Why I hate "fun"

[Darkson]

*round of applause*

[Moraiwe]

I was thinking about this the other day when a friend stated he thought cards "break the game". Personally I think that we don't use cards and inducements enough in tournament play.

Blood Bowl is a ridiculous game where fantasy creatures that were doing battle for centuries for some reason dropped their battle axes in favour of american football, where shady characters and rogue wizards and insane fans try to gain an unfair advantage for one side or the other. There's doping and cheating and bribes... underhanded tactics are woven into the fabric of the game. Take for example the Bright Crusaders who are an exception to the rule because they DON'T cheat.

What we've done in tournament play is ignored this narrative and rendered down the wacky aspects of the game, and it's themes, to a relatively formulaic (yet still in fairness dice dependant) game of let's all column Dark Elves. Sure it's still fun, otherwise I wouldn't attend tournaments, none of us would, but I think we're kind of losing the point of this game sometimes. In fact take this discussion over cards and step into the narrative for a second- what we're basically saying is doping an opponent with a love potion is a no-no but a Goblin wielding a ball and chain twice his size or a Dwarf riding a combine harvester until such time as the ref notices, which is for some reason only when a touchdown is scored, is absolutely fine.

Should they be used every turn? Of course not, the game becoming a whirling vortex of random events every turn would be unfit for a tournament setting. But a scenario where both players had one relatively evenly balanced joker to pull at some point in the game would, in my opinion, keep the essence of the game alive without making it completely random.

Remember these aspects are in the rule book, they are intended to be a part of the game as a part of it's DNA and themes. We then removed them, or ignored them, for tournament usage, not the other way around - it's not the crazed work of a few lunatics that put them back IN.

Every now and then I see a post I'd wish I'd written. The standard tournament format is inferior to the game played with skill progression, cards and a whole bunch of other nonsense. If I had to choose between attending a tournament and attending my own league, I'd go the league every time.

[JPB]

I don't like this method of argument.

It mixes facts (mechanic and balance concerns) with fiction (the BB background). If people have concerns regarding mechanics and balance this is not a helpful argument (to put it nicely).

I actually agree with the concept (background elements in BB), but not to shut down concerns of cards intruding on other elements of the game and causing problems.

And I don't like the notion to treat the rule-book like holy scripture. Just because something is in it, or the people behind it intended something, shouldn't be grounds for absolute authority. It's more a common ground, and people/tournaments should be allowed freedom and liberty. Besides it also must be possible to call out flaws in the rule book, if there are any. And perhaps the card design is flawed/not working optimally?

I think what I don't like is that you basically make a politician argument, of “cards in BB could be a fun feature”. But say actually nothing. What you should explain is “how cards in BB will become a fun feature universally accepted”. And not just tell people to accept it as such, or gloss over it by saying it is, can or will be the case.

But a scenario where both players had one relatively evenly balanced joker to pull at some point in the game would, in my opinion, keep the essence of the game alive without making it completely random.

Yes, and if cards would be relatively evenly balanced and not disturb the game unduly, it would work perfectly fine and no one would complain. If and would, mate, if and would.

[hutchinsfairy]

I don't like this method of argument.

It mixes facts (mechanic and balance concerns) with fiction (the BB background). If people have concerns regarding mechanics and balance this is not a helpful argument (to put it nicely).

I actually agree with the concept (background elements in BB), but not to shut down concerns of cards intruding on other elements of the game and causing problems.

And I don't like the notion to treat the rule-book like holy scripture. Just because something is in it, or the people behind it intended something, shouldn't be grounds for absolute authority. It's more a common ground, and people/tournaments should be allowed freedom and liberty. Besides it also must be possible to call out flaws in the rule book, if there are any. And perhaps the card design is flawed/not working optimally?

I think what I don't like is that you basically make a politician argument, of “cards in BB could be a fun feature”. But say actually nothing. What you should explain is “how cards in BB will become a fun feature universally accepted”. And not just tell people to accept it as such, or gloss over it by saying it is, can or will be the case.

But a scenario where both players had one relatively evenly balanced joker to pull at some point in the game would, in my opinion, keep the essence of the game alive without making it completely random.

Yes, and if cards would be relatively evenly balanced and not disturb the game unduly, it would work perfectly fine and no one would complain. If and would, mate, if and would.

Yeah, I read the OP and saw an interesting point about how randomness affects player engagement. Either I missed the point or everyone else did.

[nonumber]

I don't like this method of argument.

It mixes facts (mechanic and balance concerns) with fiction (the BB background). If people have concerns regarding mechanics and balance this is not a helpful argument (to put it nicely).

What I'm saying is that in my opinion "the BB background" is just as much fact. It's what makes the game beautiful, hell it's what makes the game what it is. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand this is a discussion between randomness and balance, and if you read over my post a second time you'll notice all the "I think's" and "in my opinions". As a side note, I'm one of those that accepts and embraces that while Blood Bowl shouldn't completely random it also isn't intended to be balanced. I suppose you could call this in itself a fact, as I'm pretty sure the rulebook states (or at least used to) that certain races were intentionally made to be more challenging.

