Talk Fantasy Football

Ok, so some people don't like aging based on skills because it makes getting a new skill dreadful. Some don't like to base it on games played because it targets the wrong players. And some don't like it based on KOs and CAS because it might decimate an unlucky team.

So here's a system that (hopefully) everyone will like. The idea is to base it on SPPs. Of course this is just a rough sketch and it could be modified through testing. The only problem that i see with it (which is still major to me) is a lot of dice rolled and (minor) calculations every game. Maybe one of you could find a way to make it simpler. So here goes:

After every game, roll 3D6 for the top 3 players on your team (based on SPPs). If there's a tie for 3rd place, choose the one you want. If you roll below the number of SPPs that the player has divided by 5 (rounded down), roll on the aging table below. Rolling one or more 6s with your 3D6 lets you escape the aging table for this game.

For every player who fails the 3D6 roll, roll 2D6 and consult the table below:
2-3 : -1AV (his body just can't take the punishment anymore)
4-5 : -1MA (he's not as fast as in the good old days)
6-8 : niggling injury (my back/knees/etc. hurt)
9-11 : nothing happens
12 : remove one permanent injury of your choice (miraculous healing)

The healing result was added to make Pariah happy, plus i find it pretty cool myself! If you roll 12 on the 2D6 and don't have a permanent injury, nothing happens.

The clause with rolling 6s is so that you don't automatically roll on the table every game once you get to 95 SPPs.

The clause about the best 3 players (instead of all players as i had originally thought) is so that you don't have to make gazillions of rolls. Of course, if some of your best 3 players are below 20 SPPs, you don't have to roll for them at all, as they're sure to roll equal to or above their SPPs anyway.

So, would anyone have a problem with a system like this? If you do, speak out and we'll see if something can be done about it. Or maybe this system is just plain worthless. We'll see...

This is rather similar to what i suggested with more bookkeeping and only doing the top 3 players.

So yer on the whole I like it. Just the whole divide by 5 thing. Maybe we can think of something more simple. 1 on a d6 is far too comman unless you change the aging table, but i like that as you have it.

Maybe roll 3d6 and if you roll under the current number of skills you have would be a lot easier. Thats extra skills not including ones you start with. This also means you won't age at all until you have at least 4 skills and roll tripple 1.

Thats just something off the top of my head if anyone else has any ideas or comments, go ahead and we can discuss which one will be best.

Oh, forgot to add. It makes it easier to discuss things when every system has a name. So after aging, EXP and fitness, we could call this one (and its derivatives) wear and tear (or WAT for short), unless someone has a better idea.

Oh and Grumbledook, i tried to find your proposed system in the other thread and couldn't find it.

I like it. There's not much bookkeeping in that, is it? Just roll three times, and once more for each aging.

An idea for "cleaning it up":

3d6 for aging or not, any 6 is a save. Three 6's is a miracle healing. Aging table means you definitely will suffer some sort of consequence. (Divide by 6 instead of 5, or something, to balance)

Personally, I'd prefer an injury table looking something like:

1d6
1-4 AV-1
5-6 MA-1

That way, old players will often die or get seriously injured on pitch. I'd say that this would add flavour... You will more often know who killed that star player, or forced him to retire because of a new permanent injury.

Micke

basically it just said something along the lines of after a player reaches a set number of skills/spp every match roll a d6 for them and on a 1 roll on an aging table. Though this would cause more rolls on an aging table so it would have be kept tame.

Might as well carry on tweaking your suggestion tough as its basically the same.

MickeX wrote:3d6 for aging or not, any 6 is a save. Three 6's is a miracle healing. Aging table means you definitely will suffer some sort of consequence. (Divide by 6 instead of 5, or something, to balance)

Dividing by 5 rounded down is (relatively) easy. Just multiply by 2 and drop the last digit. The only other division that i would accept is by 10, but i couldn't find something to make it work.

MickeX wrote:Personally, I'd prefer an injury table looking something like:

1d6
1-4 AV-1
5-6 MA-1

That way, old players will often die or get seriously injured on pitch. I'd say that this would add flavour... :D You will more often know who killed that star player, or forced him to retire because of a new permanent injury.

I also prefer -1MA and -1AV over nigglings, but some people don't, which is why i included nigglings in there.

I still think that a system that doesn't require multiplacation or division would be accepted better. Any other suggestions?

How about making it divide by 10 and using 1D8 instead of 3D6. The only problem is that you lose the "any 6 saves you" part. You still couldn't age before 20 SPPs (because 19/10=1, and you can't roll under 1), and you'd only "automatically" (failing an 8 which saves you anytime) age at 90 SPPs, close to the 95 in my initial proposal.

The main differences would be:

1. More aging at low levels since it's easier to roll a 1 on a D8 than triple 1s on 3D6.

2. More aging on very high levels as you don't get 3 chances to roll a 6.

3. Less aging on middle level (say 50-60 SPPs) since 3D6 often roll average.

4. Easier division.

Because of points 1 to 3, i prefer the original suggestion.

