I was thinking that, if players wanted shorter games, htey could select how many cards you start with in uno, or domino, or train, or ay games where it really doesn't matter how many cards. The reason i thought of this idea was because rs games has an optino to select how many cards you get in 99, and i thought it would be good for uno, dominos, train, and of course ninety nine :)
and i think it isn't that hard beccause you just have to change the number of itterations in the dealing for loop to a variable that is changed by that setting.

Why not just change the score and get a shorter game?

for some interesting results?

Thing is, for example in uno with the current scoring system, changing the number of cards to a smaller one actually gives much more chance to have a longer game than shorter.

that's true, but with 6 takes, 99, and scopa, it could work pretty well.

With 99 and scopa it is very important how many cards you have, playroom is not a platform where you just randomly press enter on cards

I know, but wouldn''t it be interesting if you could play scopa with 5 cards per deal or something?

I think the games are well done on playroom.
No need for such changes.
Those mentioned by you Romi are quite simple and would not provide fun or any strategy.
It would be nice if the people would stop comparing playroom to rsgames because all of us are free to play on the platform we like.

Hey!
I would like to see such a change in cribbage, to able to play with more cards especially when playing with 2-4 players, as playing with 6 players, to get 6 cards in hand. or even more? why not.
that would put up some challenges in counting which can be fun.
thanks.

Hello,

A few reflections are in progress on options to make certain game shorter. Some can be interesting, but some aren't. think about the following:

• IN uno, less dealt cards doesn't necessarily mean shorter game, since you need to draw when you have no playable card. If you want a shorter game, just reduce the limit score, or target on certain options: activate series and super intercept, but disable cumulation, buzzers and 0/7.
• IN scopa, you already have the scopone variant with a different deal. I don't think it's necessary to make more. I could reduce the deck to have a shorter game, but it's also probably going to increase the part of luck and decrease strategy. mit might not be desirable at the end.
• For 99, having more cards in your hand won't make the game shorter, it will even make it longer I think, because more playable cards means more thinking. 99 is already a fast-passed game, and those who play it clearly prefer more luck than strategy. Reducing the deck size will just reduce the diversity and make the game more boring. Changing the limits 33, 66 and 99 may make the game shorter, but those limits haven't been chosen at random; it's probably going to unbalance the game as wel; I don't want to go in that risky direction. If you want to shorten the length of the game, you can just play with less tokens.
• For dominos and mexican train, by the same reasonning as uno, I'm unsure of the effect of starting with less pieces. Again, setting a lower score limit should suffice.
• For 6 takes, by the same reasonning as scopa, I don't think it's really interesting to change the number of card dealt or the size of the pack. IN the sandard version, having holee / undealt cards is desired to increase the part of luck. The expert mode remove all extra cards and this makes the game almost entirely strategical.
• Remains cribbage. The number of dealt cards is computed according to the number of players and the 52 cards deck used. Do you know if there exist rules for more than 6 players, 2 or more cards deck, or a reduced card deck, without foundamentally changing the luck/skill balance or the diversity of the game ? Note that the values 15 and 31 haven't been chosen at random, so it's probably more bad than good to change them.

I have a suggestion for a game, it is called werewolf. here are the rules.
at the start of the round, some people are picked for their different rolls, either seer (of which there is 1) protector (of which there is 1) villagers (of which there is number of players - 2 - (number of players - 2 / 5)
and the rest of the people are werewolves.
The game alternates between two phases, night and day.
in night, first, the werewolves pick someone to kill.
then, the seer gets to identify someone to be a werewolf or not.
then, the protector gets to protect someone from werewolf attack, so if the werewolves attack them. it doesn't matter, they're still alive.
then it is day, and everyone (including the werewolves) gets to choose someone to execute. this, like the werewolf picking who to kill part, is done as a vote, and when a majority is reached, it is decided.
After this happens, the person gets executed and their roll is revealed.
the round is won if either all the werewolves are dead (then the villagers win) or there are as many villagers as there are werewolves (then the werewolves win, coming and eating up all the villagers because their ranks are too few to withstand the werewolves attacking them anymore)
then the players on the winning team, either the werewolves, or the villagers (which includes one seer, and one protector) are awarded points, 1 point per victory, until a victory score is reached
the aim of the game is to be able to identify the werewolves and try not to execute someone who isn't a werewolf, by taking that risk, though, sometimes, the players are going to lie to each other to try and pretend they are not a werewolf, or sometimes, they may be helping their team.

It would be all good if the game would not be from rs games, just wondering did you think that noone will notice it? :D

quite the opposite.