Your point about not taking a rulebook as gospel is a funny one. Like sure, you can take it with as many pinches of salt as you want. You could pick up Monopoly and say "go to jail is broken", "Community chest is too random". So take them out, you are quite correct that's every player's right (after all it's just board games). But you wouldn't be playing Monopoly.

I was simply voicing my opinion, I'm happy to accept it differs from others. I would appreciate not being accused of pontification.

[lunchmoney]

Where is my damn like button?

[Christy42]

Except blood bowl is designed to have house rules and the like a lot more than monopoly is. Especially with regards to the various inducements. Yeah you are still playing blood bowl without cards.

Indeed I also feel much of the fluff is captured in the more ordinary rules. Are we really meant to believe that the Goblin team came up with a perfect defense or more likely stole the oppositions playbook. I was also accused of starting before kicking the ball after a particularly effective Blitz!

Gfis killing players never made much sense to me without the pitch having traps and the like hidden in it for the unwary.

Each to their own obviously but I don't think the fluff is entirely ruined by not having cards specify various forms of cheating (though they do add a certain imagery to the game when the card is played).

[JPB]

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.

[Baxx]

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.

Some cards work similar to the cards you made. Just that there's so many cards, and some work like the ones you don't like too.

[besters]

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

A lot of people don't like these either, but just accept them as part of the game. Probably not for this topic though.

[Darkson]

If you don't like cards, simple, don't use them (they're t least optional in the CRP).
But if you don't like them and decide to go to a tournament and/or join a league that uses them then don't moan about it, no-one forced you to go/join.

[Baxx]

If you don't like cards, simple, don't use them (they're t least optional in the CRP).

Cards are optional in BB2016 too! Everything, absolutely everything is optional.

[Wobert]

I am not a fan of cards at all . . . . . . . I suspect there may be some of my recent opponents scratching their heads at that . . . . . . not a fan of cards for free that is.

It's not unheard of me for me to take a silly build to a tournament which includes lots of cards e.g. BUBBA IV saw a vampire free vampire team with 5 Dirty Tricks cards and a wizard. The sole reason for doing it was to get trampoline trap and pit trap . . . . so I would have 3 ways of knocking over the ball carrier without throwing a block. I never managed to get trampoline once in 4 games! Cards where you pay for them, where you take the gamble that it could be good, ok or rubbish I like. Cards where you get them for nothing which turn games . . . . not so keen on those because there was no investment, no risk. BB is generally about risk management and so if you want to risk investing in cards then heck, why not.

In terms of the SAWBBowl cards to be honest I am not a fan. Quietly I still remember being about to beat Hawca's Skaven with my Chaos. It was T16, all I needed to do was step over the line, he had no way of stopping me until he produced a card that said a player on my team has the no hands skill. I will not lie, that was mildly annoying. Although I am not a fan of how the cards are used I still go because its relatively local and it's a big event for a 1 day tournament. I don't dislike it enough not to go and so you just need to accept that sometimes free cards turn games. If its not for you then don't go.

This is in no way a moan about SAWBBowl, just my own view on how cards should be used (i.e. paid for). I don't claim my own events are perfect or that other people wouldn't do them differently (in fact we'll find out next year with AWM!!).

[Mystic Force]

In terms of the SAWBBowl cards to be honest I am not a fan. Quietly I still remember being about to beat Hawca's Skaven with my Chaos. It was T16, all I needed to do was step over the line, he had no way of stopping me until he produced a card that said a player on my team has the no hands skill. I will not lie, that was mildly annoying.

Ok that made me laugh when I read it. I at least was having fun or is that "fun" I haven't quite worked it out. I bet you will remember that game a lot longer than if you had simply scored! That kind of shenanigans at least makes stalling a less appealing option. I think this sought of thing is great for narrative leagues, less so for tournaments.

Most games have a background, some feels bolted on and unnecessary, some inspire the game drawing on an existing setting. Some help to set a context, and inspire playing. Chess doesn't need a back story it just is, X-Wing miniature game would not be what it was without drawing on the Starwars universe. Bloodbowl is a parody of a setting, a lot of people have come into bloodbowl without ever interacting with that setting, and to them is unnecessary (Hence going to a tournament and playing against, I believe a Norse team, made up of Wookie miniatures) The background are not the rules but it tells you what it is meant to be. Like the preamble to the constitution, it doesn't tell you the rules, but what the rules are meant to be about.

[hutchinsfairy]

But if you don't like them and decide to go to a tournament and/or join a league that uses them then don't moan about it, no-one forced you to go/join.

And yet, if we were talking about a tournament using Brets and Khorne, I bet you'd be up in arms, p*ssing and moaning until the TO had to threaten to boot you from the event.

Oh, wait. You did and then he did.