Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Got some ideas for rules? Maybe a skill change or something completely different!!! Tell us here.

Moderator: TFF Mods

Snap Wilson
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:21 pm

Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Snap Wilson »

This is more just a theoretical concept, since changing the way you garner SPPs basically changes the entire game, and would require adjustments across the board because team development would be drastically different. The rules aren't changing for the foreseeable future anyway, just consider this food for thought or maybe future fodder for a burgeoning game designer out there.

I've always been fascinated with risk/reward paradigms, and I thought of an interesting way to apply it to Blood Bowl. What if you accrued SPPs for every risk you take during the game? Here's how it would work:

The risk of turnover basically comes in in two ways--you fail a d6 dice roll for some movement or agility-based feat, or you fail on block dice (and also getting called for commiting a foul or failing to bite a thrall, but let's leave those aside for a second). So imagine that every time you successfully complete an action, in addition to the reward of completing said action, the player who completed said action would be rewarded with SPPs. The number of points rewarded would be equivalent to the difficulty of the action.

You would get 1 SPP for every chance of failure on a six-sided die for a successful action (in which failure would result in a turnover or likely turnover, so no Hypnotic Gaze for example) you complete. 2+ = 1 SPP. 6+ = 5 SPP.

Blocking works a little different. You get SPP on block dice for knocking a player down while not causing a turnover. The number of SPPs is equivalent to the number of sides on the dice that wouldn't produce a knockdown in that particular given situation. If you are rolling multiple dice in your favor, the number of SPPs for succeeding is divided by the number of dice rolled. If you are rolling multiple dice in the opponent's favor, then the points are multiplied by the number of dice rolled.

Example: Your player has Block, the opponent doesn't have any defensive skills. You throw a two-dice block (in your favor). You get a knockdown on Both Down, Defender Stumbles and Defender Down on a single dice, so there are only three chances of failing to get a knockdown. Divide those three chances by two dice = 1.5. Round down and it means you get 1 SPP.

Example 2: You are making a desperation 1D block against a blodgy player. He will only go down on Defender Down, which you managed to roll. There were 5/6 chances he would stay on his feet, divided by 1 dice = 5 SPP. And if you accomplished the same rolling three block dice against it would be worth 15 points (and frankly, you would deserve them!)

For rolls that are accomplished using a Team Re-Roll or a skill reroll, you figure out the SPPs as normal and then divide by two (rounding down).

Clear as mud? A few clarifications:
  • No SPPs for rolls for breaking armor (as on fouls or piling on, etc.). Although it technically can result in a turnover, no points for chainsaw attacks. No points for rolls where failure can't result in a turnover (Stab, Hypnotic Gaze, catching the kick-off, throw-ins, bouncing balls, etc.). Your player doesn't take risks, he doesn't get SPPs, pure and simple (with one exception, noted below).
  • No SPPs for knockdowns on blocks made against you. You only get points on rolls you make.
  • No SPPs for crowd-surfing someone, as much fun as that is. You only get points for knockdowns that occur on the pitch.
  • A player throwing a pass needs to have his receiver catch it for him to get SPPs. He does not get SPPs for a player catching an inaccurate pass. The catcher still gets SPPs for it, though.
  • In regards to throwing a team-mate, the thrower doesn't gain any SPPs. The player being thrown would gain points for a successful landing, but only if he was holding the ball.
  • The one exception to the only-turnover-actions rule: You would get SPPs for making a successful interception, based on the chance of success to make said interception.
Obviously this means the SPP levels for advancement would have to be raised significantly, but what I like about this is the distribution would veer to the players that actually do productive things on the field. Imagine a receiver catching a ball in traffic, making two dodges to get free, going for it twice to hand it off to a player who waltzes into the end zone. Which guy deserves more of a reward for that? Exactly.

The other interesting facet would be that coaches who take more risks (and who generally aren't as good) would get help a little faster. Low-risk coaches who play smart with positioning would develop slower but wouldn't need the help as much.

That's the concept. Tell me what you think.

Reason: ''
Snap Wilson
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:21 pm

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Snap Wilson »

Looking at the above, I figure it's just easier to list the things you do get rerolls on:

1. Making a successful dodge out of an opposing player's tackle zone.

2. Making a successful GFI.

3. Making a successful Leap.

4. Making a knockdown of an opposing player on a block thrown by you (while not committing a turnover).

5. Successfully picking up the ball.

6. Throwing an accurate pass (of the ball) that is caught by the intended player without bouncing.

7. Catching an accurate or inaccurate pass (of the ball) thrown from your own team-mate during your turn, whether or not you were the intended recipient.

