PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy Baseball



Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 08:36 PM
We started discussing Fantasy Baseball. Like if there was a baseball version of Blood Bowl. So, let's have an official thread for it.



Last, we were discussing the problems of flying creatures being allowed to participate. Harpies as outfielders might be seriously overpowered.

But, not definitely. Harpies and other fliers aren't necessarily agile and fast enough to effectively react to the ball going high and snatch it. However, if the ball had gone high for a slow drop... then that'd be a really easy way to put the batter out. Maybe fliers don't get the benefit of that rule?

AMFV
2014-03-03, 09:05 PM
Well first I think we'd have to figure out what sort of setting we're using, if we're using a generic D20 type setting we could pull creatures from the SRD.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 09:15 PM
I don't mind using that as a basis. With a lot of things, you can break it down.

With harpies, it's one of a few possibilities:

1) A single harpy/flier, if skilled, can almost always catch the ball if it goes high. This means a team would always want to have at least one harpy outfielder, possibly more. You're also going to see the rules adjusted to avoid them being overpowered.

2) A team of harpy outfielders is required to have a good chance of catching the ball in midair. This would make it a genuine choice as to whether you should have harpy outfielders and how many. The batter could attempt to strike the ball at a lower trajectory to counter the harpies in use.

3) The fliers have such a hard time catching the ball, their flying is almost useless. They might still be usable, in that they can dive on the ball's position. If we go with this instance, it's possible this'd make them faster on reaching the ball (then problems of not being good throwers or runners could come in).

AMFV
2014-03-03, 09:16 PM
We'd also need to work all of the stats in...

Strength would how hard we could throw or how hard the ball could be hit.

Dexterity would be accuracy...

Constitution would work towards how long the player could sustain the game.

The mental stats are harder to work out.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 09:25 PM
Better to go more to the essence of it, rather than extrapolated DnD style stats.


Batting Force -- how fast and far the ball flies when you hit it.

Batting Skill -- Being able to consistently hit the ball, being able to control where it goes when you hit it.

Throwing/Pitching Power

Throwing Skill

Pitching Skill -- Putting spin on a ball, making sure it goes exactly where you want it to at the speed you want it to.

Catching Skill

Running Speed

Alertness -- This helps you to avoid foul play, and stuff like being hit by the pitcher.

Endurance


Those are the first ones that come to mind, writing them up quickly. There'd also be combat skills for when someone decides to wallop you. Later, you work out your Strength, Con, Dex and whatever, if it is useful to the system.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 09:29 PM
Well if we're using Baseball as the start we can extrapolate the statistics from standard Baseball stats.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 09:31 PM
Know where a good list of them is? I can't remember all of them.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 09:45 PM
Know where a good list of them is? I can't remember all of them.

http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=516782#gameType=%27S%27

There and you can pull up a pitcher and grab those as well.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 10:01 PM
Admittedly, one problem I see with baseball stats is that they're based off proven averages. Those aren't hard values, the same player would have much better stats if he had only gone up against bad players. They also seem to lack some statistics which might be important for a fantasy baseball game due to creatures dissimilar in those aspects. They are still very useful, of course.

I can't find the statistics on stuff like how often they hit specific types of pitches. Though, that data might be too indepth for a pen and paper game.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 10:06 PM
Admittedly, one problem I see with baseball stats is that they're based off proven averages. Those aren't hard values, the same player would have much better stats if he had only gone up against bad players. They also seem to lack some statistics which might be important for a fantasy baseball game due to creatures dissimilar in those aspects. They are still very useful, of course.

I can't find the statistics on stuff like how often they hit specific types of pitches. Though, that data might be too indepth for a pen and paper game.

Well the averages aren't always true, sometimes a player will hit worse or better, some Pitchers have an off game, and in baseball succeeding 50% of the time is pretty amazing. Hell in batting succeeding 30 percent of the time is great.

Edit: The most important factor is the strategic aspect, who to walk, what pitches to throw, how hard to play at the beginning, when to switch the pitcher out.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 10:09 PM
The more I think about this, the more I think that something like the Burning Wheel or Torchbearer type combat system would be a good bet for this. It has degree of effort and successes and such, and you could include the amount of effort that a pitcher puts into a particular set of pitches, and then have some kind of limiting factor.

Like a pitcher would roll and could spend points on pitches (to make them faster), then you'd be able to switch out for a closer or something.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 10:16 PM
I agree with your points. That's the goal, so it's just how you get there.

I prefer designing the system for the premise, but using ideas from other systems is a good idea.


As for endurance, it brings up a couple of points. Stamina of different roles, how quickly it should deplete. And time of a baseball game. Depending on how you simulate it, it may take quite a while (simulation can take much longer than actual events). And the longest baseball game went on for eight hours...

