IMC :: Poker

Yes, the game the King of Amber loves so much.
What is the formula for a good poker game of Texorami Hold ‘Em?
Warfare, since this is a tactical conflict of proven variables. Psyche, since the will and perception of other opponents is key to bluffing. Social, since the group understanding of play is part of what makes or breaks the ability to apply the other two consistently. Finally, Stuff, since only destiny determines what kind of resources you get from the randomized deal.
Something like:
3x Stuff + Warfare/2 + Psyche/2 + Social = Poker attribute



  1. While I appreciate the objective (you do remember the character I was playing at AC, yes?), in fact I’d argue the formula for poker varies depending on the tact taken by you and by your fellow players at the table (just like I’d argue the formula for a duel changes, if you’re the type that weights Warfare, Strength and Stuff (and maybe a bit of Psyche and Endurance) into duels).
    If you play randomly or just poorly, then luck (Stuff) will be more dominant and skill is actually punished (because you’ll make what would be the right move if the others played well and it’ll be the wrong move because they aren’t doing so). Thus, many Celeb matches on TV, where you regularly see good players (Aflack, Woods or Rodgers, for example, who do well in pro tournaments) get trounced.
    If you play tight and others match you, it can come down to, of all things, Endurance and Stuff (i.e., can you last long enough for your luck to kick in). The game will also be very dull to watch (when seen on TV, these are the matches where the dealer button seems to hop around the table and the dealer change appearance rapidly… that’s because many, many hands are being edited out for a lack of interesting content).
    If you play aggressively, you increase the impact of luck and of your relative bluffing ability (Psyche or Social), but can dramatically shorten the game (either to your advantage or disadvantage).
    About the only reason poker is an intersting game, IMO, is that it changes so dramatically based on the players at the table. Hence the common advice “play the players, not the cards”.

  2. Well, I was going to just say “Like everything else in ADRP, the relationships are fluid”, but I thought I’d try to explain my point a bit better.
    My way of using ADRP attributes is always to let the player explain how they bring their strengths to bear and cover their weaknesses, as I do the same. I go to numbers only after we’ve worked out how to weight them narratively.

Comments are closed.