Expert BB - Action Rolls

Azurus · Post by **Azurus** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:35 pm

I figured it was about time we started to agree on some things, so this topic is to discuss options for the dice and systems for the success/failure of actions. I think there are three main areas we need to settle on: blocking, simple actions and complex actions. Here's my take on what that means, and some options for each.

Blocking: well, that's um...blocking.

I think everyone's pretty much happy with the block dice, I don't remember anyone suggesting replacing them, or even altering how they're used in a big way. The numbers governing how many dice are rolled may have to change though, if we use a different stat range than the current one.

Simple Actions: IMO, some actions only need one simple roll, such as gfis, pickups etc. (by a 'simple' roll, I mean a stat-check or x+ roll and a straight success/failure result)

The main issue for these rolls is the range of stats we want to use, which governs the dice we need for each roll. 2d6, 1d12 and 2d8 are all good options for this, since they all provide more scope for variation in stats than the current d6 method. (see the numbers in the main thread)

Complex Actions: Actions requiring more than one roll, having a range of outcomes greater than 'success/failure', or with a wide range of possible modifiers. Passing & Dodging for example.

We have more scope on this one. So far suggestions are we use either a system similar to the current one (an action is made up of a 'string' of simple rolls) but with the appropriate dice for the stat range we want, or we use a 'white wolf style' system of rolling a number of dice, and requiring a given number of successes for any given action.

---------------------
Anyway, that's enough rambling for today. Hopefully we can use this topic to figure out the basics, and leave the other ideas in the other thread for the moment.

The most important thing, of course, is what do you guys want? (And feel free to berate me for missing something or talking rubbish)

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:55 pm

Blocking

Actually I think Blocking may need more of a change. I've not come up with a mechanic yet (apparently not my strong point) but I think ST in 3rd ed has too much of an influence on the success of a Block - going from 1D to 2D is too big a jump with just +1 ST.

I'd like to see a system where Catchers on a team can be weaker and Blitzers/Blockers stronger like 2nd edition without this having such a large effect on Blocking.

As well as this i'd like to keep some of the distinction between pure ST and skill that 3rd edition introduced into the mix with the Block (and to some extent Dodge, Tackle and Guard) skills. Although i'd like to see these skills toned down a bit in effect so they are not taken above all other skills on all players.

Finally I like the positioning tactics added to the game in third edition by adding assists. I think the jump in Blocking power from 1D to 2D is justified when adding another player into the mix.

Assuming that all that is desirable I doubt if the current system can be easily adapted to cope with the increased range of strengths and more subtle graduation of effectiveness at Blocking. It would be nice to have a similar system that is as intuitive to use though.

Simple Actions

I'd actually lump Dodging in here too. I'm actually not too unhappy with these sorts of rolls at the moment. A single dice is easy to roll and is simple to understand how risky an action is.

What I would like to see is the return of stats for Throwing and Catching/Ball Handling as well as Dodging. This would give more scope for teams that cannot Dodge that well but can Throw and Catch and Vice Versa. It would also allow for Players to be good at Catching and Dodgeing without necessarily making great backup throwers (Eg. Gutter Runners).

I'm not entirely convinced we need any greater range of outcomes for each roll or stat here, just maybe more range of stats.

Complex Actions

To me this almost exclusively means throwing. 3rd edition throwing has never felt quite right (although LRB is better than pure 3rd where the handoff ruled). It'd be nice to see a few more long passes, a few more int attempts and more chances for the ball to be innacurate without fumbling than at the moment.

It might also be nice for the Catcher to have a better chance of recovering an innacurate pass than at the moment because in my mind a great Catcher would be able to recover passes that a lesser one would have dropped.

Dark Lord (retired) · Post by **Dark Lord (retired)** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:33 pm

Dark Lord wrote:Although I love all these ideas flowing out, I think if we're in anyway serious about this we need a plan of attack. Otherwise the brainstorm will sputter out and this will die.

I think the first order of business is deciding what style to use. Whether it be rolling X number of dice against a target number and looking at the ratio of successes to failures. or doing a "check" by rolling a die under a stat level or skill rank.