You can of course change some rules, putting hard limits on game time or the like. But depending on the level of simulation you want, that's going to effect how long a game will take.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 10:25 PM
I agree with your points. That's the goal, so it's just how you get there.

I prefer designing the system for the premise, but using ideas from other systems is a good idea.


As for endurance, it brings up a couple of points. Stamina of different roles, how quickly it should deplete. And time of a baseball game. Depending on how you simulate it, it may take quite a while (simulation can take much longer than actual events). And the longest baseball game went on for eight hours...

You can of course change some rules, putting hard limits on game time or the like. But depending on the level of simulation you want, that's going to effect how long a game will take.

Stamina is the most critical thing in baseball, it's why Amphetamines were the drug of choice for pitchers for so long, at least for pitchers stamina is the most important statistic, depleting with each pitch every inning, until they finally start to make mistakes.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 10:37 PM
OK, then the question is how is best to simulate the game.

We could do it pitch by pitch, play out each strike of three strikes you're out, for each batter. Or we could do it per batter.

I can see the advantage of pitch by pitch, more tension to it, and you can react to stuff like if the difficult pitch keeps ending up a foul, so you go for an easier pitch. A question of if there's enough gameplay and strategy to it.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 10:40 PM
OK, then the question is how is best to simulate the game.

We could do it pitch by pitch, play out each strike of three strikes you're out, for each batter. Or we could do it per batter.

I can see the advantage of pitch by pitch, more tension to it, and you can react to stuff like if the difficult pitch keeps ending up a foul, so you go for an easier pitch. A question of if there's enough gameplay and strategy to it.

Definitely pitch by pitch. At least that would be my vote, that way you can better simulate certain strategy, kind of like a sense motive check for the batter against the pitcher.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 10:43 PM
So we'd have kind of a pitcher vs. batter duel, then we'd need a way to deal with the field portion that and stolen bases, that sort of thing.

So my question is should we go for more of a wargame type feel or more of an abstracted feel?

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 10:48 PM
Yeah, I find it hard to neglect the awesome three strikes of the batter and pitcher duel.



Now, with field and running bases, the question is the strategy and gameplay of it. The batter's hit whose on which bases, and the formation of the fielders determines the situation. After that, it seems to be a series of gambles.

"I bet I Fielder A can manage this difficult pass to fielder B, so he can put out Base Runner A before he reaches Homeplate," kind of deal.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 10:55 PM
Yeah, I find it hard to neglect the awesome three strikes of the batter and pitcher duel.



Now, with field and running bases, the question is the strategy and gameplay of it. The batter's hit whose on which bases, and the formation of the fielders determines the situation. After that, it seems to be a series of gambles.

"I bet I Fielder A can manage this difficult pass to fielder B, so he can put out Base Runner A before he reaches Homeplate," kind of deal.

Well the strategy comes into play when there are more runners on base, deciding who to throw to, who can be out faster, how many outs there are left in the inning. We also have a strong degree of randomness in terms of the hitting, also we'd have the hitting for the batter, if you try for a big hit it can turn into a pop fly and then it's an easy out, if you try for a ground ball then you have to have the athleticism to back it up, bunting is also a big part of the strategy.

For the infield it's a lot more speed and reaction time, and knowing which throws you can make. Positioning and attentiveness would need to be simulated as well.

Edit: And if we want to get into the whole real strategy, we'd need to play for several seasons and include rosters and trades and stuff, which players you play and which players you rest, chance of injury, all of that.

Basically as I see it, you'd increase age, which would decrease physical stuff, increase chance of injury, but that would increase the actual skill and knowledge related aspects of the game.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:05 PM
There's the question of avoiding minmaxing. If some jobs get too specialized, you'll always find athletes of the species which are best at that one job, unless you enforce some rotation or work out the violence aspect correctly.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 11:07 PM
There's the question of avoiding minmaxing. If some jobs get too specialized, you'll always find athletes of the species which are best at that one job, unless you enforce some rotation or work out the violence aspect correctly.

Well there'd certainly be a need for rotation, I imagine that the way we could avoid "All Elves are Pitchers, All Orcs are Batters" is to make it one-time bonuses that vary by position for each race rather than generic stat bonuses. For example an Orcish batter would be able to rage, which might lower chance to hit and would increase distance, an Orc pitcher could boost speed and drop accuracy. We could have similar aspects for Elves as well.

Edit: Also I added some stuff to the previous post with the rotation and such.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:20 PM
Even without the rage buff, if the orcs are huge green muscled chaps, they would probably have some bonuses normally.

