Board Games

[Solecismic]

Would you be interested in Front Office Football board game, along the lines of an APBA or Strat-O-Matic game?

[hoosierdude]

Yeah I like that idea

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by hoosierdude

Yeah I like that idea

Ouch.

[Ragone]

Will there be chance cards like say

"Skydog has banned your account, return to beginning"

or

"Jbmagic has deleted a thread you have posted in, move back 3 spaces"

[Ben E Lou]

5. Only if the board game can somehow sync up to my PC to record stats.

Also, I'd hate for a board game to replace or even delay the next software release.

[JeeberD]

Not my cup of tea. Sorry...

[MIJB#19]

I really like the idea, but the one thing missing would be the multiplayer feature. I mean, I guess finding the right people to play against would really help. I mean, what got me back into playing FOF was the thought of playing against 31 other human GMs.

[albionmoonlight]

I said maybe, because I am really not sure.

After multiplayer came into FOF, I stopped playing single player. I just can't get into it.

The idea of a board game interests me because it might end up being a way that I get back into single player.

All that said, I have not played a solo board game in years. All of my board gaming now tends to be social.

So, I am a maybe. I'd have to see what the game was, hear what other people say, and think about it for a while.

[Coder]

Well, since FOF to me is more about being a GM than a coach, I guess I wouldn't be interested. I'm saying this, assuming that a FOF boardgame - like APBA or Strat - would focus on the on-field stuff, not the front office part of the game?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Coder

Well, since FOF to me is more about being a GM than a coach, I guess I wouldn't be interested. I'm saying this, assuming that a FOF boardgame - like APBA or Strat - would focus on the on-field stuff, not the front office part of the game?

It would. There would be some Front Office element, but key components - the aging and the player acquisition algorithms - would be absent.

The hook to me would be the use of all the research to create the play result charts, as well as some next-generation ideas I've had that would go back into the computer games in later versions.

I'm finding I'm missing the feel of dice, the finality of a result. One huge advantage of the computer is being able to simulate a whole season in a minute at an accuracy far greater than you could find with a dice game. But just physically having a player card and dice in your hand is automatic immersion.

I've by no means decided to go ahead with this, it's just something I want to look into for a change of pace. I've been writing computer games for nine years now, and the marketplace has changed a lot during that time. I can't do this forever.

[Warhammer]

There is a large potential audience out there for this. However, it better be good, and many potential players might not like the minutiae involved with such a game.

One reason why text sims are popular computer games is that the minutiae of fiddling with the stats and team rosters, etc., is handled by the computer.

[QuikSand]

Hmmmm. You know, why stop the retrograde there? Etching figures on stone tablets is not only very immersive (if only on account of the time it takes to do it), but has a tactile sense of permanence that you just can't get with ultra-modern conveniences like cards, papers, and pencils.



Honestly... there are so many massive advantages to being able to use computers for something like this, I'm just floored at the notion of finding benefits to moving so far backwards. It's not that I wouldn't potentially find such a board game interesting -- because I guess it's possible that I would -- but since you have already demonstrated the capacity to make use of the best technology readily available for doing things on a leval many many times more sophisticated than paper and pencil can ever accomplish... what is there really to gain by such a reachback?

I don't want to come off as a jackass, but I'm just trying to look at this practically. I wouldn't mind if someone out there took his time to create this board game rather than investing his time in some lemondate stand simulation board game instead... no opportunity cost to me there. But if this thing means we'd have to wait an extra year or two for the next iteration of cutting-edge football computer sims... then I think I'm against it, no matter how good it might be given the constraints of the medium.

[Raiders Army]

No

Edit--A little more explanation: Although there are many MP leagues out there, I think there are a lot of us who still play SP only. In that respect, I think that the SP gamers would definitely not buy a board game. It'd be like playing Monopoly against yourself and like QS said above, you'd have to micromanage every aspect of the league.

[ShaneTheMaster]

If this would take away from your energies of developing the computer games, then definitely not.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't want to come off as a jackass, but I'm just trying to look at this practically. I wouldn't mind if someone out there took his time to create this board game rather than investing his time in some lemondate stand simulation board game instead... no opportunity cost to me there. But if this thing means we'd have to wait an extra year or two for the next iteration of cutting-edge football computer sims... then I think I'm against it, no matter how good it might be given the constraints of the medium.

The way I work, though, lends myself well to crunch mode. The problem is that these computer games require tremendous endurance.

I can do that. I remember one month not too long ago when I actually did not set foot outside the house (my wife does the shopping, I really had no other reason to go).

