Utsukushi:
I didn't see Horus's, but Steelsmiter's post was pretty awesome, I have to say, even if it left me feeling like I need to go spend like twenty minutes watching myself shuffle cards...
Wasn't much to see in my post: I drew a Celtic Cross layout to explain a concept (cards in "crossing" orientation in a layout) that really didn't require explanation on review of the post to which I was replying.
quote:
So, where are we at? I think we were at, yes, adding a Tarot Deck to the decks of cards is probably a good idea, and from there, it would be really good if there's a way to set how likely they are to be Reversed?
And I think, based on earlier observations made, the way to go there is to randomize the deck itself, including any reversals, based on an algorithm that simulates cutting and shuffling the deck prior to the draw. That does seem rather outside the scope of the dice roller as it presently stands, though.
Absent that, a simple Xd2 for each card drawn can settle that well enough for most purposes. Each card drawn has only two possible states (Upright and Reversed), and, even if the usual method of cutting the deck introduces reversals at either a 1/3 or 2/3 rate (depending on the sequence of turns during the cut), eventually, since the deck is not "straightened" between readings, the probability of reversal actually is still 1/2 for any card drawn.
quote:
Based on a comment from The Other Thread that still seems relevant here, I do think having a full deck and a Major Arcana Only deck would be useful -- a lot of game applications for Tarot cards, especially, do rely on only the Major Arcana because they're clearly the most fun. And since we have regular cards differentiated just for with-and-without-Jokers, that seems totally reasonable without getting into the Fully Customizable discussion.
Absolutely. Having the Major and Minor Arcana and the unified deck separately available supports the full range of Tarot-related operations. Given a way to sort out reversal states, the rest
seems almost trivial coding-wise.