If it came to it, you could have stuff as odd as a point based system, where members of certain races in certain positions are worth more than others, with hard limits for certain tournaments and the like. That seems rather artificial, so I prefer to avoid it. Hopefully, it can be worked so that various races have enough good points in the fields that there isn't a clear optimal build (hobbits, for example, have the benefit of being extremely short, making it hard to pitch--particularly for tall creatures like trolls[?]).


I agree about the seasons and ageing. Would want to have rules for finishing a game briefly, so you can play several minor games within a session, but major games would probably take up an entire session.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 11:22 PM
Even without the rage buff, if the orcs are huge green muscled chaps, they would probably have some bonuses normally.

If it came to it, you could have stuff as odd as a point based system, where members of certain races in certain positions are worth more than others, with hard limits for certain tournaments and the like. That seems rather artificial, so I prefer to avoid it. Hopefully, it can be worked so that various races have enough good points in the fields that there isn't a clear optimal build (hobbits, for example, have the benefit of being extremely short, making it hard to pitch--particularly for tall creatures like trolls[?]).


I agree about the seasons and ageing. Would want to have rules for finishing a game briefly, so you can play several minor games within a session, but major games would probably take up an entire session.

The points based system could be pretty interesting, and that would limit the number of Orcish sluggers you could have or Elven Pitching fiends, or harpy outfielders.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:29 PM
It's not a terrible solution. If they wanted to have such different creatures playing, but wanted to mix up the roles, then it is likely to actually occur.


Elves seem like they'll be pretty overpowered. Great runners, throwers/pitchers, outfielders, and probably the most skilful batters (even if not the most powerful). They also have great lifespans (potentially immortal).


There is the question of whether a bunch of elf players would get along with a troll pitcher on their team, however. Team politics could be interesting... though I figure baseball players are professional enough to not let it get to them.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 11:32 PM
It's not a terrible solution. If they wanted to have such different creatures playing, but wanted to mix up the roles, then it is likely to actually occur.


Elves seem like they'll be pretty overpowered. Great runners, throwers/pitchers, outfielders, and probably the most skilful batters (even if not the most powerful). They also have great lifespans (potentially immortal).


There is the question of whether a bunch of elf players would get along with a troll pitcher on their team, however. Team politics could be interesting... though I figure baseball players are professional enough to not let it get to them.

Elves generally are depicted as lacking strength though and that hurts pitching and certain types of throwing, particularly all the way from the outfield to the innfield.

Edit: The point system will definitely be useful if you have a season where you need a rotation. Also a good pitcher isn't necessarily going to make a team.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:39 PM
Yeah, they sometimes get depicted as outright frail, so you could use that to balance their skill and quickness (and lack of ageing).

You could have the point cost effect reserves as well, potentially, so that you could choose between having a strong team at the beginning of the season with the risk of them wearing out, against more stable, large, and adaptable teams.

AMFV
2014-03-03, 11:41 PM
Yeah, they sometimes get depicted as outright frail, so you could use that to balance their skill and quickness (and lack of ageing).

You could have the point cost effect reserves as well, potentially, so that you could choose between having a strong team at the beginning of the season with the risk of them wearing out, against more stable, large, and adaptable teams.

Well that's a just a depth of bench thing, also saving some points to trade players is important. Since it's like baseball we'd want to have some kind of streak modifier.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:45 PM
Streak modifier?

Socksy
2014-03-04, 03:20 AM
Streak modifier?

But wouldn't Invisibility be cheating?:smallwink:

AMFV
2014-03-04, 06:15 AM
Streak modifier?

Performance in baseball tends to come in streaks, a player that gets on a roll sometimes will stay that way.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-04, 07:50 AM
Socksy: Oh no, that'd be streaking modifier. Depending on the character, it could have massive effect on the team's popularity.


A Mind Forever Voyaging: I see your point. I don't know much about why the huge streaks happen. Figured it was due to one team getting ahead of the others in training or the like, and it takes a while for the others to catch up. Since they do, a bonus might be necessary.



I was wondering about bat size. Since this game might have goblins and ogres, it makes you wonder if the bat size would change. Everyone uses the same bat regardless of who they are in baseball, I just wonder if it's the same when you have such dissimilarity.

AMFV
2014-03-04, 12:02 PM
Socksy: Oh no, that'd be streaking modifier. Depending on the character, it could have massive effect on the team's popularity.


A Mind Forever Voyaging: I see your point. I don't know much about why the huge streaks happen. Figured it was due to one team getting ahead of the others in training or the like, and it takes a while for the others to catch up. Since they do, a bonus might be necessary.


Well sometimes a team is hot, sometimes an individual player. Streaks just happen, a combination of timing and luck mostly, but they are clearly a part of the game, and should be represented.



I was wondering about bat size. Since this game might have goblins and ogres, it makes you wonder if the bat size would change. Everyone uses the same bat regardless of who they are in baseball, I just wonder if it's the same when you have such dissimilarity.