8. Receiving a hand-off.

9. Intercepting a pass (of the ball) from an opposing player.

10. Completing a successful landing after being thrown (if you are holding the ball).

Basically the idea is to reward productive, involved players on the pitch, rather than the almost arbitrary way points are delegated now. Guys who throw lots of blocks would skill up more quickly and consistently as would ball-handlers. The majority of points wouldn't go primarily to guys who just scored touchdowns or randomly got MVP awards.

Reason: ''
neverworking
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:17 am
Contact:

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by neverworking »

everything else aside....bookkeeping nightmare that will make the game too tedious to be fun

Reason: ''
Snap Wilson
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:21 pm

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Snap Wilson »

neverworking wrote:everything else aside....bookkeeping nightmare that will make the game too tedious to be fun
Yeah, I can see that. With the gaming swiftly moving into the digital age, these things are easily calculable by the software. Even with pen and paper, it's not that hard. Just have a piece of paper with everyone's number on it and mark the points next to the number when they accrue. I've practiced during a few games, and it's pretty smooth, but I can understand people not wanting to do that.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Darkson »

The fact that the Experience system was shot down because it needed a whole one (one!) extra dice per payer at the end of a match, and the filling in of one box on a roster sheet should tell you how this suggestion will fair.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
User avatar
yggdrasil
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:24 am

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by yggdrasil »

While the system is novel and could be very interesting, I have two issues with it.

The first being the aforementioned bookkeeping. Sure, if you are committed to the system, I am sure it would be fun to use. But having to sit and do a calculation and award SPP *every time* I make a dice roll for the *entire game*? That sounds like the most tedious and pace-killing way of slowing the game down I can imagine.

The second being that it sounds like it would concentrate SPP specifically on the best players and nobody else. I personally really like that the MVP award is random, for example, because it makes team development more interesting that even if you only score with the same player every drive, other players will get *some* SPP too. Removing the award for completed pass and so on would take the SPP game more in the opposite direction. Probably many people would like this - I often hear people wanting to award the MVP by choice specifically because they don't like the random method - but it's not for me.

Reason: ''
Snap Wilson
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:21 pm

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Snap Wilson »

Thoroughly understand on the bookkeeping front. Not something people would want to do, although I've playtested it a few times and its really not that bad.

Typical notation looks like this

1: 2D 1D 1C = 4
2: 2P = 2
3: 2B 2B = 4
etc.

The first number being the player's number, the number of points and then the letter signifying what was done. D for Dodge, P for Pass, C for Catch, B for Block, whatever. And after a while, the math becomes automatic. Blocks are 4 points. You have Block and they don't (or you have Wrestle)? Subtract one. They have Dodge and you don't have Tackle? Add one. Then divide by # of dice thrown and round down.

But yes, I totally understand people not wanting to keep notes. This is more in line for software where such calculations could be programmed in.

Yggdrasil: I'm with you on the selected MVP. I don't like it. I just don't like the random MVP, either. :)

And honestly, it wouldn't necessarily concentrate on your best players. It's easier for the foot soldiers to gain SPPs this way. A two-dice block without Block will get you 2 SPPs on a knockdown with only a 1/9 risk of turnover. Non-block actions that gain 2 SPPs have a 1/3 risk of turnover. You want to skill up that lineman, just take a little risk with him and toss in a few extra blocks at the end of a turn.

Reason: ''
User avatar
yggdrasil
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:24 am

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by yggdrasil »

I see what you mean about the grunts getting SPP more effectively. I guess my reaction before stems from the fact that when it comes to blocking, it seems like this method is less random than the old method of gaining SPP (ie. causing casualties). For example, a few games ago my opponent had a dwarf/werewolf/halfling team, and one of his halflings managed to kill one of my players, much to our amazement. Using the normal SPP system, he got the points and reputation from that kill, whereas with the proposed system, he would only receive points for the block, not the kill, and his points would drown in the sea of points that all the dwarfs would have gotten from all their successful blocks (even though none of them happened to result in casualties).
I'm sure you know what I mean. I do think your system is interesting, and could work very well in computer-based play.

Reason: ''
Chris
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 1:18 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Chris »

For a computer based game it would be doable - however I make mistakes recording the current system!

Reason: ''
User avatar
Darkson
Da Spammer
Posts: 24047
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: The frozen ruins of Felstad
Contact:

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Darkson »

Chris wrote:For a computer based game it would be doable -
Agreed, but as BB is first and foremost a TT game, it needs to be a system that can be easily used TT.

Reason: ''
Currently an ex-Blood Bowl coach, most likely to be found dying to Armoured Skeletons in the frozen ruins of Felstad, or bleeding into the arena sands of Rome or burning rubber for Mars' entertainment.
Snap Wilson
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:21 pm

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Snap Wilson »

Darkson: I agree, although I think that Blood Bowl changes on the environment that it's in, which is one of the reasons for house rules. Most of the digital versions don't make you move your turn marker. The Cyanide game isn't quite the tabletop game (not necessarily by intent, granted) and thus the balance and style of play are different.