Once we decide how we want the game to work we can decide what dice to base it on.

From there we can start on individual aspects of the game. Passing, injuries etc.

Sound good?

Tried it once.

Maybe it will work again.
Taking random stabs at various parts of the game will eventually accomplish nothing. We need a plan that goes from the general to the specific.

I think the best place to start isn't what type of dice to use but rather how they are being used. Once we know how we want to use them, deciding which dice will be much easier.
From there we can begin deigning the mechanics.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:12 pm

I guess before we even get to a plan we should know what we are aiming to do.

Are we making a new version of BB or are we creating a different Fantasy Football game entirely? If we are sticking to BB then what fluff are we basing it on, the Warhammer 3rd ed style or going back to a more sporting 2nd ed style? What aspects of the rules from 3rd edition and previous are good and worth keeping?

For my part i'd like to see a game that is what I would hope BB would turn out like if a true new version came out. I'd like something that feels close to how 3rd edition plays tactically but with more scope for subtle variations between the stats on the teams.

I'd like to keep the timed (ie. number of turns) aspect of the game, and I like the concept of actions and the turnover mechanic, although i'm open to trying a different representation of 'momentum' in the game.

I like the positioning tactics that the current game throws up but I'd like to see the power of an extra point of strength be less than that of an assist (to allow for more subtle variations again).

I'd like the throwing game to be more open and for teams that are supposed to have a long range game to actually make use of this instead of the run-and-handoff style that we usually see now.

I'd like the skills to be more evenly balanced than currently to encourage some genuine diversity in skill selection and between teams of the same race.

I suppose i'm aiming for evolution rather than revolution, although i'd like to see enough change that it would be worthy of being a new edition. From some of the posts in the other thread though i'm guessing there are those that have more radical ideas than this.

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:22 pm

I'd want to keep everything that makes BB the game it is, and play the way it plays. We play BB for a reason - that, at its core, it is a great game. I would like to expand and evolve (as Munkey states), not start again from scratch.

To this end, I'd basically like to translate the aspects of 2nd ed that got left behind into our modern BB. The more sophisticated skills system, for example, and on-pitch magic and the like. Splitting AG into "dodging" and "passing".

As for actions, in the spirit of what I have written above, I'd like to keep the existing system. There is plenty of scope to change individual mechanisms (e.g. passing) within that. For example, as I mentioned in the other thread, harder feats could be achieved by asking a player to pass consecutive AG rolls, or an AG roll and a Passing roll.

Azurus · Post by **Azurus** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:34 pm

DL, unless I'm reading it wrong (quite likely) that post contradicts the post you're quoting, although I think that's because of the form of the quoted post rather than the actual words. (You know I just read that sentence and my English has gone downhill massively since getting online

)

Basically I think we just need a base of something, even if it gets changed again later.

As for Munkey's list, my votes are:-

Munkey wrote:I guess before we even get to a plan we should know what we are aiming to do.

Are we making a new version of BB or are we creating a different Fantasy Football game entirely? If we are sticking to BB then what fluff are we basing it on, the Warhammer 3rd ed style or going back to a more sporting 2nd ed style?

New version of BB, more sport-oriented fluff.

For my part i'd like to see a game that is what I would hope BB would turn out like if a true new version came out. I'd like something that feels close to how 3rd edition plays tactically but with more scope for subtle variations between the stats on the teams.

Totally agree on all of this.

I'd like to keep the timed (ie. number of turns) aspect of the game, and I like the concept of actions and the turnover mechanic, although i'm open to trying a different representation of 'momentum' in the game.

I'd like to go for a momentum-based style myself, but getting it to work is a big ask, so wouldn't mind sticking to the traditional turn-based system.

I like the positioning tactics that the current game throws up but I'd like to see the power of an extra point of strength be less than that of an assist (to allow for more subtle variations again).

I'd like the throwing game to be more open and for teams that are supposed to have a long range game to actually make use of this instead of the run-and-handoff style that we usually see now.

