A new game? (continued from General Chat)

[Raven]

Thanks for the responses everyone. It does my heart good to know that people are interested in an alternative to Bloodbowl (even if, unlike me, they haven’t given up on the game yet). Out of seven replies, there are three yeses, three maybes, and only one no. That’s pretty positive.

If you need any help, drop me a pm.

I will definitely do that Abator, and thanks for the offer. Thinking off the top of my head, I will probably need rules/facts-checkers, beta-readers, artists (at least one) and lots and lots of playtesters. This will probably be an online thing rather than a published thing, so art isn’t hugely important but it would be nice. Any volunteers?

I think it's a great idea. I don't think it sounds complex at all. Seems well thought out with the dodge skill and pass skill being seperate. I also really like the one player move turns. That would definatly stop OTS.

I hear people say BB is like violent chess. It's not. Your game would.

Thanks mtn_bike. Not sure if I like the comparison to violent chess, but maybe you’re right.

I definately say go for it. I would LOVE to playtest your game and rule set withing our League. I mean... starting up a new league altogether based off of your new game. How long do you figure it would take you to get these rules together? It sound very exciting!!!

Well, that’s one playtester signed up already! As to how long the game would take to get together? Well... thinking about really, really rough rules... maybe a couple of weeks or so? How does that sound? I’d do some work on it this weekend but I’ve got a hectic business trip. I could start Monday when I get back... hmm... (deep in thought)

Im not too keen on any of those ideas personally but good luck all the same. Developing a new game is a difficult process but a lot of fun.

Well, to each his own, I suppose. But thanks for the encouragement, Underdog. That’s very kind of you.

By the way there is a New Concepts area of this forum.

Oops! Oh well, at least I did ask if I was posting in the right place. I’ve gotten it right this time.

The Dark Elf team has NEVER had a runner position in any version, and there is more references to Dark Elf Catchers and Throwers than runners.

Well, I bow to your knowledge, Ithilkir. My point was that the Dark Elf team excels at the passing game because of their high AG and positional Throwers. Yet the fluff says that they are only above-average at it. Likewise, the fluff says something like “sheer spite makes them love the running game” but they have no Runners (when other teams which do not practice the running game do!), can have Throwers and again have that high AG. That’s all I meant. But I could be wrong. It doesn’t matter, because there are so many more examples of the fluff saying one thing and the rules saying another.

I agree with all those points except for Randomness and that is the function of the ruleset needing them. And JJs role- it sounds sort of like he is a Id to the BBRC ego and an I am beginning to think the last force of fun in an overmanaged game.

If you a serious and not just letting off built up steam I would suggest your first attack on randomness is defining success criteria for rules/ideas and playtesting structure. Might sound stuffy, but particularly if you intend to gather a team of creators it would seriously improve your chances of a game you and others like.

Example: What is the intended result of alternating moves? If you understand that, you might find in playtesting that 2 players moving satisfies it better, or it works, or that it works but coming into possession of the ball makes it that player's move, or.....

Hmm... scratches his head... I’m not entirely sure I understand what you’re saying Scotty, but I’ll try to answer as best I can. Randomness is needed in any game of chance, obviously, and Bloodbowl (or this new game) is no exception. However, in Bloodbowl, randomness is king. No, I take that back. It’s king, queen, prince, all the ladies of the court, the jester and the peasants too. The designers (and that includes all the people involving themselves with the PTV) go overboard with randomness.

Look at two of the important things you have to purchase (well, I guess you don’t have to) when creating a team: Team Re-Rolls and Fan Factor. What else is a TRR except an indication that the game is too random? You’ve a 1 in 6 chance (at least) of screwing up anything, which will end your entire turn (and can cost you the game). So to fix it, we’ll give you a second chance. This is typical of GW (and quite common in all their games). Instead of changing the rules they overreact in trying to find a solution. Instead of, say, increasing the die from d6 to d10 (and thus giving a greater range of ability and thus less chance of failure), they slap a re-roll on it. And as for FF, well, while winnings should be variable, they shouldn’t run such a range of a D6 with modifiers. If you bring ten times as many fans to a match as your opponent, you should get (approximately) ten times the revenue from the gate. It’s that simple.

