Ranking Games

 There's a lot of controversy on Board Game Geek, ignoring the bulk of it, I want to focus on one that comes up time and again. The game ranking system.

Ranking Games to avoid hyper numbers

The Main issue, in board game rankings, complained about the most, is the assignment of a value system. The 'arbitrary 1-10 vote' you assign to a game. Anyone can vote for any game, and as a result, there is a very easily abusable way social media can push a game into the top 100, when it hasn't even been played, or people voting down a game to offset this.

A system that could replace this, has to allow for people to vote, has to include some bias for new accounts vs long term accounts, but also, needs to allow for the varied ways people vote. 

If a game has just arrived at your house, and you play it, and love it, surely you're going to vote it into your top 10, but as time goes by, and you get newer games, should you need to go back and vote that game down, so you can allow for your next great loved game to take that top position?

Games that last the test of time, need to be able to rise above. Games which are a fad, games which are fun today yet boring tomorrow, who is going to go back and edit all their previous posts & scores and change to reflect this?

Sites haven't yet incentivized people to do this, and they could, but they don't feel the need for it, and it'd be a lot of work for very little gain.

But, having thought this over for many years now, this one clicks for me:

1. BGG (or alternative) Idea: When you 'vote' for a game, you vote it against another game you voted for. When you vote you are presented with one or two other games from your list, and asked. of the games shown: * If you are showing this to new players, which would you choose. * If you are playing this with friends, which would you choose * Its your birthday, you choose what ever game YOU love.

 

The game is not stored as a number, instead its stored as a list. your ranking, of your games, from least to most, in three very relevant situations.

Computers, which can crunch numbers quickly can assign a weighting to your list from 0 to 1, and use this weighting to 'list' all games in the system.

This will create a top 10, or top 100, without needing to score them as 10s. The top 10, will reflect  the games that of all games voted for, so far, these games have the most people, saying it is their best game.

There will be no need to chastise the hundreds of people saying its a '10' because they haven't, they've just said, of all the games 'they' have played, its in first place.

Anyone who votes a game down to 'tank' its ratings, are doing nothing more than voting all the games above it, as being better. In their opinion.

Participants, who have only ever voted for 10 or 20 games, wont be able to influence the system to say their no.1 is the best game ever (or in last, as the worst), because, its only the best game, for them, out of 20 games they've played. (see below for the math)

Furthermore, instead of asking "is this 'the' best game", your asking, Is this game, the better choice, based on your previous rankings, of other games you've experienced. and its asked 3 times, in three ways, that often, don't match. new players, games for your friends, or games for you.   

1. The Math: The Vote system shows you three games, one half way down your list, the other halfway up your list. when you click, the list shifts deeper into your list and again, matches half way up, or halfway down. until it finds its spot. Math shows us, this can only ever, worst case, happen 7 times with 2 values, or 5 times with 3 values. You vote for your games, and they create a list, inside the workings, the computer breaks your list into mathematical % of your whole list, and finds the middle number of that %. i.e. if you have only voted for 5 games, the % of each 'title' is 20%, and the mid point of that is 10, so the games would be weighted 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 Note, with only 5 games, your 'lowest' is a 1 and your highest is a 9, you can't vote it to 0 or 10, you haven't got enough experience voting yet. This 'weight' is averaged with all the other votes, but also, with all the not yet votes. If the site requires 1000 votes to record any given game against, all those 999 others have a base score of 0.5 for all games. So, if you're the first person to vote, and you give it top marks? its the best ever game? your 9, combined with 999 5s, will give a final score of 5.004 Its going to be in the middle.
   