I don't think we should have an active modifier for that, this is a place where we can lose the verisimilitude I imagine, since it would make larger races inherently perfect at all of the sporting parts of baseball, and the small races would be disadvantaged, I think that losing that is a fair give from reality.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-04, 03:06 PM
Fair enough.


It may be worth thinking of the decisions you will make at various times. For instance, the batter.


Hit - A standard attempt to hit the ball, without detailed concern for where it lands. You could also try to get a homerun with a grand slam, or try to control where and how the ball lands in other ways (if there are harpies, you may want to aim low).

Bunt - It's a baseball bunt.

Don't Swing - If the pitcher's going for a foul, do this. It also makes it easier to familiarize yourself with the pitcher, giving some kind of bonus against him in future.

Rushing the Mound - Sometimes, you could try this, attacking the pitcher. This is particularly good if the pitcher is isolated, if the pitcher is very valuable to the opposing team, and if your batter's combat abilities are good enough to injure him. before the fight is broken up. The batter is likely to be disqualified, temporarily or permanently (star players with bright futures might refuse to do this).


After getting a hit, there isn't strategy until you get to first base. Then, you can decide whether to rush second, or even third (or even a homerun if you're crazy and lucky enough). Along with speed, short term and long term stamina would likely be important stats (there might be options for sprinting harder at the cost of energy?).


How does this sound for the batter?

AMFV
2014-03-04, 03:34 PM
Fair enough.


It may be worth thinking of the decisions you will make at various times. For instance, the batter.


Hit - A standard attempt to hit the ball, without detailed concern for where it lands. You could also try to get a homerun with a grand slam, or try to control where and how the ball lands in other ways (if there are harpies, you may want to aim low).

Bunt - It's a baseball bunt.

Don't Swing - If the pitcher's going for a foul, do this. It also makes it easier to familiarize yourself with the pitcher, giving some kind of bonus against him in future.

Rushing the Mound - Sometimes, you could try this, attacking the pitcher. This is particularly good if the pitcher is isolated, if the pitcher is very valuable to the opposing team, and if your batter's combat abilities are good enough to injure him. before the fight is broken up. The batter is likely to be disqualified, temporarily or permanently (star players with bright futures might refuse to do this).


After getting a hit, there isn't strategy until you get to first base. Then, you can decide whether to rush second, or even third (or even a homerun if you're crazy and lucky enough). Along with speed, short term and long term stamina would likely be important stats (there might be options for sprinting harder at the cost of energy?).


How does this sound for the batter?

It's slightly more complex than that, I think. We should have a course of events. Where the pitch is first, then the batter decides on his course of action based on how well he read the pitch, that would be more accurate to baseball, rushing the mount normally happens after a struck by pitch incident.

Then once the batter decides swing/no swing (we'd have the pitcher have a chance to hit in various zones), he'd have to decide force, since again a huge swing may get that homerun, but it could also wind up in a nice little pop fly, so the force spectrum would range from bunting (almost no force, but good if you've got somebody on third to swinging away). After that point we'd have the ball be in play and we'd have the runners (since all of the offensive players are runners at this point,) competing with the defense, and simulate the operation of the field.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-04, 08:34 PM
That's the idea. Listed the Batter's decisions first (sometimes I work in reverse). The math for the ball on a hit will be fun (have some ideas for it).

Rushing the mound would need some sort of justification mechanic. Sometimes Batters have charged it because of balls coming too close. If the sport was meant to have more casualties, then there's likely to be more room for offence. The plan of having sacrifice players, used to injure valuable pitchers who are then disqualified could be interesting.


Thinking of the choices after a hit: It'd be split into turns. Turn 1 soon as the ball is hit or someone on base makes a premature rush for the next base. The defence would decide who moves where. After that, no real strategy until someone picks up the ball, for the defence. We could consider expenditure of stamina to move faster. Once they get to the ball, or where the ball is going to land, you might have a catching roll to see if they fumble (some creatures are clumsier). After that, you decide who passes the ball to who in an attempt to put as many offence players out as possible, making throwing and catching rolls (good data on the chances of fumbles would be useful), and of course continuing to move your defenders.

For the offence, it'd be deciding whether to advance forward, to retreat back, stay in place, and whether to burn stamina(?) for each player. I sort of wonder about the offence players, if them being fully aware of the defence works out (there seem to be times when they lose track of the defence, and so get caught out or miss an opportunity).

Prematurely rushing the next base could be an interesting one to explore. Some creatures would be faster, and so have a chance of succeeding. But it would really depend on the alertness of the pitcher and the defence.


Rambled thoughts to be digested. Hope they are coherent.

