Hello! Since we've been playing our first pro match for awhile, I'd like to workshop the rules a bit.  Anyone who's been reading the match, or has been playing in the match is very much encouraged to chat.

Here are the things I think a good quidditch rule set needs:

1. Balance - All players should be able to have heft in moving the game forward.
2. Flexibility - Players should not have to be on every day.  There are many options about who can post when.
3. Control - Players should feel like the choices they make will control how the game goes.
4. Role-Playing - The game should be a vehicle for writing, not merely a mini-game.
5. Ease of Playing - Easy to get a team on the field and easy to keep it moving.

Those were the things I was shooting for when I was thinking about the rules. 

One of the things I'm really thinking about right now is balance.  Does each player get to really move the game if they want? Are any positions too over-powered?

Seekers
I came up with an experimental rule set for our Seeker Laney Irving.  You can read them here.   In Quidditch, the seeker is the one who controls when the Snitch is caught.  It's a big job.  I wanted our Seekers to also have that power.  In this version of the rules the team that starts to run out of action points first allows the other team the opportunity to catch the snitch.  So our version of the rules rewards using action points efficiently.  So when the Seeker's primary power is taking action points away from the other team - that puts the Seeker in direct control of their team being able to catch the snitch. 

Cons: From a writing aspect, the Seekers basically just zoom around and look.  So it's harder to attach the seekers game actions (taking points away from the beater) to what they're writing (zooming around).  So it's not as fully integrated as the other positions.

Seekers are Vulnerable Too:  Seekers, like everyone else is most vulnerable to bludgers.

Question: Does this put us in a math bind? A team of 5 players has a total of 500 action pts.  If a seeker uses 10 of her action points to remove 10 of their action points... then both teams are now down to 490.  Would the math work better if a Seeker could use 5 of her action points to take away 10 action point from an opposing member?  So a single seeker has the pure arsenal to take a team down to 300 action points if she uses every single action point she has on that? (And isn't dodging bludgers?) I think that sorts things out...


That's the first installment of my discussion so far.  Please workshop these rules with me.   

If we wait for the seeker to catch the snitch when the team has less than 15, 20, or even 50 points, it will be a long match.  As it is, the chasers are too powerful handling the quaffle.  Thus far, James is tied for most goals, successfully fouled Irving, talked in the pressbox, and is singlehandedly responsible for all of Pennyapple’s bludger bashes.

The reason for this is, that though James has fallen off his broom a number of times, there is no penalty to get back into the match.  I think that if a rider is knocked off (intentionally or not), there needs to be an AP burn equivalent to at least the amount of force used (if not more).  Alternatively, there could be a time penalty such as 1 wk, 5 posts, 1 goal, or something.  That way, the beaters (and fouls) can be much more of a threat.  Also, I think that the AP burn for dropping quaffle/momentum should be raised to 3/4AP as well.   

Ironically, though chasers are powerful handling the quaffle, they seem to be weak in scoring.  Since this is the case, I think that goals either need higher point values (20-40) or that it needs to be easier to score.  Personally, I think having 3 people who can block shots on the field and have goals be worth more is the way to go. As it is right now, there is no way the chasers can make up for a snitch being caught.  It should be difficult, but not impossible as it is right now.

Having the seekers take away AP from the other team sounds like a good idea, but how do you write that?  A seeker zooms by, openly casts a spell to induce fatigue, and zooms back the other way?  Plausible, but the ref probably would call the foul. 

I think it would be better to have the seekers wager X amount of action points to catch the snitch.  As soon as Y number of players are below X number of action points, the seekers may attempt to catch the snitch.  The seeker who wagers more goes after the snitch first.  But here is the catch:
If the seeker falls below that amount of AP, they cannot catch the snitch until much later in the match (1 month, 10 posts, or Y number of players have X/2 AP remaining).  For example, say Irving wagers 80AP to catch the snitch.  Enough people fall below 80AP, she can attempt to catch it.  If she has 80AP remaining, she succeeds.  If she doesn’t, she fails, and has to wait until enough people have 40AP to try again.  If she has 40AP at that point, she succeeds.  If not she fails, and so it goes on to 20, 10, 5, etc. 

I guess that’s not the clearest way to write it, so I’ll try an example with Seeker Alpha and Seeker Bravo.

Seeker Alpha wagers 80AP.  Enough people fall below 80AP, at which point he has 79AP remaining.
Seeker Alpha fails to catch the snitch.  Seeker Alpha has to wait until enough people have 40AP to catch the snitch.