Another example would be skill selection. Some skills are generally more valuable to others (Block, Dodge, Tackle, etc.). Some skills are more valuable to certain players than others (Catch to a Catcher for example). The same can be said for stats. How does Bloodbowl represent this? It doesn’t. Instead, it’s all random. You have to roll to see if you improve with a skill or in a stat. Why? Why not just give the skills and stats a points value and let Coaches purchase them when a palyer has built up enough SPPs? Easier, fairer, more fun and much less random.

Other examples of this over-reliance on randomness include handicaps, raising/lowering FF, match winnings, rolling doubles on skills, negatraits (such as Wild Animal or Take Root), and the whole blocking system (again, a common GW fault - how many dice do you have to roll to hurt someone? Four? Why not one?). GW have even excluded official rules for leagues, ensuring that there’s a variety of league set-ups out there!

As for defining success criteria and playtesting, I agree with you absolutely. That’s one thing I’ll have to work on.

The alternating-turn system makes so much more sense to me. In a turn-based system (and 40K and Warhammer also suffer from this) one Coach sits around and does nothing while the other does all he wants, which is crazy. It’s like every player on Team A is standing still while Team B runs rings around them. And yet this isn’t exactly true either, because some players on Team A are allowed to do stuff (i.e. Block and Tackle). And the duration of a turn therefore makes no sense – one turn you could have a single player throw a block (and fail and get knocked over, hence a turnover) but the next you could have every player move their maximum amount – but this is supposed to happen in the same amount of time? It’s crazy!

Other things I’ve thought of that I’d like to see:

1. Holding on to the ball when a player hits the ground. Again, this is something in Bloodbowl I’ve never understood. I know it’s based on American Football and when a ballcarrier hits the grass in that sport a Down is called. But Bloodbowl doesn’t have Downs and even if they did, the team in possession would remain in possession; it wouldn’t be random. So why can’t a player hold on to the ball (if the Coach wishes)? Maybe he’ll have to pass a ST test to keep it if he’s piled on, but he should get a chance to keep the ball.

2. Home and away matches, with all the resulting advantages and disadvantages. If you play at home, you get more fans, a bigger slice of the revenue, and more. None of this ‘neutral ground’ crap that Bloodbowl’s been reduced to nowadays. Of course, this is a part of league structure, which, although it makes perfect sense, apparently has no place in Bloodbowl at present. Oh, and teams should be able to buy their own stadiums and upgrade them. Oh, and how about sponsorship?

3. Different pitch types. These are quite common in homegrown leagues of Bloodbowl (check out the magazine’s All at Sea or Sam Walker's IceBowl which should be somewhere here on TBB) but in the official rules everyone plays on grass. Everyone. Lizardmen live in jungles but play on grass, not on the jungle floor. Dwarves live in mountains but play on grass, not stone. Norse live in the frozen north but play on grass, not ice or snow. Khemri live in the desert but play on grass, not sand. Skaven live in the sewers but play on grass, not on paved poo-slick floors. Well, you get the idea.

Does anyone have any other ideas? Any things that really annoy you about Bloodbowl that should be changed?

[Raven]

i agree with you on some points, not on some others. even thought I'm new to BB part of what attracted me to the game is how open it seemed... and what I have been reading about everything trying to go toward the "less die rolls", and some other things, to me at least seems to be dumbing the game down. i have no problem with rolling dice a lot, especially if it seems pertinent to strategy or results of actions. I *LIKE* a complex game.

On the other hand I don't see how you can be against alternating turns, but that's just me. I enjoy turn-based strategy quit a bit and don't see how a game similar to this would work well without it.

Still good luck, even if the idea does not get far (I'm not saying it wont though) I know how much fun it can be, if nothing else, just drawing out ideas.

