Mixed Success

Well I’ve had a good day’s worth of gaming and writing, with Eternal Battles doing mostly what I wanted it to. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for the poll I was going to upload for you guys to play with, so that’ll have to wait a bit.

I’ve also been playing about with the team stats for DreadBall Season 2, and they’re almost all ready for playtesting. Originally I was going to kick them out in dribs and drabs as the original 4 are a good backdrop to play against, but I’ve changed my mind and am going with another batch of 4. Of course, they do have to match up to the first lot, and that’s going to be a challenge. I think we’re pretty close though.

The Season 2 MVPs are about half way there and the cheerleader rules are done. Coaches are getting there, but haven’t arrived yet so I’m hanging onto that for a bit longer. Wouldn’t want to send it out half-baked 😉

So actually, it’s all going swimmingly apart from that pesky poll.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Random Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Mixed Success

  1. Lee says:

    Well, we could always respond in the comments to your poll question….

    Glad to hear that EB is rolling along, looking forward to seeing more on that, but I have to admit that I am really excited to hear about Season 2 as well. Out of curiosity, do you have a mini design brief in mind for the distinct playing styles you’re trying to capture with each team? Congrats on a productive day(alas mine are few and far between!), Can’t wait to see what all you have in store!

    • Quirkworthy says:

      I thought of just asking, but a poll would be so much easier, and it should work…

      I don’t usually write a formal brief for teams. I do, however, work on them having a distinct theme and style of play, which is a similar notion on a smaller scale. That generally gets nailed down fairly early in the proceedings, and then it’s a case of making sure that everything works to underline and promote that central idea.

  2. Monkey's Blood says:

    Out of interest which periods have you been monkeying (ho ho) about with for EB today?

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Mostly a sort of generic medieval/ancient, to look at hand to hand combat and the interactions of different units. Last time was wild west. Tomorrow we’ll be the same as today (to see how some tweaks affect play), plus probably some WWII if I get a minute to write the stats for the weapons (insofar as they have them).

  3. Monkey's Blood says:

    Excellent. I’d be keen to give wild west skirmishes a go, it’s a period I’ve never dabbled in. Have you tried applying it to fantasy or sci fi settings?

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Not specifically. However, fantasy is just medieval with magic and funny races (most of the time), and SF is similarly modern combat with odd weapons and perhaps an alien or two. Gross oversimplifications, obviously, but in order to cover everything you have to start by panning way back and looking at the similarities. Details get added on as you zoom back in (with the Settings). Of course, almost all fantasy and science fiction is transposed history anyway, so starting with history makes sense.

      So no, I’ve not looked at SF&F specifically, but I’m entirely sure they’ll work 🙂

      • Monkey's Blood says:

        Vehicles would be an interesting point for sci-fi too. Actually it would be relevant for a number of settings, such as jeeps in a WWII game or buggys in Mad-Max style skirmish thing.

        • Quirkworthy says:

          And elephants in Ancients, and monsters in fantasy. Lots to do.

          However, on the scale of a 28mm skirmish vehicles are less critical and often overpowerful (in real life as well as in games). Stick a single armoured vehicle of any type on one side and the opposition are in major trouble. If you give them the gear to kill the vehicle easily then why have it to start with, and if not then it will probably romp about with impunity and maul them horribly? It’s very, very hard to balance.

          Best avoided? I’m not sure. I’ll concentrate on finishing the infantry/cavalry core first and think on it while I do so.

  4. tornquistd says:

    What does EB use to resolve combat D6? Cards? or perhaps something innovative with colored sticks that you drop in a pile like GW’s systems? 🙂

    • Quirkworthy says:

      D6. I could have used something more exotic just for show – it’s not really necessary though. At least not here. One format which I do quite like is using the full set of polyhedra, but it’s been done quite a bit and is not very flexible so I left it for another day and another game. D6 are familiar and unthreatening to people – even neophytes – and they are wonderfully mutable in their use. You can do the same thing with any type of dice, naturally. I just don’t feel the need to use anything different here.

      • tornquistd says:

        Nothing wrong with D6 at least people out in the sticks can get them without a problem.

      • Chris says:

        Really? I have only seen that F1 racing game that the NAF president keeps tucked away for special occasions use multiple different dice well. Indeed it has a D30 🙂 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_D_(board_game)
        Tell a lie, funnily enough a MB game Battleball http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6795/battleball had a fun multi dice mechanic, each player type had a diffferent dice that controled movement – the number you rolled was the speed you could go. THe same dice was rolled for combat, with the lowest winning an opposed die roll, so a d20 runner went fast but a d6 blocker if he could get in contact would normally knock him out!

