stej
Joined: Jan 05, 2009
|
 Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 10:34 |
 
|
I was pondering, how would a game of bloodbowl play out if both players knew the results of all their own dice rolls and the order they would come in before the match began?
Would it be an interesting game as you could do more spectacular plays given you have a string of 6's coming up. Would it be still a bit random as you don't know what rolls your opponent has?
Turnovers would clearly be significantly reduced and problems caused by bad streaks (i.e. 1,1,1,1,1,1) could be mitigated somewhat by which action is taken to fail the rolls.
Would the game descend into a player removal fest as surely one would use every dice opportunity that would result in a removal to do so?
Any thought son this as a general discussion? |
|
|
Happy_Amateur
Joined: Jan 14, 2019
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 10:46 |
|
I already know the result of my dice for any GFI or dodge roll.... |
|
|
Mattius
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 11:34 |
|
| stej wrote: | I was pondering, how would a game of bloodbowl play out if both players knew the results of all their own dice rolls and the order they would come in before the match began?
Would it be an interesting game as you could do more spectacular plays given you have a string of 6's coming up. Would it be still a bit random as you don't know what rolls your opponent has?
Turnovers would clearly be significantly reduced and problems caused by bad streaks (i.e. 1,1,1,1,1,1) could be mitigated somewhat by which action is taken to fail the rolls.
Would the game descend into a player removal fest as surely one would use every dice opportunity that would result in a removal to do so?
Any thought son this as a general discussion? |
It would be interesting, it would require a different brain to play with.
For example, I would imagine I would take teams with Bone head players so that you can soak up 1s and other bad dice results.
You can get a feel for what it would be like by playing the single player challenges on BB2. These have pre determined dice.
All in all, i think it would be funny and interesting. But basically it would be a totally different game altogether. Defense would be much much stronger than it is right now, hence I imagine scoring quickly would be the new norm. |
|
|
dolphinandrew
Joined: May 09, 2017
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 13:56 |
|
For a similar but more gamey idea:It's not uncommon in some dice games (Catan, for instance), to use a deck of cards for the dice instead. That way if, say, you're using a 2d6 deck, you might know the snake is gone.
You could also do this using a hand of cards. For instance, you have a hand of 1-6s, and you have to use all of them before reshuffling them and getting them back.
In the case of Blood Bowl, I think these would be kind of tedious. But some variations might be interesting. |
|
|
Nelphine
Joined: Apr 01, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 14:10 |
|
I think it's a very interesting idea, but I think you'd generally get timed out. For complex turns you can easily be rolling dozens of dice - trying to fit in cas can completely rearrange the dice order.
For example, imagine you see a chain of 6 6s (assuming that block dice are converted to numbers for this thought experiment).
If you use that as a 2d block, then that is the block, the armor, and the injury roll. (But not yet the injury result!)
However if you do a different action first, say something that requires a Dodge and GFI, and then a different 3d block, then your whole turn is changed.
Turns where you have 4+ blocks and you wish to do multiple other dice roll actions (for instance, 10+ GFI attempts!!) completely change the results based on the order. Got a pair of one's coming up? You want to arrange your actions so the ones are eaten on the blocks. But if the armor roll eats them, then you lose 2 dice rolls as there is no injury check which changes how many dice your turn is using.
This all means usually you'll find one 'path' through the dice rolls that works, but it's very probable it won't be optimal. And trying to improve that path will simply take far too long.
It would be interesting, but as mentioned it would be another game. Instead of trying to play to fend off the dice, the best players are those who can see optimal paths quickly, allowing for 6+ dodge double pow (-2d) attempts while still maintaining their overall position. |
|
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 14:15 |
|
I would not like a deterministic BB, but that said, it already happened.
BB1 had a dice predictor hack who allowed to know in advance the sequence of dice roll (the vulnerability was caused by the RNG seed not being server-side but client-side, that allowed the hack to predict the dice rolls pre-generated at the start of the game).
Instead I'd like a dice system based on d8 (used for block dice and agility tests) to reduce the chance of automatic success/failure (automatic failure would be 1 and automatic success would be 8 ) and to make modifiers more important.
That would reduce the chance of a bad streak of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 as well and the ridiculous situation where a ST 5 player is knocked down with -2d block by a ST 3 player. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 15:17 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: |
Instead I'd like a dice system based on d8 (used for block dice and agility tests) to reduce the chance of automatic success/failure (automatic failure would be 1 and automatic success would be 8 ) and to make modifiers more important. |
D8 is a horrible shape. 
You may as well go the whole hog and move to D20.
| MattDakka wrote: |
That would reduce the chance of a bad streak of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 as well and the ridiculous situation where a ST 5 player is knocked down with -2d block by a ST 3 player. |
Some people would consider that "stripping the fun out of the game".
You could design if yu wish though. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 15:27 |
|
D20 would require too many modifiers for a tabletop game like BB, otherwise, if we want to nitpick, a D100 would be better (or even D6, but rolling more than 1 or 2d6 to improve the distribution).
I already designed a D8 system, I can't design people to play with my rules.
The people consider it stripping out the fun of the game would be better playing with a flip coin based system then, heads always succeeds, tails always fails.
That would give them more fun. |
|
|
Zlefin
Joined: Apr 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 16:59 |
|
In the past I've considered designs for a deterministic bloodbowl (or close to it), not based on the roles being pre-determined, but instead based on various actions/decisions having a point cost, and limited points/turn.
The biggest challenge with all such systems is that optimizing play can lead to a lot of nasty nigh-exploits, or ones that seriously change the odds of situation to yield highly atypical results. If you had pre-die rolls, the top thing you'd do is look for favorable strings that would let you pull off magic plays, then go through unimportant blocks/gfis to get to those strings. It'd make things that should be very hard/risky be absolutely safe instead. It takes a lot of work to make sure a deterministic system doesn't have much in terms of exploits. |
|
|
Lorebass
Joined: Jun 25, 2010
|
This actually sounds like a neat idea for a tabletop format. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 18:32 |
|
| MattDakka wrote: | | D20 would require too many modifiers for a tabletop game like BB, otherwise, if we want to nitpick, a D100 would be better (or even D6, but rolling more than 1 or 2d6 to improve the distribution). |
D100 is unnecessary granularity.
| MattDakka wrote: |
I already designed a D8 system, I can't design people to play with my rules.
The people consider it stripping out the fun of the game would be better playing with a flip coin based system then, heads always succeeds, tails always fails.
That would give them more fun. |
I doubt it. They probably think is D6 is about right.
With our relatively small userbase, we'd probably have more mismatched games. Top coaches already win enough games I think. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
MattDakka
Joined: Oct 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jun 10, 2020 - 18:49 |
|
D20 is unnecessary granularity too if you want (as it seems) a system with automatic success/failure happening often enough to allow crazy plays and make happy casual coaches, so, don't bring D20 to the debate if you don't like unnecessary granularity.
A D20 system would really require many modifiers to work properly, and would make BB way harder to be learned and played as tabletop game. |
|
|
MarckusOfCamlan
Joined: Jul 20, 2017
|
| Posted:
Jun 12, 2020 - 22:35 |
|
There's a game named "Ave Cesar" where the dicesare replaced by a set of cards. You have a few cards of your pack to choose from at each time, but not all.
I think that culd do the trick. Still a little random, but much less. |
|
|
Dalfort
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jun 12, 2020 - 23:16 |
|
There was a variant rule suggested that used cards to determine player order to simulate "real-time" action, I never understood why 1 card was always removed each turn though, but then I never actually played it either so it may be very obvious once I have lol. |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