Well, I’m glad you like a complex game, Ravage, because my game will be more complex than Bloodbowl. And while I agree with you that Bloodbowl is being dumbed down, I think the blame for this rests solely on the shoulders of JJ and the BBRC. The whole randomness thing actually dumbs the game down, IMO, rather than the reverse. I’ve got nothing against randomness if it serves a purpose and makes sense. So much of it in Bloodbowl does not.

As for alternating turns, well, I’m an old wargamer and most wargames don’t use alternating turns. GW is the big wargames company that insists on using them. Frankly, the reason why I’m against alternating turns (in Bloodbowl at any rate, I can put up with them in 40K or WFB), is because it makes no sense. Team B stands perfectly still while Team A moves. Then Team A stands still and Team B moves. In what sport does that happen, except chess (if that’s a sport rather than a game) and the like? In a non-alternating-turn-based game, the Coaches will be able to act and react with much more flexibility and build much more complex strategies.

it's a pity you are giving up on BB...

Thanks, browwnrob, but I’ve just had enough. To me, the whole BBRC and PTV is kind of like putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum. That’s why I have to quit. But thanks anyway.

[ScottyBoneman]

I agree with all those points except for Randomness and that is the function of the ruleset needing them.

Hmm... scratches his head... I’m not entirely sure I understand what you’re saying Scotty, but I’ll try to answer as best I can.

Yeah, I get that a lot. What is was attempting to allude to was that I don't like or dislike randomness so much as it has its own functions and purposes.

To illustrate take the example of the well-known Axis and Allies, a pretty classic game with clear rolls and probablities for battles but an overall structure that does not use randomness very much. Works great. At the same time one of its few failings (and somewhat fundimental) is that there tends to be very few possible outcomes (when playing against people who know what they are doing or are at least fairly good at evaluting probablility).

Another thing I might mention is very basic as well. Lots of older companies (like Avalon Hill) had 3 values on the side of all their games:

• Number of players (likely 2 in your case)
  Complexity Level (x of 5 I think)
  Time to Play

Making those as initial decisions might be helpful. Are you attempting a 'beer-and-pretzels' (my favourites) or is this intended to be a 'stare-across-at-your-opponent-and-thoughfully-move' sort of an affair?

[Raven]

Yeah, I get that a lot. What is was attempting to allude to was that I don't like or dislike randomness so much as it has its own functions and purposes.

First of all, Scotty, let me say that I didn’t mean to offend you with my comment (and if I did, I apologize). I truly wasn’t clear on what you were saying.

Okay, I agree with you that randomness has its own functions and purposes. And I suppose, by logical extension, I can no longer claim to dislike randomness. I can, however, dislike both the amount of randomness in Bloodbowl and the functions and purpose to which it is put. It has been said that the current incarnation of Bloodbowl is the least random. Perhaps that’s true. But it is still incredibly random and at the same time offers very few choices to the Coaches (older editions of the game used to offer so much more flexibility and variety).

Example of useful randomness: Rolling a d8 to see where the ball scatters to (although even this could be discarded easily enough and with a bit of thought).

Example of pointless randomness: Rolling a d6 to see how much winnings your team earns (this is pointless because the FF should have already decided this).

Example of totally unnecessary randomness: Rolling potentially four lots of dice (and at least two) to see if you block and injure someone (and this could potentially be rolling 8 dice!) when one roll will do.

Just a few examples of what bothers me about Bloodbowl. It’s the application of the randomness that bothers me, I guess. Actually, it’s the application and lack of thought behind so many of the rules too. For example, allowing a ST3 Human the same chance of knocking down a ST5 Ogre as a ST4 Black Orc. Or how about allowing a AG3 player a 50% chance of achieving an average task but a ST3 player only 16% chance? Or how about the fact that AG affects dodging but it doesn’t affect tackling? Neither does ST? You can have a ST5, AG5 player and he’ll be just as good/bad at tackling as a ST2/AG2 player. Does that make any sense at all?