        I do find d6’s somewhat restrictive, yes I know the arguement that it encourages better design etc still I remain enamoured with the Babylonian D12 🙂 (Obviously you don’t get d60’s in any sane world.)

        • Quirkworthy says:

          Forumla De is one example, Stargrunt II (which is very good, by the way) is more the kind of thing I’m thinking of. Shootist works the same general way, as do (IIRC) the Ambush Alley games. Essentially you have a stat which corresponds to a given dice type, and modifiers move that dice type up or down (more of fewer sides on the dice to be rolled). The number you need for success remains fixed.

          So, for example, if my stat says I get a D8 for a shot I might get a D10 if it was particularly easy, and a D6 or even a D4 if the target was fleeting, in cover or otherwise harder than normal to hit. All the time trying to roll a 4+ for success, regardless of what dice I actually end up rolling. It’s a neat little mechanic.

          Using a single type of polyhedra is far less restrictive in my view. You can add them together to create interesting bell curves, pick the best of rolls, use re-rolls, add modifiers, and so on. D6s are far more ubiquitous than any other shape, and therefore both easier to find and less off-putting for the timid.

          I’m curious as to why you find D6s “somewhat restrictive”. Please don’t say that they have less sides than D12s.

          Oh, and I haven’t heard of a credible argument for D6s encouraging “better design” than using any other single type of polyhedra. Enlighten me please. As far as I can see you can use all the same rule mechanics on a D8 as you can on a D6.

  5. Monkey's Blood says:

    I eagerly await the first wargame that resolves combat by a throwing darts at a specially customised board…

    • Quirkworthy says:

      This was my fall back option if the D6 system hadn’t worked.

      • Kevin Wesselby says:

        Hi.If dice are used in a purley deterministic way.Eg fixed chance of sucess and fixed dice size.Then the larger the number of sides in the dice means greater granulation of results.However if you use dice in a non deterministic way.Eg stat comp opposed rolls etc.Then any dice size works just as well. Jake probably normaly using dice in many ways to achive the desired effect as normal practice.Others may see deterministic use as normal.So bigger dice or clever tricks

        • Kevin Wesselby says:

          Sorry about the poor post.My computer died.Trying to type on my phone.Hope it made some sense!

        • Quirkworthy says:

          Yup, phones can be tricky. They make keypads tiny and cute, but fingers don’t go that small.

          If you weren’t able to use anything other than a straight roll of a single dice then obviously you get more granularity from a larger number of sides (so it’s D100 or bigger all the way). However, why would you limit yourself to that? It’s like trying to build a car with only flat sheets. No bending now – that would be cheating!

  6. Kevin Wesselby says:

    Thanks for understanding my post.If you only play 40k then using dice in a deterministic way seems like the only way!(lol.)Thats the difference.You dont see using any of the many resolution methods avialble as hard work.Just normal practice.Thats why dice size is not a big issue for you,as it is for some..Hoping my pc retuns before my phone meets the same fate as Tommy the talking toaster in Red Dwarf…

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Doesn’t 40K still use 2D6 for leadership rolls. Are there no modifiers any more for any of the dice rolls? I think there may be a bit more in there than purely “deterministic” rolls if you have a close look.

  7. kevin Wesselby says:

    Lots of people posting on rules development think using a D10 instead of a d6 is the only way to improve granularity!
    If there is a fixed chance of sucess ,(Ld ,to hit, to wound, etc.)And the single dice roll,(even if its multiple dice,) determines sucess or failure.The dice is used in a deterministic way.
    Adding limited modifiers does not stop it from being deterministic use of dice.

    Opposed rolling, stat comparison ,etc all use dice in a non deterministic way.Which 40k does not use.(AFAIK.)
    Unless my definition is off?. ..(I often tend to apply logic to language which no one else does….)

    • Quirkworthy says:

      Replacing D6s with D10s does add granularity of a sort.

      My thought about 40K was that it used 2D6 and therefore had a bell curve, not just simple numbers.

      I wouldn’t have used the term “deterministic” at all, so I’ve no comment on whether it’s correct or not other than it was understandable in context.

  8. kevin Wesselby says:

    I was not saying using larger dice size does not improve granularity.Just that there are lots of other options,as you know.
    A bell curve simply alters the distribution of results.So it delivers irregular steps in results. it is not the simplest of numbers , but not that much more difficult…

    I look forward to seeing what mechanics and resolution methods you use in Eternal battles…

    ..

  9. E°r°i°c°k, alias Silence Indigo says:

    About Season 2 teams… any chance we might get a global idea of how the teams are going to play out, even if only in broad terms? 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s