AMFV
2014-03-04, 09:16 PM
That's the idea. Listed the Batter's decisions first (sometimes I work in reverse). The math for the ball on a hit will be fun (have some ideas for it).

Rushing the mound would need some sort of justification mechanic. Sometimes Batters have charged it because of balls coming too close. If the sport was meant to have more casualties, then there's likely to be more room for offence. The plan of having sacrifice players, used to injure valuable pitchers who are then disqualified could be interesting.


Thinking of the choices after a hit: It'd be split into turns. Turn 1 soon as the ball is hit or someone on base makes a premature rush for the next base. The defence would decide who moves where. After that, no real strategy until someone picks up the ball, for the defence. We could consider expenditure of stamina to move faster. Once they get to the ball, or where the ball is going to land, you might have a catching roll to see if they fumble (some creatures are clumsier). After that, you decide who passes the ball to who in an attempt to put as many offence players out as possible, making throwing and catching rolls (good data on the chances of fumbles would be useful), and of course continuing to move your defenders.

For the offence, it'd be deciding whether to advance forward, to retreat back, stay in place, and whether to burn stamina(?) for each player. I sort of wonder about the offence players, if them being fully aware of the defence works out (there seem to be times when they lose track of the defence, and so get caught out or miss an opportunity).

Prematurely rushing the next base could be an interesting one to explore. Some creatures would be faster, and so have a chance of succeeding. But it would really depend on the alertness of the pitcher and the defence.


Rambled thoughts to be digested. Hope they are coherent.

Definitely coherent, I think what we need to do is divide the play into phases and then we can have different actions that are available at different phases.

For example.

Phase 1 (Pre-Pitch)

Outfield - Move in, move out.
Infield - Move down lines or back (shortstops), stop steal.
Pitcher - Stop Steal, Throw Pitch, Signal Catcher
Catcher - Signal Pitcher

Batter - Examine Pitcher
On Base - Prepare to Steal

Management - Cycle Pitcher

Phase 2 (Pitch)

Outfield - Move in, move out, watch and observe
Infield - Observe
Pitcher - Type of Pitch, aim at different sectors (This would work towards walking or balls, pitches in different areas are more difficult to hit)
Batter - Swing, Bunt, Hold
Catcher - Attempt Catch

On Base - Steal

Phase 3 (Play)

Mr. Mask
2014-03-04, 09:45 PM
Beautifully organized summary. After that, you'd have:


Phase 3 (Play)

Outfield - Move in/out, go for ball*, pass.
Infield - Move up/down the lines, pass, stop steal.
Pitcher - Move up/down the lines, pass, stop steal.
Batter - Steal, retreat.
Catcher - Pass, stop steal.
On Base - Steal, retreat.

*: Getting the ball would depend on the map and how exactly movement works. It could just be a grid, and the rules work out the exact path of the ball. Or, it's a less detailed map in sections, and there's a little math to work out how far the ball is from the nearest outfielders within a given section.


How exactly to handle the pitcher is a little tricky. Batters have different zones they're better at dealing with, and pitchers are better with certain throws than others. That's why the indepth data of batters and pitchers as to their success rates against different throws and zones would be handy. The question is whether that data is too indepth.

Another question is how much strategy there ends up being with multiple kinds of pitches. If the setting of the game takes place after Money Ball, then professional teams will know what the most optimal pitches are per batter, and will probably continue to use those pitches. So you might simplify it into the question of whether a batter is well-rounded or has particular weaknesses, and if the pitcher can effectively make use of those weaknesses (if their weak zone at bat is your weak zone at pitch...). Another element is that if you keep using the same pitch batters can learn how to hit it. Being able to say whether you throw a curve, slow, or fast ball is pretty fun, so it'd be preferable if it could be worked into the strategy meaningfully.

AMFV
2014-03-04, 09:53 PM
Beautifully organized summary. After that, you'd have:


Phase 3 (Play)

Outfield - Move in/out, go for ball*, pass.
Infield - Move up/down the lines, pass, stop steal.
Pitcher - Move up/down the lines, pass, stop steal.
Batter - Steal, retreat.
Catcher - Pass, stop steal.
On Base - Steal, retreat.

*: Getting the ball would depend on the map and how exactly movement works. It could just be a grid, and the rules work out the exact path of the ball. Or, it's a less detailed map in sections, and there's a little math to work out how far the ball is from the nearest outfielders within a given section.


How exactly to handle the pitcher is a little tricky. Batters have different zones they're better at dealing with, and pitchers are better with certain throws than others. That's why the indepth data of batters and pitchers as to their success rates against different throws and zones would be handy. The question is whether that data is too indepth.

