Why I hate "fun"

[Darkson]

They weren't in the rules when I paid, unlike cards, which where. Assuming B&K are in next years event (which I guess they are) then I won't be going.

I was also specially told that conceding wasn't allowed, which Heff said he would have done if his opponent hadn't accepted the draw.

[Heff]

They weren't in the rules when I paid, unlike cards, which where. Assuming B&K are in next years event (which I guess they are) then I won't be going.

I was also specially told that conceding wasn't allowed, which Heff said he would have done if his opponent hadn't accepted the draw.

They can tell you you cannot concede but where are the bloodbowl police to enforce it?

Anyway we seem to be back on my behaviour, which I owned and apologised for on page 2. Please accept that and move on.

[Dionysian]

The standard tournament format is inferior to the game played with skill progression, cards and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

It's not inferior for those of us who enjoy a deep and complex strategy game in a competitively robust form.

[Joemanji]

^^ This.

[nonumber]

I would appreciate not being accused of pontification.

Sorry, about that.
I wish it would have been possible to address the argument only. I don't think you had any bad intent. Quite the opposite actually.

I just didn't like the way it was going.

The people complaining about cards, do accept the kick-off table and the weather table. Which really shouldn't be overlooked.

An argument of „let's invite the background into our games“ and „accept the rules as they are“, is unfair, and not going anywhere.

What it needs is a good way of implementing those concepts into the game. And the systems I've seen so far are not doing a good job at it.
Lurve potion is a fun idea, and a throwback, but the card isn't fun. It's a power-card that has a 50% chance to remove a player from the pitch, which is not „background inspired fun“ it's a quick to resolve power-card with a slight balance mechanism.

Actually “player removal” is an effect I would try to avoid entirely. In the cards I wrote for myself (as I considered no cards I've encountered fun) I made effects like “random player bursts into flames, runs D6 in a D8 direction and falls over.” or “place D3 markers on the pitch, players entering an adjacent square trigger a mine on a 4+”. That is more my understanding of “fun” in BB games. A little event, a scenario, nothing game breaking, but monotony breaking.

However, I really don't see how “BB background is a fact” and “You wouldn't be playing Monopoly” is a counter argument to the concern regarding a “sudden removal effect”. It doesn't even address the point of contest. Which is that the way cards work is not optimal.

And that is what you need to address. Do that, and everyone can be happy.

Maybe I just need to simplify what I was trying to say. I wandered into a thread a read something about cards being bad. I just wanted to say I like them and think they fit the theme, help break the monotony as you said, and that the theme is important but accept that this stuff should be balanced.

How this would happen I have no idea.

Blood bowl.

[JPB]

Blood bowl.

Is that a BB themed “bye” or a new way to throw up one's arms and say “orc happens”? hard to say knowing the game

Anyway, regarding designing cards and the fun aspect in BB games.

The devil hides in the detail, but it's possible (and it shouldn't stop a top class design team). A few pointers:

- I wanted to design two card decks. One with “fun” scenarios like: the pitch turns into a minefield, or use a ref miniature that interferes with both teams (tail, fouls etc.). These effects do not benefit either coach, but the coach playing the card gets a cash consideration (+D3 winnings) or small advantage (can place the ref before it goes haywire). The main design benefit of this system is that you can write a huge amount of special rules without coaches having to decide which one to use before the match (which never works). Instead they draw a card, play it and the special “surface rules” apply (or whatever). To make sure it doesn't become too much I balanced the deck so that only 1 out of 4 cards is a “crazy scenario” the rest is campaign stuff “your merchandise is all the rage: gain D3x10.000” etc. Campaign stuff.