Seeker Bravo wagers 70AP.  Enough people fall below  70AP, and he has 75AP remaining. 
Seeker Bravo catches the snitch.  Game ends. 

Dunno if that would end games prematurely or not, but hopefully it would balance it out more.  My 2 cents.

If we wait for the seeker to catch the snitch when the team has less than 15, 20, or even 50 points, it will be a long match.

I agree.  I think if we shave down the available AP we can easily make our matches shorter.  And, in my opinion, I think that's what a good forum quidditch game needs.  Y'know. Short attention spans.  Either that, or the threshold for the keeper to catch the snitch can be much higher, say 100 points.  It's definitely a rules modification I'd consider making for our next match.

As it is, the chasers are too powerful handling the quaffle.  Thus far, James is tied for most goals, successfully fouled Irving, talked in the pressbox, and is singlehandedly responsible for all of Pennyapple’s bludger bashes.

...

Ironically, though chasers are powerful handling the quaffle, they seem to be weak in scoring.  Since this is the case, I think that goals either need higher point values (20-40) or that it needs to be easier to score.  Personally, I think having 3 people who can block shots on the field and have goals be worth more is the way to go. As it is right now, there is no way the chasers can make up for a snitch being caught.  It should be difficult, but not impossible as it is right now.

Yes. I agree with everything you said here.    One way we can remove a Chaser's power is to limit the number of actions they can take on their turn.  In general, Chasers got to take shots pretty freely.  They didn't hold on to the Quaffle long enough for someone to do something about it and there seems to be no incentive in the rules to pass, other than doing some good quidditch writing.  Most sports really really rely on passing (soccer, basketball, hockey).  I feel like that should be present in our game as well.

Brainstorm: Would requiring the Quaffle to be passed successfully at least once be overkill? It would complicate the rules.  But it would make Chasers less powerful because it would give the other chasers and beaters more opportunities to change quaffle possession.  Something to try I think.

You're right about scoring as well.  It needs to be easier to score without completely ruining what Keepers do.  But, on the other hand, what else do Keepers do in other sports? They wait.    Heh - quite a conundurm.  On the other hand, once they come into possession of the ball, they have a good deal of control over how the game 'restarts'.  I wonder how we could make it easier to score without nerfing Keepers to the point of ineffectiveness.

The reason for this is, that though James has fallen off his broom a number of times, there is no penalty to get back into the match.  I think that if a rider is knocked off (intentionally or not), there needs to be an AP burn equivalent to at least the amount of force used (if not more).  Alternatively, there could be a time penalty such as 1 wk, 5 posts, 1 goal, or something.  That way, the beaters (and fouls) can be much more of a threat.  Also, I think that the AP burn for dropping quaffle/momentum should be raised to 3/4AP as well.   

That is an excellent idea.  A way to reward the hostile actions of the rougher part of the game (beaters & fouls) will keep the game moving forward and give beaters more power and more options.  I definitely prefer the AP burn over not being allowed to post.  Just because posting is what we want to happen. 

So a bludger hits at an 8, the target deflects with a 5, the target loses 3?

Also, I think that the AP burn for dropping quaffle/momentum should be raised to 3/4AP as well.   

Can you explain what you mean? Give an example? I think I follow, but I want to make sure.

Having the seekers take away AP from the other team sounds like a good idea, but how do you write that?  A seeker zooms by, openly casts a spell to induce fatigue, and zooms back the other way?  Plausible, but the ref probably would call the foul.

There is no direct correlation between the Seeker's actions and removing points.  However, Seekers' presence and diligence is what ultimately allows them to catch the snitch.  A Seeker who posts and uses their points will will speed their team to victory by enabling them for an earlier catch and reducing the time the other team has to score with the Quaffle.

...
Seeker Alpha wagers 80AP.  Enough people fall below 80AP, at which point he has 79AP remaining.
Seeker Alpha fails to catch the snitch.  Seeker Alpha has to wait until enough people have 40AP to catch the snitch.

Seeker Bravo wagers 70AP.  Enough people fall below  70AP, and he has 75AP remaining.
Seeker Bravo catches the snitch.  Game ends. 

That's a neat idea.  Requires strategy on the Seekers' part.  But question: I assume this means that the Seeker is making posts and removing points the whole time as 'usual'?  I think for the math to work out here, the seeker would be able to take away points at a 1 for 2 ratio, but take away no more than 10 per post.

Oh, yea - and the Seeker isnt the only one removing points from the players.  Players using them up, beaters and fouls burning points - all of them require speed along the process of ending the game.

I think this is very good idea to try.

