A new Big Guy/Negatrait approach

Skummy · Post by **Skummy** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:46 pm

Circular_Logic wrote:That´s my understanding of a negatrait. Noone has to roll the dice and everyone suffers equally from it.
Comment??

I like what you're trying to do, but I think Bonehead is still the least negative of the traits and I'm not sure it still needs to be. Also, the Horns of a Minotaur are wasted with this Wild Animal, and the agility of the Rat Ogre isn't used.

Munkey · Post by **Munkey** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:04 pm

I like this idea (Nazgit's, but Narkotics was almost the same anyway).

Regarding Pro Given that you need a 4+ to succeed, and a 4+ to suceed with Pro the additional chance of success is fairly low so it being a trait would be unecessary IMO.

The assisting player gives up his turn effectively to assist so a 2+ roll with Pro still costs the team.

That all said Pro is a trait now so it should all work fine regardless.

One question though, are you meaning to drop the no re-rolls for BGs part of the Big Guy skill?

narkotic · Post by **narkotic** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:24 pm

No, that still remains (only Pro, Leader and Trophy).

Circular_Logic · Post by **Circular_Logic** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:55 pm

Skummy wrote:
Circular_Logic wrote:That´s my understanding of a negatrait. Noone has to roll the dice and everyone suffers equally from it.
Comment??
I like what you're trying to do, but I think Bonehead is still the least negative of the traits and I'm not sure it still needs to be. Also, the Horns of a Minotaur are wasted with this Wild Animal, and the agility of the Rat Ogre isn't used.

Well... I thought this is how it was supposed to be. Nega-Traits in different severeness. Also I´m not too sure, if bonehead is that much worse than take-root or WA this way.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:48 pm

I think giving each big guy the same negative trait is retarded. It takes away from the flavor of the game and players. There are more creative ways to balance them out and keep them unique.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:23 am

I say get rid of the BGs as they are right now and totally redesign them from the grown up. Based too much on the original star player BGs, even though a little weaker and fewer skills, they were still too powerfull and thus the need for the stupid negtraits. Shouldn't need silly negtraits (especially when they start looking all the same) to try to balance out BGs, just redesign them so they work without them. Some BGs might loose BG status (much like BCs from 3ed to 4ed), but as long as they are more balanced and not overpowered, who cares?

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:21 pm

i think that's easier said than done. What would be your new suggestions for each?

Colin · Post by **Colin** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:19 am

I don't have a list of new BGs, but I think it might be cool to start a new thread on each BG to discuss how a new one would look like (this is what we did to hammer out our own TBB version of an ogre team and a better Underworld Creepers roster than the one in BBmag...we did ours first BTW, just didn't get it in to Andy in time). What does everyone think? Should we try it?

Shadow Monkey · Post by **Shadow Monkey** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:41 pm

While we're talking about lumping traits together, why not have the Big Guy racial characteristic also mean he has Throw Team Mate as well? And have Stunty also mean Right Stuff? I mean, if he's a Big Guy, he should be able to throw a Stunty player, right? It would really cut down on the amount of writing needed in the Skills & Traits section on the roster.

BlanchPrez · Post by **BlanchPrez** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:59 pm

I personally always liked the idea from Chet's Modest Proposal that said that a Big Guy replaced a roster position (if I recall, a specific position, like Blitzer, for example).

I also like the idea of Big Guy's earning half SPP's, but that might be too much bookkeeping.

Chris

Shadow Monkey · Post by **Shadow Monkey** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:18 pm

How about instead of Big Guys earning 1/2 SPP, how about make a different table for them? Basically, they just need more SPP to go up a level, and perhaps even a different table for making Star Player rolls?

0-10: Rookie, Rolls: None, Ageing: None
11-30: Experienced, Rolls: 1, Ageing: 3+
31-60: Veteran, Rolls: 2, Ageing 4+
61-100: Emerging Star, Rolls: 3, Ageing: 5+
101-150: Star Player, Rolls: 4, Ageing: 6+
151-200: Super-Star, Rolls: 5, Ageing: 7+
201-250: Mega-Star, Rolls: 6, Ageing: 8+
251-300: Legend, Rolls: 7, Ageing: 9+

2-7: New Skill
8: New Trait
9: MA +1
10: AG +1
11: ST +1
12: AV +1 (cannot be greater than 11)

Rolling doubles does not grant a Big Guy a new trait or anything special. An 8 must be rolled to get a new trait.

Jugular · Post by **Jugular** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:27 am

I really liked Nazgit and Circular Logic's ideas in principle, maybe not in the details. The BG negatraits need to be simplified and made more intuitive. The new WA kinda works in game but makes little sense of the concept. Personally i find the idea of a BG failing to unstun or not get up indefinately quite preposterous and instead should not be able to blitz from prone to make sense of their immense size and slowness in getting up OR they should always stun when falling over. Such a huge creature would in all probability do itself serious damage by falling over. Subsequent in game effects of being a little dim are well described by earlier ideas by either having to pass tests or only having certain options available. To fit in with Grumbledook's mantra on moving the game away from the luck aspect and more toward skillful play with less than perfect players, I currently plumb for circ's ideas.
However, l don't like the Take Root suggestion. Maybe because it doesn't seem to make sense to me. I actually think Treemen of all the Big Guys need the most rethinking. Take Root could be both a negatrait and positrait in one. A random idea that just sprung into my head is this.
Take Root: Player cannot blitz. Player has no TZ. Player may choose at the start of a turn to 'take root'. The player then binds all adjacent players and itself to the pitch (and regains TZ). The player gains the skill tentacles (against friend and foe!) but may not move for the rest of the drive. If the player is knocked down for any reason during this time the player is immediately SI'd. Roll on Sigurd Injury Table. Player may make blocks while rooted.
Please feel free to flame this quite ridiculous idea but i thought I'd try it nonetheless.
Otherwise though I thought circular logics ideas to be really great. Some might have trouble with Really Stupid in the online situation but other than that I felt they were suitably negative enough.

Jugular · Post by **Jugular** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:03 pm

Wow you guys must either be shocked into silence at my brilliance or its not even worth a flame...Amazing, I wonder if i can manage a repeat performance........

Joemanji · Post by **Joemanji** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:26 pm

People tend not to pay much attention to old topics that have a post added after a period of nothing. Especially not in New Concepts, which can be pretty quiet at the best of times...

But yes, your idea is silly.

gken1 · Post by **gken1** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 5:05 pm

i still think a take rooted player should have a tackle zone...he can swing those friggen branches at people.