- The second deck was supposed to contain “power-effects” that could be used competitively (perhaps even in tournaments). However, such cards need to be implemented differently. They need to be somehow represented in cash or TV, (or as an inducement as CRP did it). But they should not simply be drawn freely. What I decided on was to have staff members create those cards (Assistants & Cheerleaders) (so they finally have a reason to exist). This way I could manage how many staff members create a card (e.g. 5 assistants is 50.000 TV) and I hoped that including cards this way would make it a more strategical decision and thus more acceptable (i.e. a clearly defined investment). After that it's only a matter of balancing the effect based on the amount of TV it's worth. On top of that it may need some guidelines. A few I've written are: cards should never cause or cancel a TD. No “target player” removal. No automatically successful die rolls. Never interrupting a turn, or catching an opponent by surprise. You can expand that, and make it 100k or even 400k effects, with more power-effects that break the guidelines, but I don't think that is good for the game. BB should be played as it is right now (with a more strategic focus). Cards should only add flavour, small advantages or (as I like to call it) “challenges”. Losing a player (especially an important one) is not a good challenge, but an opponent picking up a chainsaw (for 50k) at the start of the match may be acceptable. Anyway, eventually it's all a matter of design and TV. Last, I added that cards can be played as a re-roll to reduce the randomness problem, which should help with the decision to use cards (staff member+card/re-roll). I thought this way “5 staff members/1 card” could replace a 4th or 3rd re-roll. However, balancing these cards is the most difficult aspect (especially when a competitive scene rips them apart, which is inevitable). But I thought GW could do it (being a multi-million company and all) but the cards I've seen made me sceptical. I'm really not under the impression they put a lot of thought into their card system. Like; What is it supposed to do? What is it's role in the game? How to make it a part of everything? What was the original flaw of cards, and how to avoid it? It all seems rather indifferent or poorly informed, as if calling it “fun” and making it “optional” is sufficient. Not sure what the problem is.

- Last, the fun aspect. Fluffing cards up can go a long a way. I spend as much time on the fluff as I did on the card effects. Eventually only using cards that were good effects and fun stories. Giving something a “good name” can help a lot to make it more enjoyable (immersion). I also added a lot of flavour by writing advertisement-lines for the bottom of every card that had enough space for it “Naggaroth Tours – Enjoy our Witch Elf service” “Nesquig – It's fresh when it craps” “Chanelf is Moranions's choice of fragrance” etc, to make cards more of an experience. I also wanted the effects to be as memorable as possible (as pointed out “runs D6 in a D8”, instead of just “remove player”). Last I added a perk system, that allows players to become Celebrities when they achieve a set goal (score a TD etc.). Such a player can then exchange celebrity for any other skill in the game (incl. chainsaws, mutations etc.). Which is basically a neat little trick to open up the game and allow teams to experience everything the system has to offer in a transparent and balanced way.

However, this is already long, but the guidelines and concept ideas I've compiled while creating my card deck is about 20 pages.

I've been trying to get GW's attention for such card concepts since 2012. I did design a system and 64 cards, and back then I was thinking that I'm just one person and my work is shit (obviously). But GW with their resources and experience could build upon it and make it great or come up with something better instead. But bullocks.

I looked into what they were doing (in 2016, early 2017) and then lost interest. I just find it hard to see BB as a system that is worth investing in any more (financially, creatively or emotionally).

For example I also agree with this one: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=44059
And what Ithilkir (who signs responsible for Lore of Nuffle no less!) pointed out in that topic:

Ouch, OK. Lot of inconsistencies from previous editions of the fluff but it's their world I guess.

Someone like Ithilkir (who must have spend years on Lore of Nuffle) pointing out disappointment should cause them to go full panic mode. I know I would. But I don't think it does. I spend 5 years on the background, trying to compile it and it's all gone now ("updated and modernized") (with, see above, inconsistencies) (you may also call it messed up). Add to that questionable rules decision like Piling On (“Warpblade”) or how they did cards and it's really hard to see the point of it all any more.

As Ithilkir hinted at, it's theirs, not ours. And I think one has to care about it accordingly. Otherwise it's an impossible situation.

Perhaps a bit similar to Star Wars. It's just the way it goes. Best not to care too much.

[Heff]

The standard tournament format is inferior to the game played with skill progression, cards and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

It's not inferior for those of us who enjoy a deep and complex strategy game in a competitively robust form.

Long leagues are the WORST format. This is why I no longer play online. The fact that at some point the team you are building will come upon the guy who has been playing for 4 (or 6 or 8 or 10) seasons with this team (it matters not what tier 1 team this almost inevitably is) and will be comprehensively dismembered because your team with 12 players, a plus AG Blitzer, and 8 skills on the team (Maximum) is going to be sacrificed to the glory of some guys 2200 tv team where all four blitzers have MB, Tackle, Guard, The one thrower has Leader, Surehands, KOR, and the only linemen with skills just happen to have Block/Wrestle and MB/Guard. The big guy INVARIABLY has block (or he has been sacked by now).