To illustrate take the example of the well-known Axis and Allies, a pretty classic game with clear rolls and probablities for battles but an overall structure that does not use randomness very much. Works great. At the same time one of its few failings (and somewhat fundimental) is that there tends to be very few possible outcomes (when playing against people who know what they are doing or are at least fairly good at evaluting probablility).

Another thing I might mention is very basic as well. Lots of older companies (like Avalon Hill) had 3 values on the side of all their games:
Number of players (likely 2 in your case)
Complexity Level (x of 5 I think)
Time to Play

Making those as initial decisions might be helpful. Are you attempting a 'beer-and-pretzels' (my favourites) or is this intended to be a 'stare-across-at-your-opponent-and-thoughfully-move' sort of an affair?

Aah, the old Avalon Hill games. Are they still in business? Those were the days... I must be getting old.

Anyway, I guess I’ve already made those decisions or they’ve been taken out of my hands. After all, it is going to be a 2-player game, obviously. And I can’t state a Time to Play until the game is playtested. So the only thing I can decide is the complexity, and as I’ve said earlier, I want a game that is faster and more brutal that the wimped-out-Bloodbowl we have now, but which is also a little more complex.

So, on a scale of 1 to 5 like this:

1 Snap
2 Chess
3 Monopoly
4 Wargame Light (such as 40K)
5 Wargame (such as DBA or DBM)

I’d place Bloodbowl at around a 2. It’s a little more complicated than chess, for sure, but not so much so. Maybe a 3. Of course earlier editions would make this a sliding scale, something like:

2.1 Bloodbowl PTV (current version)
2.3 Bloodbowl LRB3
2.4 Bloodbowl 3e
2.7 Bloodbowl 2e
2.9 Bloodbowl 1e

My game would definitely be a 3. It’s not a ‘beer-and-pretzels’ game (but then neither is Bloodbowl) but it shouldn’t be too hard for people to grasp.

[ScottyBoneman]

Aah, the old Avalon Hill games. Are they still in business? Those were the days... I must be getting old.

Bought by Hasbro and mostly died, though Kurt Schilling (recently of Red Sox fame) bought ASL out of love for it.

And I can’t state a Time to Play until the game is playtested.

Disagree here. I would give this a target and accept that it might go off the rails if needed.

My game would definitely be a 3. It’s not a ‘beer-and-pretzels’ game (but then neither is Bloodbowl) but it shouldn’t be too hard for people to grasp

.
Maybe its the DBM and old AH games benchmark but both beer and pretzels are a part of my coaching. If you figure out the amount of variables you have to track in BB its not really that high- and when the cards were removed they dropped like a stone.

As an aside, another suggestion is that Apothecaries beyond the 'mostly dead' effect are currently weighted toward strength teams- they are more likely to have only one serious CAS a game. If you want to increase the blood, consider removing them or having them have a more set action perhaps on all injured players.

[Sallacious]

So seriously Raven, once you have some rules down, please PM me so that I could get them play tested with a bunch of our coaches. From what you have been saying, I can see a very fun game ahead. Can't wait!!

[Colin]

I have been working on my own BB variant for awhile now (though not continually), basically a TTM game with measured movement and all that. I made up a playing pitch using a WH battle mat so that it would be the size of a football field (the pitch in BB would be about the size of an Arena FB field, maybe smaller, if it was to scale with the minis). I have some basic rules worked out but need to do more work on them. Trying to keep a BB feel to the game even though I'm trying to make it more like FB (BB is more rugbyesque). Anyway good luck with develping your game, I know how much work it can be.

[Sallacious]

Torg, if you have rules made up, could you forward them my way? I would love to see what you have come up with. Thanks bud!

[Colin]

I won't until I'm totally done with it.

[Cedric]

First I'd like to give you my best wishes for developping your game. It sounds very interesting.

I do agree with most of the things you've said BUT for the alternating turns. I do agree that the current Blood Bowl system has big drawbacks but I'm not sure that alternating turns would be the solution.
What does it really change that instead of moving one team after the other you'd move one player after the player ?

