Not judging by the poll. It's pretty clear that shorter games has a reasonable support base.
Hmm. Well, sure you interpret the results that way, but that's because you defined "3 hours" as "no change." As most people here have stated, however, the average game of Blood Bowl takes 2-3 hours.
So! IF you want to put stock in a poll of 39 coaches, here's another interpretation of the poll results:
* NO CHANGE: 28
* MAKE IT SHORTER: 9
* MAKE IT LONGER: 2
Interpreted in such a fashion, it's clear that the time spent playing the game doesn't require much change.
The real issue here, I think, is how you - you, me, the coach annoying either of us by taking too much time to play his turn - can consistently play the game closer to the 2-hr mark than the 3-hr mark. And that has less to do with game mechanics, I think, than with preparation and planning.
For example, I often print all rosters up in duplicate before going out to play Blood Bowl. I also encourage coaches to arrange matches ahead of time, to have their minis ready to go, and to review their roster and their opponent's roster prior to game play. I also print game sheets that they can use to fill out the pre-game and post-game rolls in a tidy manner. I coordinate the dinner plans, making sure we have pizza and wings and pop set to arrive early. And I encourage them to show up at a pre-arranged time, on time, every time.
This preparation might seem like a lot of work, but it pays off rather handsomely. Our games are almost always in the 2-2.5 hr range. We can get two games in more often than not. And we didn't have to change a single thing about the game to do it.
There's no magic bullet that will slay time. Coaches need to cooperate to chip away at it.
-Chet
Speeding up the game.
Moderator: TFF Mods
-
Acerak
- Rulz Guru
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
- Location: Amherst, NY
- Contact:
-
Dangerous Dave
- Super Star
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
- Location: Surrey
-
Acerak
- Rulz Guru
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
- Location: Amherst, NY
- Contact:
-
neoliminal
- Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
- Posts: 1472
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
- Location: Utrecht
- Contact:
-
Pink Horror
- Emerging Star
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
Shortening the Game
I'd like a shorter game too, if it was equally enjoyable. I don't play with the clock at all now, and the game goes by in the 3 hours a "normal" game should take. I play through my turns methodically, so I rarely take more than 4 minutes anyway, but my opponents are slower. I often mess up my positioning, but I've been lucky about how often that's been exploited.
I could use shorter games I like the league management aspect of the game - tracking stars, ranking teams, all that stuff. Also, the three other people I normally get to play against don't own boards. If the other two guys happen to be around, they have to wait.
I'm wary about game-shortening methods because I don't like the clock (I'd prefer the game to naturally be short) and I fear reducing the length of the game with one tweak might accidently create a time-vaccuum that would be filled with other aspects of the game. These are the six basic tasks I can think of that take up the turn:
* thinking
* referencing
* measuring
* declaring
* randomization
* manipulation
I think declaring actions can go away. We'd make big guys a little better, and give blitzing a little more freedom, but other than that the game can be sped up a slight amount by removing any verbal cues you have to give your opponent. Streamlining the mechanics to remove declarations would help a lot.
Referencing is a tough one. Veterans can lay the rulebooks aside during the game, but the team rosters often have to be checked when experienced teams play each other. I once thought about giving the minis little flags, but I didn't like the way my prototype looked. Simplified player advancement could be the answer. Then again, everyone who wants shorter turns to get in more team development would hate the change.
Randomization could use a little work, but it's about as simple as it should be now. If you made catching a bouncing ball easier, it would stop faster. Throw-ins might be able to be changed. Moving all the casualty rolls to the end of the game could help, but then you'd be making the apothecary weaker (or more powerful, if you move him to the end of the game too).
Counting squares always consumes a noticeable amount of our turns. The passing ruler can slow a turn down when we're examining the board for whether or not a go-for-it makes a difference, or if we're trying to figure out whether or not a defender is "between" the passer and receiver.
Manipulation of the actual miniatures usually can't be avoided, but I wish my opponent would just start his turn sometimes while I turn all the players back around at the end of my own turn.
