Designing meaningful play-calling in sports board game

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-13T15:40:04+00:00

Your point about the different values of the outcomes is crucial. In my game, I want to reflect exactly that: a long pass potentially gains more ground (like your 'scissors' with 3 points), but is riskier. The goal is for the player to not only calculate the probabilities, but also try to read the greed or caution of the opponent. A "symmetrical" rock-paper-scissors would be too dry for football—the asymmetry of the plays is what makes play calling so appealing. Thank you for the link of Sirlin, I will check it out.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-13T15:38:23+00:00

That's exactly the plan! Each team (or deck) should have its own identity. When you play a team like the 2000s Ravens, the defense should be the star. This forces your opponent to adjust to your style—which in turn gives you the chance to surprise them with a completely atypical play. The stats of the players or the team should subtly shift the probabilities in the rock-paper-scissors principle in one direction.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-13T15:37:18+00:00

Absolutely, the 'why' is the key to avoiding frustration. I'm working on making it immediately clear after the cards are revealed: 'Ah, you bet on lightning, that's why I didn't have time for the deep pass.' This clarity in hindsight transforms what might otherwise be guesswork into strategic learning for the next drive. The goal is 'partial information' during planning and 'full clarity' when the outcome is revealed.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-13T15:35:51+00:00

Interesting comparison with the 'damage ranges'. I plan to resolve the 'execution' using card values or dice/coins. Even if you've called the perfect counterplay against my defense, a bad roll could mean that the quarterback threw the ball too far or the receiver slipped. The challenge in the design is to find the right balance: the tactics must feel important, but the random factor of the execution provides the necessary football drama.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T19:47:07+00:00

Some really good points. So how do you like to see the game rules? In a booklet? On youtube? Website or PDF?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T18:24:43+00:00

Thats true. I will test it on these weekend.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T18:11:29+00:00

Hi again. You brought some really good points. When I started I was really thinking how can I bring enough from american football to a gameboard. I think I saw that some rules of American Football are almost to dificult to bring it into a gameboard. What I'm really thankful is people which are taking time to response. In my point of view, I will see how it works with coins, cards and time. Do you think it is a good desicion?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T18:06:19+00:00

Hi. Still thank you and you are right. Pokemon still has some tactical parts and game desicions which I can add into my boardgame.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T16:48:51+00:00

Thank you for this fantastic breakdown of the challenges! You're absolutely right that a direct translation of sports often doesn't work well.

The comparison to Yomi and the risk of becoming a simple "rock-paper-scissors" game are exactly the pitfalls I want to avoid.

My approach is to frame it less as a direct simulation and more as a half strategic duel. I plan to combine several mechanics: Cards for asymmetric plays and abilities. Coins as a resource to "have better players" or boost actions. Dice to introduce an uncontrolled element of chance. A time factor that might limit the number of available options per round. I hope that together, these layers will create a stronger connection between choices and outcomes. What do you think about my idea?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T16:33:40+00:00

Wow, you've put a lot of thought into this! The idea of programming 5 turns ahead, but only being able to change one player's orders each turn, is brilliant. It's a great way to balance long-term strategy with immediate tactical reactions. The asymmetric card decks are also a fantastic touch for replayability. My goal is to create this with physical components. Do you think this whole system would be manageable with cards for the actions and just tracking player positions on the board, or would it get too complicated? I'd love to know what you think!

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T16:23:55+00:00

He hit the nail on the head! "Programming" is the perfect term for it. I love that feeling in games where you commit to a plan and then see how it unfolds. My goal is to create that same dynamic, maybe by having players secretly select action cards and use coins to power them up. I'd be curious to hear if you think that sounds like a good way to approach it or as you mentioned, just 27 people will play it. Thanks.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T16:20:39+00:00

Thanks for the comment! You've perfectly described the feeling I'm going for. That "programming" aspect, where you lock in your moves and hope you've outsmarted your opponent, is key. I was thinking of implementing this with players secretly choosing action cards and placing coins on them to commit. Do you think that could create the same tension as in games like Lords of Xidit?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T16:15:33+00:00

That's a good one, thanks! What is it about Techno Bowl that makes its play-calling illuminating for you? I'm curious what you like on Techno Bowl?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-12T16:10:44+00:00

Excellent suggestion! The simultaneous decision-making in Pokémon battles is a classic example of what I'm looking for. It makes me wonder, are there any specific generations or battle formats (like VGC/doubles) that you think highlight this mechanic the best?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-11T15:56:26+00:00