The down side is that after a few months of 16-hour days, no weekends off, nothing, that I need to step away from the code to refresh my creative side. I've pretty much figured out by now that in a one-year period, I can code for about six months. That's worked well for me over the last nine years.

I'm in that more creative mode now. We just moved 800 miles, I'm starting to settle in here, though because of the size of the punch list there are still a lot of workmen visits remaining.

I'm getting a normal amount of sleep, I'm more relaxed. Right now is a time period very conducive to spending an afternoon thinking about designs for new games, other types of projects. I'd even say hobbies, but I tend to get as wrapped up in them as I do coding if I let go, so maybe that will have to wait.

There are all sorts of things I've done during those time periods that don't necessarily result in finished products. I have a fully-functional version of the FOF game engine that runs entirely on the web. Never shown it to anyone but EA, it's more proof of concept than anything else, but that's one example.

I'm also restless to see what else I can do. Coding for months at a time takes a lot out of me. FOF 2007 was very ambitious, and, next to the TCY push, was probably the longest coding stretch I've done to date. I'm older now, and that gets harder to do each time - programming is a younger man's game.

So, I don't think this would come at the expense of much, because so much of the work would be in a more relaxed mode, a different paradigm for me.

Board games are different from computer games. But that statistics compilation aspect is such an amazing breakthrough - that's really what fueled the transition for what we call text sims. I remember the first version of computer Strat baseball - Bob recognized that people loved the feel of rolling the dice to generate the play, so he allowed you to type your die throw into the game. Maybe you still can, it's been awhile since I've played Strat. I'd like to find a way to recapture that feel. Though maybe the stats compilation aspect has forever changed things, the same way cars replaced horses and buggies.

I've got some nice, fresh ideas for how to do a board game. But they also translate well to the computer, so that could be another way to go. I just want to keep innovating, that's what gets me through the hard work portion of this lifestyle.

[SteveMax58]

I chose Maybe. I think the key appeal, to me, would be the dice, person-to-person, & some sort of field view immersion. But I dont think you can lose the computer completely with this, as I believe you will want some sort of app that compliments the board game for elements such as player development, stat tracking, & AI GM functions.

I think if the focus of the board game is the playcalling, and social aspect such as having a few friends over to playout our playoffs on a Sunday, that sounds like fun. But I dont see it being something I would do overly often, so hence the need for the app to simulate portions which are not so interesting. I think I can understand the aspect of solo- play, but even then I'd still want to make things capable of integrating back to the CPU for some of the stat tracking, AI GM'ing, etc. Or in other words, all of the things that made me quit playing board games(or having the time for them) in the first place.

Perhaps if you built it as add-on to FOF it might be more enticing. Basically I'm thinking of a series of "log codes" which the players would need to write down for their game play results. These could be 2, 3, 4, or whatever length number sequence needed to then be entered into the FOF app/add-on upon completion of a game to add them to your FOF solo- or multi- player franchise. A multi-player draft could be handled the same way perhaps...with draftees getting a number assignment, and the commish entering those manually through the FOF app/add-on.

I think adding in the ability to export a team or league from FOF to printable team/player cards would also add to the board game (and be a must for an integrated board game/add-on league). You could take your greatest teams from other leagues (MP or SP), and have a super league or something thereabouts.

IDK...just some thoughts on what I think might be appealing about the idea. I think there is a market, just not sure how large.

[twothree]

If I feel like playing a board game, I usually find a computer version of the game, a module of the game that runs on one of the board game engines like cyberboard, a spreadsheet "game" that simulates the board game or a similar computer game to play.

I can't remember the last time I played or purchased a physical board game. It had to have been sometime before I purchased a playstation 2 over three years ago. My collection of board games (mostly Avalon Hill) just gather dust or they get thrown out during a spring cleaning. For me physical board games are like VCR tapes, I have many of them just sitting around taking up space and not getting used.

[OldGiants]

I've been spending a lot more of my time playing board war games over the past two years. Some of the reasons are getting together with real humans, as well as the 'hands on the components" aspect already mentioned.

Another aspect of board games over computer games like FOF is being able to see the die roll and look up the result. Knowing you had good or bad luck appeals to me. Its an aspect of sports sims that I least enjoy. For example, did my team have bad luck to go 7-9 for the season, or did I not know what I was doing? You can replay the season on a computer, but all too often there will be wild swings in the replays. I've had 19-0 seasons replayed as 7-9, for example.

Seeing the die rolls and the charts makes luck obvious.