I'd like for both parts of the game to be more open, and to make it more rewarding for teams to play over a larger part of the field, rather than the 'scrum' style we often see now. And I think if we want more variation in stats then we're going to need assists to be more effective than +1 ST, since there'll be a larger range to cover.

I'd like the skills to be more evenly balanced than currently to encourage some genuine diversity in skill selection and between teams of the same race.

I doubt anyone will argue against that. I'd like to expand the range off skills slightly too, particularly with regards to 'positioning' skills (in the vein of grab/sidestep/shadowing/passblock)

I suppose i'm aiming for evolution rather than revolution, although i'd like to see enough change that it would be worthy of being a new edition.

I'm going for 'new edition' of BB rather than a whole new game, so I'm with you on that one.

Ok, now for one item you didn't mention that is important to me.

-I'd like to see a way of balancing the teams on-pitch rather than through injuries/off-pitch effects (like ageing). What I want to see is a kind of balance where all the teams have a similar chance of both winning and surviving (as a team, not individual players) any given game.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:14 pm

IMO the best approach to take now is for someone to write down their version of the expert rules. That is a "straw man". Everyone then rips it to bits - but at least there is a framework to discuss things in. I think there are 2 very divergent approaches - the New Fantasy Football & Expert BB so maybe split into 2 groups too.

Dark Lord (retired) · Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:25 pm

Well the only reason I was thinking of moving away from "Blood Bowl" was because I'd like to publish them online and I don't want any trouble from the suits.

Mordredd · Post by **Mordredd** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:10 am

If you want to avoid the scrums forming up then have you considered altering the pitch size? Make it 2-4 squares wider and 4-8 squares longer and that would really open up play. Those teams that are meant to do the big passes would then find it a lot more worth their while going for big passes.

You would of course have to seriously consider how the slower teams would be able to catch them, but it's an idea for you all to think about.

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:49 am

Dark Lord wrote:Well the only reason I was thinking of moving away from "Blood Bowl" was because I'd like to publish them online and I don't want any trouble from the suits.

"Expert BB" would be an extension to regular BB - so no different to house rules. I very much doubt GW would care about that.

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:01 am

Well that would mean that if we were to set up an online version, and GW decides to shut down all online Blood Bowl, we'd be shut down. As soon as FUMBBL looks profitable the cease-and-desist letters will come.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:34 am

Nazgit wrote:I'd want to keep everything that makes BB the game it is, and play the way it plays. We play BB for a reason - that, at its core, it is a great game. I would like to expand and evolve (as Munkey states), not start again from scratch.

To this end, I'd basically like to translate the aspects of 2nd ed that got left behind into our modern BB. The more sophisticated skills system, for example, and on-pitch magic and the like. Splitting AG into "dodging" and "passing".

As for actions, in the spirit of what I have written above, I'd like to keep the existing system. There is plenty of scope to change individual mechanisms (e.g. passing) within that. For example, as I mentioned in the other thread, harder feats could be achieved by asking a player to pass consecutive AG rolls, or an AG roll and a Passing roll.

That's my preference.

"BB for vets"

Post by **DoubleSkulls** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:34 am

FUMBBL requires its members to own a copy of the boardgame - so I think GW don't care. I suspect they see computer games as an entry mechanism to the minatures game - so are happy to tolerate it.

So long as the expert BB rules say something along the lines of LRB XXX plus all of this you'd be okay I reckon. It will sell more GW minatures after all.

Obviously the new game you wanted to write is completely free of those concerns (because it is another fantasy football game). You would need to avoid GW copyrighted items (like Skaven) but otherwise you'd be fine.

Anyway, since you haven't even written the rules yet aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself talking about online versions and copyright issues?

Pink Horror · Post by **Pink Horror** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:57 am

Yes, I am, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about it. I also still wonder what other people would do if they could start from scratch. "Expert BB" doesn't express that desire for me. The theoretical new game could be picked apart for the best stuff to put in Expert Blood Bowl. I know if I'm going to take the time to write something up, it will be a separate game. I am kind of curious about what would really set a fantasy football game apart from Blood Bowl.