This solution is no more / no less realistic than the other one. And speaking about wargames, I can point out that if some use the unit after unit activation system, most newer wargames (and lots of old wargames) use the side after side system.

And in addition I would say that you lose dynamism doing so : organizing big team moves such as "Da Kage" becomes more difficult (an opponent might have moved between the moves of your players forming this Kage). And I don't speak about the fast passing game.

As a conlusion, I don't know what is the perfect solution to solve this, but the team after team system seems to me better that the player by player system.

But, nevertheless, good luck

[ScottyBoneman]

And in addition I would say that you lose dynamism doing so : organizing big team moves such as "Da Kage" becomes more difficult (an opponent might have moved between the moves of your players forming this Kage). And I don't speak about the fast passing game.

I immediately agreed with this thought, then it occured to me that I thought I had suggested about completed movements of the ball means it is your players move again- sort of like the successful redirection keeps initiative up.

No this might sound a little crazy, but if you do some combination of slower players/larger pitch it becomes much less so. Maybe all players of a race have equal movement but may wear armour that drops MV but adds AV? You add strategy of positioning players with escape options but are very limited- maybe even making it such that a 2 turn score is an impossible thing.

Just suggestions based around what you were saying and my take on what your imagination has- some kind of proto-Rugby played by the unwashed peasantry.

P.S. As for alternate pitches- how about the ball starts in the town square, and the teams have to run through the streets? That could be a blast! (but might require throwing balls over building rules)

[Sallacious]

So Raven, do you have any preliminary rules drawn up yet? Would really like to take a peek.

[Raven]

So Raven, do you have any preliminary rules drawn up yet? Would really like to take a peek.

Still working on it. But… cue list of excuses… work has been busy… mumble… deadlines brought forward… home life is demanding… grumble… Yahoo has screwed up my e-mail account… mumble… need new addy…

Not convinced? Oh well…

It’s going pretty well, actually. I have the basic ruleset all worked out in my head, it’s just getting it down onto paper and doing so in a manner that is both easy to read and understand (i.e. to avoid the GW habit of being vague, uncertain, contradictory and needing 30+ FAQs – which is not as easy as some might think!).

So far, I’ve got the stat descriptions, the basic moving, passing, catching, dodging/tackling and fighting rules all done. I’ve still got quite a bit to do yet, however. I’ll be sure to keep you informed.

And in addition I would say that you lose dynamism doing so : organizing big team moves such as "Da Kage" becomes more difficult (an opponent might have moved between the moves of your players forming this Kage). And I don't speak about the fast passing game.

I immediately agreed with this thought, then it occured to me that I thought I had suggested about completed movements of the ball means it is your players move again- sort of like the successful redirection keeps initiative up.

Exactly. It’s nice to see someone else has thought this through and seen the benefits of the movement system I have proposed. Will it be a better system than the you-move-I-move system Bloodbowl uses? That’s a matter of taste, naturally. But it will be different and it will work.

No this might sound a little crazy, but if you do some combination of slower players/larger pitch it becomes much less so. Maybe all players of a race have equal movement but may wear armour that drops MV but adds AV? You add strategy of positioning players with escape options but are very limited- maybe even making it such that a 2 turn score is an impossible thing.

All races will have equal movement. Not just all the players in one race, but all the races. Confused? Don’t be. It will become clear soon! As for the armour reducing movement, well, great minds think alike! I said exactly the same thing in the earlier version of this thread (http://www.talkbloodbowl.com/phpBB2/vie ... hp?t=14106):

And there would be no set AV. Instead, you can purchase armour. But the heavier the armour you buy, the more penalty you have to moving and dodging and passing.

So it looks like I’m on the right track!

And a 2-turn score will be possible under the rules I have (as will a 1 turn) but will be extremely unlikely to happen for all except the best of the star players.

P.S. As for alternate pitches- how about the ball starts in the town square, and the teams have to run through the streets? That could be a blast! (but might require throwing balls over building rules)

A great idea and one I’ll hope to introduce, although I’m not quite sure how it will fit!