And nothing is more fun than watching an opponent take a Circus Maximus curve at top speed and wipe-out when he rolls three 6's.

OTOH, there are lots of board game companies struggling. Indeed, without the financial backing of Curt Schilling, even Advanced Squad Leader would be dead by now. Most the games are sold via subscription these days.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by twothree

If I feel like playing a board game, I usually find a computer version of the game, a module of the game that runs on one of the board game engines like cyberboard, a spreadsheet "game" that simulates the board game or a similar computer game to play.

I actually play more physical boardgames nowadays than I've done in many years. There are tons of great boardgames, both for the entire family, and some a little more advanced.

However, sports-boardgames just give me a feeling that something's lacking. A sense that to please the gamer and spare him/her too many dicerolls and too many charts, the games are usually simplified, and thereby losing some "realism".

That's just my feeling.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

OTOH, there are lots of board game companies struggling. Indeed, without the financial backing of Curt Schilling, even Advanced Squad Leader would be dead by now. Most the games are sold via subscription these days.

The only issue there is the damn licensing fees that Hasborg requires. There have always been and still are tons of TPP producing content for ASL and much of their stuff is better than the MMP stuff.

Boardgaming is seeing a renaissance right now, but its the Eurogames that are dominating things right now, not the war games.

[theclassic]

I can see where Jim is coming from here. Sometimes it's just nice to not look at a screen for awhile. Between computers and tv most people spend an incredible amount of leisure time in front of a screen. I have a football card game I created back in 4th grade that I played up until a few years ago. If this is done right Jim I'll be sure to buy it. Pursue what you want to do. That's how FOF was created.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Boardgaming is seeing a renaissance right now, but its the Eurogames that are dominating things right now, not the war games.

I do play several computer versions of the European board games, but if I own their physical counterpart they just don't get played. When I was in college and in the army there were more people around that were interested in playing a board game. Now, it is easier to join a multiplayer league of FOF or a multiplayer game of Civilization IV on the internet, where I can easily find people with a similar interest than to find physical people to play a game of Britannia, or start a league of Blood Bowl, or instruct how to play The Republic of Rome. Maybe I need new friends or to move back to a college/military town.

[PiemasterUK]

I chose definitely not, because that is the answer to your direct question.

However, to qualify, I wouldn't buy it because I live in England and none of my friends are football fans so I would have nobody to play it with. I'm not saying it is necessarily a bad idea.

[PilotMan]

I chose definately not as well. I grew up a big time board gamer. However, as soon as I got my first computer that was the end of that phase. It just wouldn't mean anything to me.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by PiemasterUK

I chose definitely not, because that is the answer to your direct question.

However, to qualify, I wouldn't buy it because I live in England and none of my friends are football fans so I would have nobody to play it with. I'm not saying it is necessarily a bad idea.

I chose the last option, but I'd like to switch to definitely not. I just don't see any of my friends getting into that type of board game. The rare times we play board games, it is usually a light party game or even more rarely an in-depth war game. I just don't have friends that are likely to play this and a solo play board game holds very little appeal to me - I'd much rather play on a computer.

[WebEwbank]

Jim, I've been a devoted buyer and player of your stuff for many years.

I'm also a systems guy, who, after coding for twelve years, burnt out on that, and luckily had a chance to transition into another aspect of the industry.

So I fully understand what you are saying. More than that, it may well be time to take your tremendous creativity and diligence to another arena.

Instead of a board game, please consider becoming a mini-game studio CEO. The thought would be to hire two or three developers (fulltime or contract), and focus your efforts on functional and technical design, playability, and overall quality. Of course these would have to be great developers, requiring minimum hand-holding and committed to the team concept.

I know that you have done great things solo and see that as a viable model. It is, but it's not the only one.

[dj_morton]

looks like not many ppl want a board game lol

[dj_morton]

board game=bad idea..how about a new college game

[willoconley]

Board game? Never heard of such a thing.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've got some nice, fresh ideas for how to do a board game. But they also translate well to the computer, so that could be another way to go. I just want to keep innovating, that's what gets me through the hard work portion of this lifestyle.

I'll admit my first thoughts were much closer to QuikSand's -- I would have loved a board game version of FOF in 1985, but not now. I simply don't have the base of in-person friends that would make this type of game enjoyable. While I enjoyed Strat-o-Matic as a solo player experience back in the day, going from the PC to a board game would be a step I have no interest in.

