Would you like blood bowl to take less time to play?

[neoliminal]

If the game could be shortened without changing the basic feel of the game, would you want a shorter game?

[Ghost of Pariah]

I'm sorry but Blood Bowl is a time consuming game just like all great games! If I want short streamlined gaming I'll turn on Madden 2002 or whatever. I got into Blood Bowl from Warhammer and I got into Warhammer from Dungeons and Dragons. The amount of time a game takes is not an issue to me. In fact, Blood Bowl is the shortest game I play! If you want short and streamlined I'm sure you can find a nice game checkers somewhere.

[neoliminal]

Sure, checkers rules and all, but I'd like to have more coaches playing Blood Bowl. It seems that many coaches who have dropped out of leagues do so because the game is too long. YMMV.

[Devil's Advocate]

If the game could be shortened without changing the basic feel of the game, would you want a shorter game?

That's a huge if there, neo.
If it wouldn't change the feel of the game, yes. But if the changes alter the game significantly (an objective matter, I know), then I give it a big NO.

Just curious, have you ever played under the second edition rules? That was a loooong game.

[SixFootDwarf]

Well, my games games usually go about 2 hours, including BSing during the game and drinks, etc. Unless one of the coaches is either a rookie or one of those examine-every-possible-combination type guys. If you know what you wanna do and know the rules, that's about average.

2 hours is fine. I can live with that.

[GalakStarscraper]

shame on you neominal ... you asked a good poll type question and then immediatley make the first post a plug that leans toward Yes.
Bad survey taking my friend.

Anyway, because of all the debate, I think the results should be fine as everyone is pretty aware of the pro/con on both sides of the answer.

Galak

[neoliminal]

If the game could be shortened without changing the basic feel of the game, would you want a shorter game?

That's a huge if there, neo.
If it wouldn't change the feel of the game, yes. But if the changes alter the game significantly (an objective matter, I know), then I give it a big NO.

Just curious, have you ever played under the second edition rules? That was a loooong game.

I played under first edition rules. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here. I agree that great strides were made in taking Blood Bowl from 6-8 hours (or longer in some cases) down to "only three". Personally I think it could be shorter.

Look at it this way:

Games are all about the choice you make during play. In Tic-Tac-Tow you pick a square and put your mark in it. You can make up to 5 choiced in Tic-Tac-Toe, but the choices are pretty boring. My point here is that the game is just a series of choices (from the players point of view.)

These choices affect how long the game takes. Two factors here: The harder (more interesting) the choices, the longer the game takes. The more choices made, the longer the game takes.

Academic question: What is the least number of choices you could reduce Blood Bowl down to and still have it be Blood Bowl?

We've already seen that you can take it down from 6 hours to 3 hours and still have a Blood Bowl-ness intact.

I think it could be reduced to a 2 hour game. Putting aside the obvious question of the difficulty, is such a move worth the effort? Would it be a better game. I think it's obvious that a 3 hour game was better than a 6 hour game. I know I wouldn't be playing Blood Bowl if it too 6 hours to play a single game. I also know there are coaches who wont play because the game takes 3 hours.

The question is worth asking... would Blood Bowl be a better game if it took less time to play?

[neoliminal]

shame on you neominal ... you asked a good poll type question and then immediatley make the first post a plug that leans toward Yes.
Bad survey taking my friend.

Anyway, because of all the debate, I think the results should be fine as everyone is pretty aware of the pro/con on both sides of the answer.

Galak

Which post are you talking about? The one where I ask the poll question over again? Or the one where I respond to a poster?

John -

[GalakStarscraper]

Also really that's why you've seen players quit .... hmmmm

The table top leagues I've played in the game time wasn't the issue for quiting ...

Usually the players that quit were because they couldn't win ... or their favorite little team got crushed like bugs and they didn't want to rebuild or start over.

The coaches that quit because they didn't have time ... literally didn't have time at all ... ie if the game only took 1 1/2 hours they still couldn't play.

