| |
In lugnet.gaming, Alban NANTY wrote:
| |
- You only need Bricks to play, even the dices are replaced with bricks.
|
I think this is an absolutely fantastic idea! I love the concept, plus the idea
that it’s more statistically balanced. For instance, a normal 1d20 will do
something “somewhere” between 1 and 20, but the odds of a 1 are just as likely
as a 14 or a 20. In your version, you’re more likely to get a “middle number”.
I am curious if it might be more balanced to change the dice roll a bit, though.
As I’ve heard (someone else did a little research on this), a studs-sideways
roll will happen only about 27% of the time. What that means is that (for
example) a Brick Roll of 6, 7, 8, or 9 is virtually the same thing. They’re all
(on average) likely to result in a roll of 2 (actually closer to 1.62, 1.89,
2.16, and 2.43 respectively).
Essentially, it means that you’re unlikely to see very “exciting” rolls. There’s
always that faint hope that a trooper with a knife (1d6) will cut through the
wall of the fortress (1d20).
In the experimentation, a studs-down roll happened about 48% of the time-- quite
a bit more likely. It might help add a little more excitement to the game if you
counted these studs-down rolls instead of only the studs-sideways rolls. For
the above Brick Rolls of 6, 7, 8, 9, counting studs-down rolls results in an
average of 2.88, 3.36, 3.84, and 4.32 respectively, nearly doubling the “normal”
range of a result, but still keeping the “statistically balanced” rolls.
Anyway, just a comment-- I haven’t play-tested it, so I’m not really sure what
the scope of most rolls are “supposed” to be. But something to think about,
anyway.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Alban NANTY wrote:
| |
- You only need Bricks to play, even the dices are replaced with bricks.
|
I think this is an absolutely fantastic idea! I love the concept, plus the
idea that it’s more statistically balanced. For instance, a normal 1d20 will
do something “somewhere” between 1 and 20, but the odds of a 1 are just as
likely as a 14 or a 20. In your version, you’re more likely to get a “middle
number”.
|
Thanks! When I tried it I had some fun to throw the bricks and hope a good
result. And yes your are more confident in getting a good result when lauching a
lot of bricks than just launching a 1d20.
| |
I am curious if it might be more balanced to change the dice roll a bit,
though. As I’ve heard (someone else did a little research on this),
|
Really? That interests me, could you please find the reference? Maybe I could
add a page on my website with some maths and probabilities explanations on how
the system is mathematically balanced?
| |
a studs-sideways roll will happen only about 27% of the time. What that means
is that (for example) a Brick Roll of 6, 7, 8, or 9 is virtually the same
thing. They’re all (on average) likely to result in a roll of 2 (actually
closer to 1.62, 1.89, 2.16, and 2.43 respectively).
In the experimentation, a studs-down roll happened about 48% of the time--
quite a bit more likely. It might help add a little more excitement to the
game if you counted these studs-down rolls instead of only the studs-sideways
rolls. For the above Brick Rolls of 6, 7, 8, 9, counting studs-down rolls
results in an average of 2.88, 3.36, 3.84, and 4.32 respectively, nearly
doubling the “normal” range of a result, but still keeping the “statistically
balanced” rolls.
Anyway, just a comment-- I haven’t play-tested it, so I’m not really sure
what the scope of most rolls are “supposed” to be. But something to think
about, anyway.
|
Each Brick Roll is supposed to be done against another Brick Roll from your
opponent, so there’s no standard difficulty result. That means you only need one
brick more studs-sideways than your opponent to win. So a result of 1 can be
sufficient. Doing the same calculation, a Brick Roll with 3, 4 or 5 bricks will
give you a average result of 0.81, 1.08 and 1.35.
So if your brick roll use 3, 4 or 5 more bricks than the brick roll of your
opponent, on average you should win.
Thanks for giving me the chance to do this little maths. :-)
Yours.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Alban NANTY wrote:
| |
Maybe I could
add a page on my website with some maths and probabilities explanations on
how the system is mathematically balanced?
|
Finally I made this page. You can find it on my website, menu “Related Stuff” > “Game System”.
For those who want to analyse the balance of this game mechanism in detail! :-)
|
|
| |
This looks like a really neat system. The “description sheet” is very similar
to a system I’ve used (though regrettably never got around to publishing) in a
tactical dungeon game.
One refinement you might consider would be to put the minifigs onto 2x4 plates,
and keep them there as they move around the battlefield. This gives you a
consistent place to put damage markers (and mana/spirit-point markers, if you
use those).
The only thing that really bugs me about the rules is that you seem to be using
the term “hit points” backwards relative to every other game I’ve ever played.
In normal usage, HP are points you start with, and then lose as you take damage.
In your system, you start with zero HP and gain them as you take damage. I
think I would frequently forget this, and get confused during play.
But otherwise, it looks like a very sensible system. Thanks for contributing it
and writing it up so nicely — I know that’s a lot of work!
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.gaming, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
This looks like a really neat system. The “description sheet” is very
similar to a system I’ve used (though regrettably never got around to
publishing) in a tactical dungeon game.
|
Thanks!
Recently I had the chance to test it myself with a friend and I’m now really
convinced of all the fun you can get from it.
| |
One refinement you might consider would be to put the minifigs onto 2x4
plates, and keep them there as they move around the battlefield. This gives
you a consistent place to put damage markers (and mana/spirit-point markers,
if you use those).
|
Yes, this might be an idea to try. However, it may becomes more difficult to
move the minifig around. During my test, I found very convenient to just move
the minifig one stud after the other, orienting it at the same time, just by
counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...
| |
The only thing that really bugs me about the rules is that you seem to be
using the term “hit points” backwards relative to every other game I’ve ever
played. In normal usage, HP are points you start with, and then lose as you
take damage. In your system, you start with zero HP and gain them as you take
damage. I think I would frequently forget this, and get confused during
play.
|
Yes, you’re right, most of the game give health point at the begining and then
remove them during the game. It is still possible to do it in BOW with your
Heroes. At the begining of the game you can add all the Marking Bricks on top of
the HP on the Description Sheet of your Hero, then you remove them each time you
take one point of Damage.
And for the Troopers, normally they only have one point of damage so the problem
doesn’t really exist.
| |
But otherwise, it looks like a very sensible system. Thanks for contributing
it and writing it up so nicely — I know that’s a lot of work!
|
Thank you. I will soon release the version 1.2 of the rules. Nothing changed but
I rewrote some passage and add more pictures to make it easier to read.
Bye.
|
|
|