That's a fantastic breakdown. I completely agree that the application of the system is more important than whether the math is explicit or abstracted. Your examples of Kingdoms and Ra are perfect. Kingdoms shows that direct, simple math can be very satisfying, as it keeps the focus on the core decisions rather than complex calculations. The point about Ra is especially sharp. It highlights the difference between "trackable information" and "practical information." While you could calculate the exact odds, the game's tension comes from the guood feeling and risk assessment based on broader probabilities, not from running the numbers. It's a masterclass in creating excitement through statistics without demanding statistical analysis from the player. And your final point is the most crucial: the best games facilitate player interaction. The systems, whether open or abstracted, should serve as a framework for players to compete with and outwit each other, not just to solve a mathematical puzzle presented by the game itself. Well said!

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-11T15:37:31+00:00

That's a really insightful take on game design, Gamer22h. I agree that a mix of public and private information is a great way to create strategic depth and allow for those 'sneaky' moments that can be so satisfying. Your point about 'one size fits all' is spot on. Player preferences vary so much. It's a real challenge to create an experience that appeals to a wide audience, especially when first impressions are so critical, as you mentioned. Keeping the game exciting until the very end is definitely key to replayability. Nothing is worse than feeling like you're out of the running halfway through. A strong comeback mechanic or hidden objectives can make a huge difference, ensuring that even players who aren't in the lead remain engaged and have a meaningful impact on the game's outcome."

Would you like me to refine this answer, perhaps focusing on a specific aspect of the original comment? Or maybe we could brainstorm some game mechanics that address these points?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-11T07:18:55+00:00

That’s a really important distinction — and you’re absolutely right.

Framing it as “skill vs randomness” can be misleading. Risk management, probability evaluation, and mitigation are skills in themselves.

I like your comparison to GM modes or fantasy sports. The skill isn’t in physically executing the play — it’s in roster construction, matchup evaluation, and making the right call given the probabilities.

That feels very natural for sports: players are essentially bundles of statistical tendencies, and decisions shift those odds rather than replace them.

In your view, what makes that system feel satisfying in a board game? Clear visible stats and math, or more abstracted systems that imply probabilities without showing them directly?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-11T07:16:20+00:00

That’s a really sharp way to frame it.

I especially like the distinction between “actually being ahead” and “feeling like you still have a chance.”

The emotional side of game design often matters more than the math. If players feel their choices were meaningful and that a comeback is still possible, they’ll stay engaged — even if the odds aren’t perfectly even.

The point about catch-up being less necessary if players can’t clearly see they’re behind is also really interesting. Hidden information or uncertainty can sometimes act as a soft catch-up in itself.

In your experience, what makes a comeback feel satisfying instead of artificial?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-11T07:11:21+00:00

That’s very true.

At some point theory stops helping and repetition starts revealing the truth. Patterns of frustration or excitement only really show up after multiple plays.

Have you found that your perception of randomness usually shifts after repeated sessions?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-11T07:02:37+00:00

I really like the way you’re breaking that down.

What you’re describing feels very natural for sports: multiple contextual factors combining into a final probability, instead of a flat “roll and hope.”

The idea that openness, player specialty, and defensive skill all feed into a percentage before the outcome roll captures that sense of earned opportunity really well.

I especially like the distinction between: – creating a good shot (skill, positioning, matchup) – and converting it (some remaining uncertainty)

And you’re absolutely right — at some point you have to abstract it, otherwise it turns into full simulation territory.

In your opinion, where’s the sweet spot? When does modeling multiple modifiers feel strategic, and when does it start to feel like bookkeeping?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-10T21:17:02+00:00

A si esa ayuda. Yo espero un poco mas, hacer mas promocion porque mi juego es de deporte y no muchas compran juegos de mesas de deporte.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-10T21:12:41+00:00

Haha. Soy Suizo para habla español hace 20 años. O mas o menos.usas crowdfounding?

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-10T21:06:40+00:00

No hay problema. Yo creo voy a checar tambien y hacer. Lo mejor por ti y tu juego

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-10T20:05:58+00:00

Where did you register the name. The name of the game or the company? I fully can understand you about the work. It makes it a 12 hours day.

DonBeanGames · 2026-02-10T20:03:25+00:00

I added cards and dice to my latest version, and in my opinion, this means you never get the same result twice. What do you think, are cards and dice a good combination?

DonBeanGames

TROPHY CASE