Not a clue if these guys can actually play the game, I know that the team they have gives them such an advantage that I cannot. I can buy a big ticket star for them to hunt down and foul off the pitch THAT is always "fun". Other than that I am just a spectator. What really killed it for me is that they will inevitably sit on the touchline with the ball in a tight cage and then go hunting, "oh that guy has +ag, got to kill him!"

None of these people seem to realise that on the OTHER SIDE of the computer screen is a person who has just sacrificed this hour of his life PLUS all the other hours building the team to this point, just so that you have some fun seal clubbing.

Not so in tournaments where there is some level of balance and none of the above. Not so short RL tournaments with regular resets.

[TheAzman]

The standard tournament format is inferior to the game played with skill progression, cards and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

It's not inferior for those of us who enjoy a deep and complex strategy game in a competitively robust form.

Long leagues are the WORST format. This is why I no longer play online. The fact that at some point the team you are building will come upon the guy who has been playing for 4 (or 6 or 8 or 10) seasons with this team (it matters not what tier 1 team this almost inevitably is) and will be comprehensively dismembered because your team with 12 players, a plus AG Blitzer, and 8 skills on the team (Maximum) is going to be sacrificed to the glory of some guys 2200 tv team where all four blitzers have MB, Tackle, Guard, The one thrower has Leader, Surehands, KOR, and the only linemen with skills just happen to have Block/Wrestle and MB/Guard. The big guy INVARIABLY has block (or he has been sacked by now).

Not a clue if these guys can actually play the game, I know that the team they have gives them such an advantage that I cannot. I can buy a big ticket star for them to hunt down and foul off the pitch THAT is always "fun". Other than that I am just a spectator. What really killed it for me is that they will inevitably sit on the touchline with the ball in a tight cage and then go hunting, "oh that guy has +ag, got to kill him!"

None of these people seem to realise that on the OTHER SIDE of the computer screen is a person who has just sacrificed this hour of his life PLUS all the other hours building the team to this point, just so that you have some fun seal clubbing.

Not so in tournaments where there is some level of balance and none of the above. Not so short RL tournaments with regular resets.

So much this! This is the main reason why I have barely played online recently. Watching the other coach systematically hunt down and slaughter any players on your team with any sort of skills. It’s lame.

[peo2223]

Having read this thread what "I hate 'fun'" seems to boil down to is:

I don't like anything that isn't going to be equal so I have an equal chance of winning.

Blood bowl is designed to be inbalanced in my opinion and this adds to the enjoyment.

Can the winging end now and we go back to rolling dice and having a laugh or should I just get my cards?

[Moraiwe]

Long leagues are the WORST format. This is why I no longer play online. The fact that at some point the team you are building will come upon the guy who has been playing for 4 (or 6 or 8 or 10) seasons with this team (it matters not what tier 1 team this almost inevitably is) and will be comprehensively dismembered because your team with 12 players, a plus AG Blitzer, and 8 skills on the team (Maximum) is going to be sacrificed to the glory of some guys 2200 tv team where all four blitzers have MB, Tackle, Guard, The one thrower has Leader, Surehands, KOR, and the only linemen with skills just happen to have Block/Wrestle and MB/Guard. The big guy INVARIABLY has block (or he has been sacked by now).

I'm guessing you're talking about online leagues here, but asking just in case... have you ever played in a tabletop league where someone has played enough games to create such a team? How long would it take?

The league I play in has been going for over 10 years with no resets. One team is in it's 9th year (107 games) and looks to be just about to claim its first title. Aside from perhaps the other teams in the running, the coaches are pretty happy for him - it's been wonderful to see the ups and downs of his team over the years. However, teams that play more than 30 games are the exception rather than the norm (more because people get bored and want something new, but the occasional obliterated team does occur). The journeys of the long-lasting teams really adds something special to the league, and we feel we'd lose more than we'd gain by not having them.

[Heff]

My league the ECBBL resets after every 10 to 12 games. You can carry the team on in pickup games but people rarely do.

[dode74]

Do the redrafting rules not help with this big-team issue?

[Heff]

Do the redrafting rules not help with this big-team issue?

Dunno. We just reset.

[fromherashes]

Do the redrafting rules not help with this big-team issue?

They definitely do.

[dode74]

Do the redrafting rules not help with this big-team issue?

They definitely do.

Do you think they could benefit online leagues and matchmaking leagues (suitably modified for MM)?