Another question is how much strategy there ends up being with multiple kinds of pitches. If the setting of the game takes place after Money Ball, then professional teams will know what the most optimal pitches are per batter, and will probably continue to use those pitches. So you might simplify it into the question of whether a batter is well-rounded or has particular weaknesses, and if the pitcher can effectively make use of those weaknesses (if their weak zone at bat is your weak zone at pitch...). Another element is that if you keep using the same pitch batters can learn how to hit it. Being able to say whether you throw a curve, slow, or fast ball is pretty fun, so it'd be preferable if it could be worked into the strategy meaningfully.

The other question is how much detail do we want to go into, if we go into the details as much as is possible, we'll have a game with twice as many tables as Rolemaster's Arm's Law (which might not be that bad, but it should be something we should consider).

Mr. Mask
2014-03-04, 10:06 PM
As James Portnow says, get the most bang out of your buck. The level of simulation would reflect the level which seems the most playable and interesting compared to the amount of complexity. Optional rules and expansions can of course be released, so people can customize their experience.

You can work from the most complex model then work on the simplified forms, or you can work on the simplified model and elaborate on the systems.


Largely it should be possible to have a lot of detail without too much complication. Even if there are many stats, if the way you compare stats and roll is simple and the sheets well organized, then it'd just be practice with remembering the order and where the stats are. Nevertheless we want to minimize on that, particularly since tracking the stats of a full baseball team could be irritating.


As an example of bang for buck, whether we invest in different pitches depends on how much strategy and gameplay we can get out of it for those complications.

AMFV
2014-03-05, 05:53 AM
As James Portnow says, get the most bang out of your buck. The level of simulation would reflect the level which seems the most playable and interesting compared to the amount of complexity. Optional rules and expansions can of course be released, so people can customize their experience.

You can work from the most complex model then work on the simplified forms, or you can work on the simplified model and elaborate on the systems.


Largely it should be possible to have a lot of detail without too much complication. Even if there are many stats, if the way you compare stats and roll is simple and the sheets well organized, then it'd just be practice with remembering the order and where the stats are. Nevertheless we want to minimize on that, particularly since tracking the stats of a full baseball team could be irritating.


As an example of bang for buck, whether we invest in different pitches depends on how much strategy and gameplay we can get out of it for those complications.

I agree with most of that, also in baseball adding more detail might indeed be a problem, I could certainly see the right amount of detail in the play-by-play and then incorporating an inning set up with endurance (your stats deplete by a set or random amount each inning) and then your stats deplete over total number of games player and recuperates slightly when resting occurs.

Aedilred
2014-03-05, 10:06 AM
To be honest, I think you could do a lot worse than mimic a Blood Bowl-type system for this, rather than getting bogged down in D20 mechanics. In fact you might even be able to modify those rules without too much difficulty.

A three or four-part statblock covering essential attributes, e.g:
Speed
Strength
Agility
(Armour/Toughness)

Armour might not even be necessary, although it could be an interesting bonus stat for beanballs and the like.

The rest of it would then be handled with skills which give you bonuses or rerolls to certain actions. Harpies, for instance, would get bonuses to high catches. The specifics of the gameplay would be handled by the different actions that can be taken and attached conditions. It's probably better to start with a relatively simple system and add complexity where possible, rather than try to model everything from the beginning and end up with unnecessary complexity.


As far as team selection goes, there are advantages to both mixed-race teams and single-race teams. Mixed-race teams obviously gives a better blend of abilities, but would probably quickly result in all teams looking a bit samey, with no reason to pick suboptimal players. Single-race teams result in a more varied (and characterful) experience, but you run the risk that some teams will just suck. That said, things might well balance out. The power of, say, ogres, would be offset by their lack of agility in the field. Elves would be great at fielding and pitching, and would probably have good technical control, but would struggle to get any serious distance on the ball*. Goblins, heck, they could just cheat, and get more players on the field. There's nothing inherently wrong with having some teams more challenging than others either, of course, so long as there are at least a couple of decent options out there.

*An advantage of adding a more physical element to the game is that it would balance the elves' natural superiority, of course.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-05, 12:20 PM
Systems designed from the ground up will fit and work the most cleanly.

That's a good example of basic attributes. Probably, we'll have stuff which refers more directly to the actions in baseball, with a couple of stats that double for combat.


I'd like a mixture of single race teams and mixed race teams. Hopefully this will sort itself out naturally, with the system being deep enough that optimal strategies aren't clear cut. Else point caps stopping teams from using the super-optimal builds will hopefully ensure variability. Else, we'll work something else out.