Galak

The flipside interestingly enough from tabletop where time to play is also an issue even though the commitment is only 5 to 10 minutes a day ... its 5 to 10 minutes EVERY weekday and for some coaches that too much also ... right now in my life neominal if the game took 1 hour to play that would too much as the closest gaming store is 40 minutes from my house ... what I'm trying to get at is that BB is a game that requires time .. you ever have it or you don't in my opinion ... cutting a 1/2 hour or hour from the game won't change that for many people ... the only real effect would be that tournaments could run more games .... HOWEVER ... if that is a driving force than re-read JJ's article in CJ #48, p. 17 which could have had the alternate title of "Tournament Style Games, Who Needs Them".

I'd rather have one good game in an evening when I can play tabletop again then 2 not so developed games (this is my opinion that changing the rules to make the game shorter cannot be done without a change to the flavor).

Galak

[jeffzimm1]

I really think that the game isn't the problem. Very often a long game occurs due to lack of experience, or lack of familiarity or understanding of the rules, or, my favorite, the coach who didn't come to play, but hold discussions with everyone else .

Our solution of have a third party ref to take care of a lot of the things like scoring, keeping track of casualties, etc. helps alot! Plus, he/she can encourage the players to move the game along.

[Lucien Swift]

Just curious, have you ever played under the second edition rules? That was a loooong game.

ya know, i remember 2e as being actually a little quicker than 3e... you only played to 2 td's, and there were times that would be all of twenty minutes... you'd get bogged-down in a scrum occasionally, and that could take some time, but it was definitely a quicker game on average...

unless, of course, you're talking about those silly 'official naf' rules.... we're still playing the first half of one of those games, at 2 hours of play a day, we finally finished the first drive a mere ten years into the game! (that's sarcasm, but it's not far off)....

2e's downfall wasn't playing time, but rather the inbalanced nature of the blocking rules...

[GalakStarscraper]

The one where you ask the poll question over again with a slant in the question.

The poll question is an honest poll based on the other conversations.

By 1st post, then tries to grab the poll answers attention and say hey I know you've already read all the discussion but if I could keep the game feeling like Blood Bowl and get it shorter would you like it?

The problem is that assuming I've already read the debate, this promise has a lot of big ifs attached to. I've already seen you take the other poll and use it to make the statement, see people would like BB games to take less time. The danger element comes from the fact that you are in a position to do something with an opinion ... fortunately you need to convince 3 other folks to agree with you one of which must be JJ.

Its a nitpick, but since I work with survey stuff with my job, I just wanted to point out that your first post is a polling slant attempt in my profession whether you intended for it to be or not.

Also I'm not looking to get into a debate over this ... really ... just being nitpicky today.

Galak

[neoliminal]

The one where you ask the poll question over again with a slant in the question.

The poll question is an honest poll based on the other conversations.

By 1st post, then tries to grab the poll answers attention and say hey I know you've already read all the discussion but if I could keep the game feeling like Blood Bowl and get it shorter would you like it?

Fair enough. I wish I could just post a poll and not have to make a post with it. The phpBB forces you to post *something*. I tried to use the space to explain the question better. Mea Culpa if it was leading the debate.

BTW, if I was trying to sway the voting (which I wasn't) it didn't work. By the time you said something the voting was already 6-1.

[GalakStarscraper]

I didn't say the sway factor was working just that it was implied.

I also know enough about you to know that you wouldn't have done it on purpose.

Galak

[CyberHare]

I really think that the game isn't the problem. Very often a long game occurs due to lack of experience, or lack of familiarity or understanding of the rules, or, my favorite, the coach who didn't come to play, but hold discussions with everyone else .

I'm going to have to agree here. I've been in and out of games in 1.5 hours with some coaches and others it takes 5 hours. And don't try to tell the coach who's taking 10 minutes a turn that he's slow because that'll only piss him off and then he will end up leaving the league.

As far as I'm concerned the mechanic is already there to control the amount of time a game takes. The 4 minute rule. If you choose not to play with a clock then you can't complain how long a game takes. If 2.5 hours is to long then play with a 3 minute rule. Just make sure the coach your playing against doesn't have any heart ailments or you may have other worries besides a slow game

-Brian