 

    And this is what we want, we don't want games with 1 vote, jumping into top place, an we don't want some kind of 'catch system' to say, Oh, we need to have 300 votes before we publicize the number, because, once social media finds out, they'll get 301 people to vote it a 10, and then the opponents of this, will vote 1s to cancel out the ratio, we don't even need the arbitrary 1,000 in there, just give all uses a base 0.5 middle and scale accordingly, sure the math will end up with values between 0.4 and 0.7, but that's also arbitrary, because, the users will only see the 0.7 as 'first' and the 0.4 as 'last'

And if anyone requires to see a 'value' score, then math can easily spread a 0.4 - 0.7, into a 

Combat Stances

 When I started making these rules, I watched a LOT of combat movies, Jackie Chan, and Chuck Norris, and the like. Then I went to some combat schools and asked to take notes. One thing I always thought that looked cool was stances

How Combat Stances work in DD12.

When you 'fight' in DD12 and you're still a low level character, you just do what you want and don't care about how you are perceived, but as time goes on, you need to be able to have an edge over your opponent to ensure you continue to win.

One way to do this, is to study their 'stance' or 'style' by spending a few round, letting your opponent attack you and focusing instead on defending, each 'round' your opponent attacks and you defend, you can take the difference as XP in a extremely specialized skill named "opponent style- <name of opponent> The maximum XP you can gain is governed by how much they fail by, divided by your 'study opponent' skill modifier (which divides by 2 for each +1 you have)

Since this follows the skill progression rules, a mere 15 XP will give you a score of 5, which denotes as a +1 against your opponent. this divide by 5 can also be improved by improving your 'study opponent' score. Yet it also reduced each +1 you gain, so a 'score' of 9 is +2, then 12 is a +3, 14 becomes a +4 and each score above this is a further +1. maxing out at 20 (when rolls are no longer needed/allowed) for a +10.

a +3 is more than enough for any character to be able to best the opponent, applied to attack or defense, armour bypass or damage, the character can specialize the skill further into attacks, defenses, damage resistances or damage blocks, allowing a quicker bonus against that opponent.

So. How does one defend against this? well, by evening the scores, studying your opponent in return, determining how their blows land, how they attack, and building up your own knowledge against it. Once your +3 counters their +3, you've gone back to matched battle. 

Then there are obfuscated Moves. Each attack you make, can take a small negative, but is done in such a way, that your opponents ability to understand your attacks will be reduced or nullified, your opponent will not only be unable to properly study your moves, they'll be lead to a false sense of what your scores are, and improperly defend against them, when you stop obfuscating. (and, they'll not know which is which)

But the ultimate defense, is to be trained in one of the many 'stances' that schools train their students.

Stances

Stances usually have a modifier, based on their position, how you hold yourself and present yourself, you might leave yourself open (-3 def), but have quick attacks(+2 att, -1 Init) with penetrative damage(+2 dam p), or vice versa, slow to the uptake (-3 Init, -2 att) but superior blocking skills (+3 def +3 block)    

But the most devastating, is when you learn two stances.. your opponent builds up an understanding of your basic stance, they build their study-opponent up, spending four to eight rounds of combat, allowing you to do the same, then when you're ready, you swap stance. the opponent doesn't understand whats going on, their expectations of your fighting style is completely false and they make moves that leave themselves wide open.

You apply all the first stances positive modifiers to your opponent as negative modifiers, and for each 'study opponent score' you apply your new stance positive modifiers again to your own.

Jackie is fighting Chuck, with Striking Fist Style. Its a simple -2 Initiative, +1 Att, +1 Dam style, -2 Def. Chuck is using his fists of fury style, +1 Att, +2 Dam, -1 Def, over the course of 3 rounds, chuck builds up a score of 12, and Jackie builds up a 9, Jackie can feel that chuck has the advantage, and chuck, thinking this too decides to really start laying some blows. He's right, Jackie takes some incredible hits, and while he gets in one of his own, its barely worth it, so he decides to switch styles. Now, he takes on Drunken Master Style. While he gains no obfuscation bonus, nor damage reduction bonus from the alcohol, he does get the stance modifiers -1 Att, -1 Dam, +4 Def and +2 Resist.

Chuck attempts to attack, and finds his opponent is now longer fighting with fists, instead slapping away his hands, being coy, silly and confusing, none of his hits land, his confidence is shattered, this guy can counter every move.

