A new game? (continued from General Chat)
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:48 pm
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.
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)
Oh well, at least I did ask if I was posting in the right place. I’ve gotten it right this time.
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?
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?Abator wrote:If you need any help, drop me a pm.
Thanks mtn_bike. Not sure if I like the comparison to violent chess, but maybe you’re right.mtn_bike wrote: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.
Well, that’s one playtester signed up already!Sallacious wrote: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!!!
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) Well, to each his own, I suppose. But thanks for the encouragement, Underdog. That’s very kind of you.Underdog wrote: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.
Oops!Underdog wrote:By the way there is a New Concepts area of this forum.
Oh well, at least I did ask if I was posting in the right place. I’ve gotten it right this time. 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.Ithilkir wrote: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.
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.ScottyBoneman wrote: 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.....
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?