And as I said at the outset, I'm not necessarily seriously advocating this as a sweeping rule change, since the method you acquire SPPs would create a seismic shift in the game, and all that playtesting that led to the CRP would go out the window. If Black Orcs or Flesh Golems can suddenly level up faster, how does that change their respective teams? (Honestly, I suspect this method would favor blocking teams a bit too much, but that's what playtesting is for). This is more just conceptual theorizing.
yggdrasil wrote:I see what you mean about the grunts getting SPP more effectively. I guess my reaction before stems from the fact that when it comes to blocking, it seems like this method is less random than the old method of gaining SPP (ie. causing casualties). For example, a few games ago my opponent had a dwarf/werewolf/halfling team, and one of his halflings managed to kill one of my players, much to our amazement. Using the normal SPP system, he got the points and reputation from that kill, whereas with the proposed system, he would only receive points for the block, not the kill, and his points would drown in the sea of points that all the dwarfs would have gotten from all their successful blocks (even though none of them happened to result in casualties).
I'm sure you know what I mean. I do think your system is interesting, and could work very well in computer-based play.
Yeah, there is something lost in commemorating the randomly cool events that can happen, I agree, but just for the points, your Halfling kill get lost in the sea of Dwarf Badly Hurts as well, you could say. I think it's made up for, to some degree, for getting those five points for the crazy desperation long bomb you threw to pull out a win at the end of the game or the time you kamikaze'd into that troll for 8 SPPs and managed to take him down (and really, wouldn't you feel bad giving him "Kick" after that?)

Reason: ''
dodolulu
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:09 am
Location: Europe

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by dodolulu »

blocking is already one of the safest actions in the game thx to the 2 to 3 dices with a possible reroll. i dont think you should get easy spp for a succesful block or other lowrisk actions. successful actions tend to improve your play, so you would get double the bonus.

you learn more from errors than from succesful actions, so i think it would be better and a far more comfortable system to use if you get spp for failed actions. failed actions lead to turnovers most of the time, so you would have to calculate the spp just at the end of your turn.
earned spp should be proportional to the chance of failing. a 2d block with a blockplayer should reward less spp than a failed pick up with khemri. downside would be the large range of spp to cover between a 3d block with block and a -3d without block.

Reason: ''
Snap Wilson
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:21 pm

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by Snap Wilson »

dodolulu wrote:you learn more from errors than from succesful actions, so i think it would be better and a far more comfortable system to use if you get spp for failed actions. failed actions lead to turnovers most of the time, so you would have to calculate the spp just at the end of your turn.
That's a fascinating twist on it and much easier bookkeeping, but it would be strange to have your SPPs going to the guy who screws up the most. Also, I imagine it would lead to people doing crazy things like doing tons of GFIs with players who are far out of the action simply trying to cause a turnover in order to get their guys SPPs.

Reason: ''
dodolulu
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:09 am
Location: Europe

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by dodolulu »

while i wouldnt mind giving the lame ducks the spp ive also thought about the weird actions and spp-farming when one has already the advantage, like pickung up the ball with the big guy, while not going to take a real risk.
maybe you could give spp for certain failed actions only to certain players eg failed ballhandling only to guys with catch/pass thus passing/agility access and no spp at all for failed go fo its. or you could have a table of possible spp-gains for every type of player, say runner, blocker, lineman, blitzer,etc. because a blocker has other tasks to improve in than a catcher.
maybe spp-gain for failed actions that lead to armourrolls should be proportional to failingchance and antiproportional to av, since going down is riskier with just tissue on than with plate.
maybe that would be all too complicated again to be an improvement over the actual situation :)

Reason: ''
User avatar
yggdrasil
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:24 am

Re: Risk-based SPP advancement (with clearer explanation)

Post by yggdrasil »

I agree that players taking actions just for the sake of getting SPP if they succeed is something I really wouldn't want to enable too much. Currently it is quite difficult to do since most of the ways of getting SPP are either something you want to do to win the game anyway (scoring, causing casualties) or rely on your opponent doing something (interceptions). The only time I've seen a coach doing something pointless just for the SPP was someone passing the ball for no reason just before they were about to score, in order to get the completed pass bonus - and even that carries a risk of dropping the ball, then being unable to pick it up again and losing the touchdown.

If a player got SPP for successfully dodging, it would result in players dodging around for no in-game reason other than trying to get SPP, which would be a bad thing for the game in my view.

Reason: ''
Post Reply