Given the revised mindset you're in, I can see why the idea would appeal to you at this time. I don't think it would be a money maker -- and unfortunately has the potential to be a money loser. But unless the FOF game is a real passion, I wouldn't let that limit the scope of your creativity. While a FOF board game wouldn't interest me, I could imagine other board games what your mind could create that would interest me.

[Celeval]

To be perfectly honest, I would buy the game, as I'd support the products Solecismic puts out. That said, I don't know how much playtime it'd get. We play a decent number of boardgames, and enjoy them - but I just wouldn't have the group to play with.

[Ben E Lou]

I'd echo a sentiment that has come up in this thread: I play board games for social/group dynamic reasons, *always* with groups of at least six people, and *always* with a mixed-gender group. I just don't see a football board game fitting in to those scenarios.

One thing I'd point out about the poll results in this self-selecting group is to think about the dynamics here: we play computer games. Sure, there's some overlap between the serious board game and serious computer game crowds, but I suspect that a decent number of people here have a similar sports gaming story as mine:

Late 1970s-mid 1980s: Good ol' dice and cards baseball for me, because that was the only option. My game of choice was Statis-Pro Major League Baseball. I enjoyed it immensely, and played several seasons with it until...

Mid 1980s-Early 1990s: Purchased Microleague Baseball for my Atari 800XL. With the first version of the game, there was no automated stats tracking, so I taught myself to use Visicalc. (Of COURSE I learned spreadsheets to do sports stats. ) When the version came out that had the GM/Owner Disk and tracked stats in the game, I thought I'd reached nirvana. I played game after game of Microleague with the 800XL, and then later my good ol' 386 with the 10MB Hard Drive. Microleague stayed with me until...

Early 1990s-1998: Strat-O-Matic released their computer baseball game, and I was hooked. Could draft from the entire NL against the AI. Great in-game managing options. I bought every version of this. However, every year I'd send a letter to Strat-O-Matic with suggestions for the next version, and while some of the stuff I wanted was added, they never implemented the one feature I requested every single year: career play. I'll never forget that fateful day when I knew I'd never buy another Strat Product.

1998 TO PRESENT: The releases of Baseball Mogul and Front Office Football within less than a year of one another immediately ended any desire to play a single-season sim ever again.


The point of all that is this: my guess is that the bulk of the FOFC audience is one that either never got into dice-and-cards sports games or that migrated away from them as technology allowed automated stats tracking and career features. Is there enough of a potential audience for this for it to be a value-add to Solecismic Software? Maybe so. However, I don't think the bulk of that potential audience hangs out at FOFC, where we spend a lot of time focusing on career sims. I'd consider doing what Celeveal mentioned: buying it just to support Solecismic Software. But I'd be doing it in the mindset of making an investment in the next FOF, not in thinking I'd actually get significant play time out of it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Time to check out what's going on over here before my next beer. Hmm, seems like Jim is saying he's not going to be making FOF anymore after a year or two. Oh well. Now moving on . . .

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Time to check out what's going on over here before my next beer. Hmm, seems like Jim is saying he's not going to be making FOF anymore after a year or two. Oh well. Now moving on . . .

Where did you get that? I can see someone realizing that I might not put out a new game EVERY year, as I did from 1998 through 2003. But I have not said anything about retiring.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Where did you get that? I can see someone realizing that I might not put out a new game EVERY year, as I did from 1998 through 2003. But I have not said anything about retiring.

Solly, I'm still a little drunk right now. That was a little attempt at humor. I see my humor goes over about as well as when one of my little gems over dinner with much wine gets no laughs and a very stern look from my wife.

[larrymcg421]

In junior high, I used to run a dice based football league with some friends. I created charts for play results, and had everyone pick their starters and play call %'s. It was alot of fun, but also pretty monotonous. I can't imagine wanting to do that again, although it might be a fun novelty at an FOFC get together.

Now to add immersion, I'd prefer to have head to head playcalling for multiplayer leagues. It's one thing when you fill out a spreadsheet with play %'s, but entirely another when you're trying to come up with the right playcall in a key situation against a human opponent.

[Warhammer]

That is one thing I could get behind MP with different plays.

[adubroff]

As someone who writes code for a living, I can understand why one might want to give a board game a try. It removes the developer from certain fairly tedious tasks like keeping track of stats. It also liberates one from having to come up with an AI that the collective intelligence of this board can't crack.

I also think that for me, I would never play a board game. I personally don't have many friends who'd be interested in one and playing board games alone died for me with the advent of the PC game. I am fairly sure there would be an audience for it, but I don't think I'd be it.