Thinking is the hardest time-consumer to squash. You have to remove options. Maybe if everyone moved in straight lines we'd spend less time thinking? Could assists be simpler (double-checking assists is a common time-waster)? Making the action order easier to decide (either with a specific order, or by eliminating turnovers) could reduce thinking time. I was thinking about using the randomizer chits for deciding player order. Dump them all in a mug for each drive (and dump them back in once everyone on your side moved). Or, you could use a mug for individual turns, with only your own team in there.
Trimming the game down to half its length will require several fundamental changes. I think keeping the essence of Blood Bowl intact is possible, but you won't be playing the same game.
Pink Horror
I could use shorter games I like the league management aspect of the game - tracking stars, ranking teams, all that stuff. Also, the three other people I normally get to play against don't own boards. If the other two guys happen to be around, they have to wait.
I'm wary about game-shortening methods because I don't like the clock (I'd prefer the game to naturally be short) and I fear reducing the length of the game with one tweak might accidently create a time-vaccuum that would be filled with other aspects of the game. These are the six basic tasks I can think of that take up the turn:
* thinking
* referencing
* measuring
* declaring
* randomization
* manipulation
I think declaring actions can go away. We'd make big guys a little better, and give blitzing a little more freedom, but other than that the game can be sped up a slight amount by removing any verbal cues you have to give your opponent. Streamlining the mechanics to remove declarations would help a lot.
Referencing is a tough one. Veterans can lay the rulebooks aside during the game, but the team rosters often have to be checked when experienced teams play each other. I once thought about giving the minis little flags, but I didn't like the way my prototype looked. Simplified player advancement could be the answer. Then again, everyone who wants shorter turns to get in more team development would hate the change.
Randomization could use a little work, but it's about as simple as it should be now. If you made catching a bouncing ball easier, it would stop faster. Throw-ins might be able to be changed. Moving all the casualty rolls to the end of the game could help, but then you'd be making the apothecary weaker (or more powerful, if you move him to the end of the game too).
Counting squares always consumes a noticeable amount of our turns. The passing ruler can slow a turn down when we're examining the board for whether or not a go-for-it makes a difference, or if we're trying to figure out whether or not a defender is "between" the passer and receiver.
Manipulation of the actual miniatures usually can't be avoided, but I wish my opponent would just start his turn sometimes while I turn all the players back around at the end of my own turn.
Thinking is the hardest time-consumer to squash. You have to remove options. Maybe if everyone moved in straight lines we'd spend less time thinking? Could assists be simpler (double-checking assists is a common time-waster)? Making the action order easier to decide (either with a specific order, or by eliminating turnovers) could reduce thinking time. I was thinking about using the randomizer chits for deciding player order. Dump them all in a mug for each drive (and dump them back in once everyone on your side moved). Or, you could use a mug for individual turns, with only your own team in there.
Trimming the game down to half its length will require several fundamental changes. I think keeping the essence of Blood Bowl intact is possible, but you won't be playing the same game.
Pink Horror
Reason: ''
-
mrinprophet
- Star Player
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Nice post Pinky.
As a coach who doesn't get to play nearly enough on the tabletop, I find two areas time-consuming. The first is deciding the # assists in a scrum. Throw in guard on a few guys and it can take me a minute or two alone just to figure out how many die to throw. I haven't played dwarves for that reason! Second is keeping track of the opponents roster. I can have it in front of me but I often have to look at the fig to determine is that #3 or #8. That is why I love PBEM so much. Assists are figured automatically and if I want to know an opponents skills I just move the mouse.
As a coach who doesn't get to play nearly enough on the tabletop, I find two areas time-consuming. The first is deciding the # assists in a scrum. Throw in guard on a few guys and it can take me a minute or two alone just to figure out how many die to throw. I haven't played dwarves for that reason! Second is keeping track of the opponents roster. I can have it in front of me but I often have to look at the fig to determine is that #3 or #8. That is why I love PBEM so much. Assists are figured automatically and if I want to know an opponents skills I just move the mouse.
Reason: ''