One way we can remove a Chaser's power is to limit the number of actions they can take on their turn.  In general, Chasers got to take shots pretty freely.  They didn't hold on to the Quaffle long enough for someone to do something about it and there seems to be no incentive in the rules to pass, other than doing some good quidditch writing.  Most sports really really rely on passing (soccer, basketball, hockey).  I feel like that should be present in our game as well.

Brainstorm: Would requiring the Quaffle to be passed successfully at least once be overkill? It would complicate the rules.  But it would make Chasers less powerful because it would give the other chasers and beaters more opportunities to change quaffle possession.  Something to try I think.

I think having chasers pass the ball would work much better, but we run into a problem with posting.  IC, James even goes as far as to make a note to talk to Montrose after the game because they were playing musical brooms with the Chasers.   While this is definitely the preferred method, I think we may have to limit the chasers to one action per post.

As for a rules incentive, perhaps each completed pass adds 3AP to the shot (no limit).  So five passes with a weak shot on goal has to be defended as if the shot used 16AP?  Just a thought.

You're right about scoring as well.  It needs to be easier to score without completely ruining what Keepers do.  But, on the other hand, what else do Keepers do in other sports? They wait.    Heh - quite a conundurm.  On the other hand, once they come into possession of the ball, they have a good deal of control over how the game 'restarts'.  I wonder how we could make it easier to score without nerfing Keepers to the point of ineffectiveness.

Generally, keepers also coach on the field.  Is the wind carrying shots high/wide?  Is there a strange feature of the pitch someone can take advantage of?  How is the weather affecting play?  Is there some tactical mistake the other team is making?  Most keepers spot this pretty quickly, and tell their teammates about it.  As to how this would work, perhaps keepers can offer advice and lend XAP to a specific course of action?  The bonus only works if it is followed though.  It would give them something to do besides wait for shots on goal.  Also, I think a keepers save (catch) should be reduced to 3/4 AP rather than a a full AP.  This is to help them out a little (and give the chasers more incentive to pass, and the keepers more incentive to give advice)

A way to reward the hostile actions of the rougher part of the game (beaters & fouls) will keep the game moving forward and give beaters more power and more options.  I definitely prefer the AP burn over not being allowed to post.  Just because posting is what we want to happen. 

So a bludger hits at an 8, the target deflects with a 5, the target loses 3?

As far as the AP burn is concerned, I think that to completely dodge a bludger it should be 5/4 AP.  Partially dodging of it should be 3/4 AP.  If a rider is knocked off a broom, it should be 3/2 AP to get back into play.  Since this would also apply to fouls, penalty shots should be awarded rather than giving someone a temp ban…if we want posting.  Say 5 free AP on the penalty shot+ whatever the chaser shoots (lim 13)?

There is no direct correlation between the Seeker's actions and removing points.  However, Seekers' presence and diligence is what ultimately allows them to catch the snitch.  A Seeker who posts and uses their points will speed their team to victory by enabling them for an earlier catch and reducing the time the other team has to score with the Quaffle.

It has been a while since I’ve read PS/SS and GoF, but didn’t Harry and Krum stay away  from the action?  This was for a variety of reasons, though mostly to stay out of the chasers way, and to make it easier to dodge bludgers.  Perhaps have them able to dodge fouls/bludgers at a 1:2 ratio?   I’m still not entirely sure I’m  buying the take AP away from others thing.  I do realize you want to have them do something, but they only have to: a) Hassle the other seeker, b) catch the snitch, and  c) dodge bludgers/fouls.  I think that is plenty.  Especially once the beaters have incentive to start aiming their direction.

Chasers: 

I love your ideas.  Let's do it this way:

Chasers may only take one action with the Quaffle per turn.  These actions include Passing and Shooting.  They may take as secong action if those actions do not include the Quaffle like dodging bludgers or fouling.

Each time the Quaffle is successfully passed, 3AP may be added to the shot for free.  If the Quaffle changes possession, the accumulation of extra AP resets to 0.

Keepers: 

I also really like your ideas about giving Keepers that extra action type.

Keepers have a special action we'll call Advice. During their post for an action, the Keeper can shout Advice to their teammates. If the next thing that happens follows that advice, the players may add up to 5AP to the action.  When the Keeper gives the Advice, he/she sets the extra AP.  The AP is spent no matter if the team uses it or not.

Keepers now only need 3/4 AP to successfully catch a shot on goal.  Round up.


Seekers:

Gosh, so tricky! I've updated the rules to include these changes as well as your suggested wager format!