[sabotai]

I definitely would. I've had a lot of fun with Second Season since I got it awhile back.

[Emiliano]

Definitely not interested. I'd strongly prefer a new college game.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That is one thing I could get behind MP with different plays.

I think it's a horrible idea as it would involve being people being able to sync their schedules. Try to get a MP league of FM started with 19 other strangers and you'll see that the league just isn't going to go anywhere fast.

[stevew]

If it was going to be a board game, i'd much prefer a baseball one, as opposed to a football one.

I think he could make a great baseball board game. I just honestly could never see playing a football one.

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm afraid I don't have much new to say.

I grew up with Strat-O-Matic, Paydirt/Bowl Bound, NFL Strategy, and other dice & card games. I had a great time with them, but once I discovered the power of computers to make the same games better, and different ones that I liked even more, I gave up the board games almost entirely.

I can't say that I'm interested, but maybe Jim will put in enough good ideas so that I'll have to take a look.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

I think it's a horrible idea as it would involve being people being able to sync their schedules. Try to get a MP league of FM started with 19 other strangers and you'll see that the league just isn't going to go anywhere fast.

If someone could not make a scheduled game, then they'd use their gameplan for the week. Plus, it could be set up to allow each individual game to be played at a separate time.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

I think it's a horrible idea as it would involve being people being able to sync their schedules. Try to get a MP league of FM started with 19 other strangers and you'll see that the league just isn't going to go anywhere fast.

Obviously, you've never tried running a board game league of anything. I wouldn't be using this for a boardgame league.

I have run Formula De and Blood Bowl leagues for FtF, and in each case, once players started losing, they quit coming out for games. I would only be interested in one off games with the board game.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I put maybe simply because if it absolutely kicked butt I might get it just because... But since I sit alone in my apartment playing the game and drinking scotch instead of getting out and meeting people, it would join the other board games that I never play stored in my mom's basement or attic or wherever they are.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Emiliano

Definitely not interested. I'd strongly prefer a new college game.

I echo these sentiments. While I've enjoyed board games in the past, I've never had any interest in sports board games and would have no interest in this one.

Like a lot of people here, I don't have the base of friends who'd be interested in playing this and my suspicion is that it would be extremely tedious multiplayer to run any kind of career mode.

[KWhit]

I don't think I would be interested. It would just be too difficult to find the time and people necessary to play a face to face board game. It sounds like it would be fun, but I know that I would never be able to schedule a game.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Honestly... there are so many massive advantages to being able to use computers for something like this, I'm just floored at the notion of finding benefits to moving so far backwards. It's not that I wouldn't potentially find such a board game interesting -- because I guess it's possible that I would -- but since you have already demonstrated the capacity to make use of the best technology readily available for doing things on a leval many many times more sophisticated than paper and pencil can ever accomplish... what is there really to gain by such a reachback?

I think as a one shot deal - where you start out from the same base of cards, choose up teams, play, then finish - there is something to be said for a board game. I'm thinking something like this would be great to play say, father and son. I think for a purpose like that - sitting down with your son (heck, or daughter) for an hour or so playing out a game translates better *off* the computer than it would on. If I were to play my son in chess, I wouldn't do it on a computer, I would use a traditional set. Same with checkers, cards, Monopoly, Risk, etc. This is what I'm thinking here. The game could also give some insight into probability, might teach something about basic football strategy, might hook them into football and more advanced (computer) games in the future.

That was the road for most of us I think - start out with board/dice games, then move up. I do wonder if as many kids these days are likely to pick up text sims without something like this - is this particular market basically already set (and aging), or are their "youngsters" looking into text sims?

[Buccaneer]

I can certainly understand the need to do and see something else for a while, else you'll have the classic case of burn-out. As much as I love playing a handful of PC games, I can only do that half of my spare time (esp. since I spent a good part of the work day programming or other IT stuff). The other part of the time I work on my non-PC gaming hobbies. Such a downtime or break leads to being eager to play a PC game again. For example, I am very anxious to start in on my annual OOTP career (perhaps with the new version), so I am purposely taking a break this month from gaming and doing other stuff.

Maybe a board game is not the way to go but all you FOF fanatics need to give Jim a break. I am reminded of the two-man team that developed Combat Mission. They spent years designing and programming every aspect of tactical WW2 combat until they couldn't take it anymore. While they continued to design and program, they took a "break" and did more of a modern warfare game.

My vote would be to do something simpler on the PC, like maybe a Political Sim or a Horseracing sim <---hint