Grumbledook wrote:I still think that a system that doesn't require multiplacation or division would be accepted better. Any other suggestions?

How about the player ages if a 2D6 roll is less than the number of extra skills he has aquired.

2 skill players would never be affected, 3 skill players would age about once in 36 games, but 4 skill players would age 1 in 12 games (sounds good to me).

Hehe thats almost what i suggested earlier in the thread but using 3d6. Though thinking about it you would almost never age on 3d6. The thing with 2d6 is you will be aging almost every second game when you have 7 skills. Would this not be a bit extreme?

Someone want to work out the odds of aging using 3d6, obv it will only start kicking in on the 4th skill on triple 1 which is going to be rare.

Maybe use 1d6+1d8 or something for somewhere inbetween 2s6 and 3d6.

Anyway i need to go grab something to eat. I will think about it.

Unless I've misunderstood, Zombie's proposal means that a player with 90+ SPPs (90 / 5 = 18) will always fail the roll and has a very good chance of aging after every game.

In fact any player with 55 SPPs has a more than 50% chance of aging after each game. This will mean that the days of the super player are long gone. Except of course that the tactic is likely to be you keep your 3 highest SPP players on to protect the other players from this roll. Hence you may have 3 players who all look like this:-


M 3
ST 3
AG 3
AV 5

Niggles 6

with lots of skills.


Sure they won't play much but then the rest of the team becomes skilled without aging. Of course a player will at some stage over-take the top 3 players. One of which will then be retired.


OK maybe this won't happen to this degree since money is tight and the 3 "old" players will severely inflate TR. But I'm not sure that this is the answer either. It also means that it is nigh on impossible to get a player to Legend status. Sure its difficult now.... but its not impossible.

Sorry but some more thinking on this required.....


Dave

To Grumbledook:

Actually, when you said 3D6, i thought it might work but with 1D6! With 2D6, you'd still age less than with my original proposal. In my system, you roll on the table 125/216 games once you get to 95+ SPPs, which is more than every other game. You don't always get something bad on the table though. But if you find that too extreme, we could easily change the table itself to have more "no results".

I prefer linking the roll to SPPs rather than skills because that way, people will never fear getting a new skill. Leveling up should always be a good thing, no matter what.

Dangerous Dave wrote:Unless I've misunderstood, Zombie's proposal means that a player with 90+ SPPs (90 / 5 = 18) will always fail the roll and has a very good chance of aging after every game.

You have indeed misunderstood. It's at 95, since it's rounded down and you need to roll under it. And more importantly, the rule says that as long as one of the dice turns up a 6, you're fine no matter what.

Dangerous Dave wrote:This will mean that the days of the super player are long gone. Except of course that the tactic is likely to be you keep your 3 highest SPP players on to protect the other players from this roll. Hence you may have 3 players who all look like this:-

M 3
ST 3
AG 3
AV 5

Niggles 6

with lots of skills.

Sure they won't play much but then the rest of the team becomes skilled without aging. Of course a player will at some stage over-take the top 3 players. One of which will then be retired.

I've thought about that before posting my system. But if you do that, you've effectively got a roster of 13 players with tons of extra team rating (think handicap) that isn't used for anything.

I quite like the fact that you only have to roll for your best 3 players as it makes the process much less time consuming.

Dangerous Dave wrote:It also means that it is nigh on impossible to get a player to Legend status. Sure its difficult now.... but its not impossible.

If it's too severe, it can be changed. For example, keeping the 3D6 (or making it 2D6) and dividing the SPPs by 10 instead of 5 would let you get your players much higher. It would also make the division much easier to work out (just ignore the last digit).

The rolling under the number of skills you have, doesn't link it to gaining skills, you're still rolling every match not when you get a skill roll, so thats not an issue.

I think the 2d6/10 would be be the best trade off between lethality and progression. You don't want players to be rolling every single match and 2d6/10 means they get to 130 spp before this happens? (assuming you round down) This will mean its very hard to become a legend and get 7 skills without aging. Is this good or bad? If its bad maybe more "nothing happens" results on the aging table would help.

This means players can age from 30 spp though doesn't it? 30/10=3 so will age on a double 1. So that means they will have 2 skills at the earliest time they age and be 1spp from their third. Which basically means that they will have 3 skills on the whole before anything happens.

Grumbledook wrote:I think the 2d6/10 would be be the best trade off between lethality and progression. You don't want players to be rolling every single match and 2d6/10 means they get to 130 spp before this happens? (assuming you round down)

Yes, well almost. Even at 130 SPPs, all they'd need is to roll at least one 6 (about a 1 in 3 chance with 2D6) to avoid the aging table. But remember that they will most likely have picked up quite a few aging results by the time they get there.

I think this system could work. Other opinions?