Jackie's modifiers were as follows, Chuck had a +3, so Jacking Drunken style was not the quick att+dam style, so Chucks readiness for a speedy attack were leaving him open, His Attack was reduced by 1 and damage by 1 (Striking fist reversed) then when he went to attack this quick style, he instead got a fluid drunk, flowing around him, dodging every move Jackie got chucks +3 x +4 Def = +12, and 3x +2 Resist, for +6. in effect negating chucks attack by 19 points. furthermore, Jackies own study opponent was still +2, he could focus his into attack, and or damage.

Chuck was smart enough to see this was not going to work, and backed down, vowing to return.    

Thoughts on game progression, and roleplay rules

 I'm a big fan of granular rules, yet over time, they get boring. So, I think, games should progressively obfuscate the simpler forms of the game, as you level up.

Game Progression as a mechanic.

Imagine you've never trekked, never strapped a backpack on, hiking boots, and gone for a walk. Those first few hours are going to be painful, difficult, full of mistakes, hardships, and things that you just can't help avoid.

But then imagine how different it will be after a month, 6 months or several years of trekking. 

After a month, the simplest issues will be worked out. the basics of packing a bag, how to put on your boots for better comfort, making sure you don't pack weird shaped items against your back.

After 6 months, ensuring you put on dry socks, and lace the boots against the grain so water flows away, and not into your boot, packing your bags for the most long term comfort, but also quick access to certain items, and packing in under 10 minutes, instead of an hour,

After several years, you'll still be learning small tricks, maybe less often maybe barely a change, but tiny incremental changes that give you extra crucial minutes of travel each day. 

My System Ideas.,

Its one of the reasons I developed the 2d12 bell curved results system, it starts of being harder, 1st level characters, you roll 2d12 and attempt to get your number under the low numbers, and while pass or fail, you gain some experience in the skill, those first few experience will be vital. You'll learn a lot, and your score will rise quickly.

Once you've gained a basic score of 20, there is no longer the need to roll for the simple stuff, this might be dealing with the minutiae or just getting the basics right. We as adults don't think about walking, talking, turning door handles or all the simple things we mastered as children, so why should your character think about any skill they've pretty much covered. The player says they do it, its a straight forward task, so they do it. If they don't KNOW its difficult, you don't tell them, (and secretly roll for that difficulty)

You do need to roll, every single time, someone says something, and ignore 99% of those rolls, so the times when its actually a roll, your players don't know the difference. The key is, does the player THINK they might fail? 

The rulebook says, if the player has a score of 20 (or more), the GM rolls, and if there are no modifiers, ignores this dice roll, unless a 12 is rolled, and the GM has a story reason to do something.

Only if there are modifiers, does this become important. 

If the player suspects its going to be difficult, let them roll, let them apply other skills for bonuses, it shows they are thinking, being creative in solving the problem. rolls = experience. 

But if the player thinks this is going to be a walk in the park, and it might be, then you roll, openly to put players on edge.

The key here is, players will get used to your rolls, and will ignore all the 'probably passed' and like real life, get into a false sense of security, Until its a fail, and then, that world of pain will teach them a lesson.

Rolling dice is barely a second, a glance, not a 12, ok, lets proceed.. but the moment on the persons face when they are so assured they'll swing across the chasm with that worn old vine as a rope, and that vine snaps, with a cloud of dust.. and they drop.. 

and their friends cast a spell, or a prayer or a quick thinking rope & hook, and they're safe, or.. a speedy healing ward as they slam into the ground almost dying.

NOTE: casting healing ward, is 1 HP to a location and 1 HP in general, it can be cast on a person as they hit the ground, and prevent death. Provided no further insta damage occurs (like falling in acid/lava/poison/fire etc) 

But, slowly, as players progress, they'll notice, they're not doing rolls for things, they're not seeing any negatives happen for simple stuff, and consciously or subconsciously they'll feel like they're getting better. This is what you want to achieve as gamemaster, getting players to feel confidence about their character. Feel like they 'Earned' it.