Economics could be an interesting aspect of team building. Elves might be the most optimal choice, agile, skilled, and not lacking in strength or constitution. However, if professional elf players are rare and sought for, bidding for enough of them to make a team would be astoundingly expensive, only a couple of the best teams being able to hire them (making for good boss teams). If elves were rare enough, and if their view of the sport was less profession and more a matter of honour, they might also limit your ability to use underhanded tactics or creatures they despise. This isn't to say elves should be made so powerful, but it serves as an example for how imbalance by design can work (I think there was an Extra Credits episode of that one).



A Mind Forever Voyaging: Designing it, it does seem reasonable to start from the innings then work on the system for play by play later (as you describe). There could be different styles of play for different groups, from simulation of every moment, to a few rolls per game and a focus on the career and team management, to Star Player PCs who are the focus. Aside from the focus, you could have some alternate rules, such as a pre Money Ball time of baseball when the stats of players were more unpredictable (more randomized), or a setting where Star Players (PCs and NPCs) are more powerful and common (to make for a more hero/PC/NPC orientated experience).



By this point, there's enough thought out that it may be best to start on more detailed outlines of the gameplay, then work on some of the mechanics. Non human creatures can be worked out a bit later, for now it would just be working out human players functionality within the system to make it enough like baseball. After you get the game working well enough with humans, then you can work out the fantasy aspects into it.

Fri
2014-03-06, 02:07 PM
Just saying, do you know that someone did homebrewed d20 baseball, right in this very forum?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39392

AMFV
2014-03-06, 02:14 PM
Just saying, do you know that someone did homebrewed d20 baseball, right in this very forum?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39392

It's interesting but it takes a lot of the game that isn't really random and then randomizes it, which is in my opinion a way to lose quite a bit of the good aspects of baseball.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-06, 04:05 PM
It seems there are important aspects missing. I didn't notice any rules for learning a pitcher's pitches or pitcher fatigue. Being based off DnD's rules feels incredibly forced, and makes things even more unintuitive and heavy.



With the game, working out interesting ways to cheat will be interesting. If you're swapping in a tampered ball, you'll have to be careful how you use it to avoid being discovered. There was one story where they figured out the enemy was using such a ball, so everyone who was on base just started stealing (even the Catcher had difficulty catching the ball, so they couldn't effectively pass it--they were also afraid of it becoming obvious they were cheating).

Another story featured an exceptional player (an Olympic runner) who could steal bases before the defence could react. There were some neat tricks in that one (one team simply injured the player).

Since this has the potential for a more dystopian, violent baseball, tricks which wouldn't pass in the real sport could be considered.



For those of you wondering, I currently don't have much time to work on the mechanics for a baseball game. I'm working on an RPG project already. So, it'll be a while before I have anything (I can still discuss concepts in the meantime).

tomandtish
2014-03-09, 10:42 PM
In baseball you'll have to put some size limits on players for each league (a "Small" league, a "medium" league, etc.).

Otherwise I'll take you on with my team that has 9 pixies on roster. As soon as we come to bat I bring them in. Good luck finding the strike zone. Remember, while it may have been a stunt, it worked for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel).

For fliers you'll probably have to either do away with the automatic homerun or else state that a ball that is over the wall is a homerun (so no snagging a ball 20 feet past the wall).

AMFV
2014-03-10, 12:02 AM
In baseball you'll have to put some size limits on players for each league (a "Small" league, a "medium" league, etc.).

Otherwise I'll take you on with my team that has 9 pixies on roster. As soon as we come to bat I bring them in. Good luck finding the strike zone. Remember, while it may have been a stunt, it worked for this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel).

For fliers you'll probably have to either do away with the automatic homerun or else state that a ball that is over the wall is a homerun (so no snagging a ball 20 feet past the wall).

Well you'd to avoid total realism, the same as with Blood Bowl, I mean realistically the Orcs would literally crush everybody else and win every game (although maybe Chaos might have a good shot) there's a certain level of verisimilitude to maintain. I think a consistent strike area for all players would be easier to simulate and less of a hassle, once we start including that much detail we're way into too much detail, and we're already really detail heavy.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-10, 12:57 AM
Tomand: I don't think anyone would want pixies on their team. If someone hit them with a ball, it'd probably kill them. Since magic would have to be disallowed, it's questionable whether they could pick up or carry the bat, so that may disqualify them. They may have pixie baseball, though.

Hobbits and dwarves would be used to this effect however. Though, this strategy only works so much. It was only used once in Major Baseball, and it failed the one time it caught the opposing team totally by surprise. If someone had a whole team of dwarves, and their pitcher wasn't good against them, they'd use a dwarf pitcher.


AMFV: Shouldn't the team composed of demons be the most dangerous (I don't know much about the physical capabilities of different warhammer creatures)?

A low strike area is one of the neat things about the shorter races, so I'd prefer to incorporate that aspect. Of course, I don't know how well a pitcher can pitch low--I don't think anyone has practised that? Not sure how well a batter can hit high, either.

