...

I haven't played the game (yet) but my feeling is exactly the same and for identical reasons: neither the rules nor the cards are suggestive of a game PCs would play. Most D&D campaigns are set in lands where the printing press has yet to be invented (or at least widely used) and paper is cut by hand. I've seen hand-made reproductions of playing cards from the mid to late midieval period and they look nothing like the 3DA cards. In fairness to WotC, if they had made the cards this way, few people would buy them.