Aedilred
2014-03-10, 10:44 AM
Well you'd to avoid total realism, the same as with Blood Bowl, I mean realistically the Orcs would literally crush everybody else and win every game (although maybe Chaos might have a good shot) there's a certain level of verisimilitude to maintain.
Not necessarily. While orcs should be (and are) strong physical players, they're not particularly fast, so teams with a higher groundspeed can outrun them; they're not particularly dextrous, so their ball-handling is subpar, and (not reflected in the game rules) their discipline is poor, so they'll have trouble executing gameplans. (Moreover, orcs in BB are closer to the older orcs of the 90s who weren't quite so overmuscled and huge; the average orc isn't substantially stronger than the average human, or elf). There's no reason why a fast (skaven), agile (elves), tough (dwarfs, undead), or skilled and well-organised (humans) team shouldn't be able to defeat the orcs, or Chaos, or other strong blocking sides.

The team that you'd think really would have an unfair advantage is the vampires, although that's mitigated by the bloodlust that makes them unreliable.

So long as the game in question calls for a variety of attributes and doesn't give an unfair advantage to one particular playstyle (making no mention of the infamous ClawPOMB) there's no reason why it can't be reasonably balanced and reasonably "realistic".

AMFV
2014-03-10, 04:11 PM
Not necessarily. While orcs should be (and are) strong physical players, they're not particularly fast, so teams with a higher groundspeed can outrun them; they're not particularly dextrous, so their ball-handling is subpar, and (not reflected in the game rules) their discipline is poor, so they'll have trouble executing gameplans. (Moreover, orcs in BB are closer to the older orcs of the 90s who weren't quite so overmuscled and huge; the average orc isn't substantially stronger than the average human, or elf). There's no reason why a fast (skaven), agile (elves), tough (dwarfs, undead), or skilled and well-organised (humans) team shouldn't be able to defeat the orcs, or Chaos, or other strong blocking sides.

The team that you'd think really would have an unfair advantage is the vampires, although that's mitigated by the bloodlust that makes them unreliable.

So long as the game in question calls for a variety of attributes and doesn't give an unfair advantage to one particular playstyle (making no mention of the infamous ClawPOMB) there's no reason why it can't be reasonably balanced and reasonably "realistic".

You can certainly have a balanced game with verisimilitude. However that's not realistic. In real life you don't have "stat points" and the giant strong guy, is not necessarily going to be slow, in fact the opposite is usually true, since height gives a pretty clear speed advantage. Realistic giant races, weighing 500 lbs and standing at 8 feet tall, would simply smash the opposition, you could have the best quarterback in the world, but he's getting sacked, every play, because in real life being big does not mean that you are not agile, or not fast.

Of course since this is a game we can do away with some of that. I was mostly thinking that a varied strike zone area would be too complex to simulate easily, it would change strategy drastically with every single pitch, which is a level of complexity that I think would be overdoing it for a game that's intended to run entire seasons.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-10, 04:59 PM
It really depends on your orcs. The original orcs are short, tough, but not described as a baby version of the Incredible Hulk (the trend of modern orcs). Some orc incarnations are like Tolkien's elves, practically perfect in every way. Strong, big, fast, cunning, honourable, agile, skilled, etc., and if those type are used then there really isn't any reason they wouldn't dominate baseball (aside from a high point cost for teams). That goes even more for football.

If you do have creatures that are much faster, rat people or the like, then the dynamic changes.


With Strike Zones, it really depends on how we want to simulate it. The pitch would probably just be a couple of rolls effected by the circumstances. Strike zone might just be a penalty or bonus to your rolls. What area do you think the complication would creep in from? If there's some important aspect I'm missing, it might be a problem.

AMFV
2014-03-11, 06:47 AM
It really depends on your orcs. The original orcs are short, tough, but not described as a baby version of the Incredible Hulk (the trend of modern orcs). Some orc incarnations are like Tolkien's elves, practically perfect in every way. Strong, big, fast, cunning, honourable, agile, skilled, etc., and if those type are used then there really isn't any reason they wouldn't dominate baseball (aside from a high point cost for teams). That goes even more for football.

If you do have creatures that are much faster, rat people or the like, then the dynamic changes.


With Strike Zones, it really depends on how we want to simulate it. The pitch would probably just be a couple of rolls effected by the circumstances. Strike zone might just be a penalty or bonus to your rolls. What area do you think the complication would creep in from? If there's some important aspect I'm missing, it might be a problem.

Well it would depend on exactly how the simulation was working, to be honest. We'd probably need to figure out the mechanics before we got too into the details as to what's more complex or not. I was just saying that you could have Pixies v. Orcs without necessarily having to create two different systems for both of them, and that we should avoid that.