Why I hate "fun"

[Glowworm]

. What got me on this was a hissy fit I had at a recent Tournament that used cards. (They were given instead of weather changes on a roll off, my opponent got one)

.

This was my tournament, the rules pack was clear, I've run this tournament this way for 5-6 years now (under various names) and I've only had I previous complaint which was about a specific card which was removed from the cards available, if the tournament allowed cards as inducements would you have felt the same? its a 50K IIRc


Also, if a thrown rock had "Ruined your setup" would you have felt the same way? Just asking as it seems that its a little obtuse to use that argument in a game where the random element is an integral part of the system.

The solution is clear, vote with your feet buddy, find a tournament that doesn't allow cards in any form, youll be fine.

[JPB]

It is fascinating that the kick-off table is widely tolerated, but to ride on that phenomenon, cards need to be designed in that image, and that means very specifically.

For example, Throw a Rock has very rarely a huge impact. It mostly hits Linemen, right after set-up and causes a stunned. Having Throw a Rock kill Morg'N'Thorg is possible, but very unlikely. And that is what makes it acceptable. However, if it does end up killing an important player it is just as unfair and horrible as cards. But as it happens so rarely those cases are filed under „freak accident“ or „fun“.

I don't know the current iteration of Love Potion, but I assume it's: „Target player.“

And going out on that limb (knock on head): that's not a good design, especially when the card is for free. „Target player“ is a power-effect and should cost money (aka TV). (It appears, in the example by Heff, it removed a Guard piece, which is a very influential effect). A „fun card“ would need to hit a random player with a wizard timing and replace the automatic removal with a possible one, if at all. Similar to the kick-off table.

It's not that difficult to create a working card deck. It's just a matter of investment (mostly time), experience and clearly defined rules and concepts. But, as far as I know, there isn't even a clear rule set on how cards are supposed to be implemented into the games.

At least, the last I saw was a simple sheet offering various options, which all looked simple, and ended with “your choice”. Which isn't good enough.
And I've heard bad comments on balance within card decks, too (mixing CRP cards of various levels, which is just...). I mean it really appears as if it's supposed to be a „fun deck“ only and that means „balls to the walls“ and that makes it horrible. I can understand when people are pissed about it. Especially in a competitive environment.

[birdman37]

If it's the CRP version of Love Potion that was being played, then it's a 100K card, and it targets a "randomly selected opposing player, in a wide zone of your choice". Which would make it a 50/50 if Heff had 2 players set up in the wide zone, or a dead certainty if he had only the one.

Another aspect to consider: when Throw a Rock happens, it's the will of Nuffle, and completely out of both Coaches' control. It might ruin your drive, but your opponent didn't specifically cause it to happen. Cards are very specifically played by your opponent, and usually at the worst/best possible time, and I expect that carries an emotional impact with it, particularly with the cards that are of a "take that" nature. It would be hard not to feel a bit put-upon when your opponent deliberately compounds an unfavourable kick-off result with a take-that card.

[Heff]

. What got me on this was a hissy fit I had at a recent Tournament that used cards. (They were given instead of weather changes on a roll off, my opponent got one)

.

This was my tournament, the rules pack was clear, I've run this tournament this way for 5-6 years now (under various names) and I've only had I previous complaint which was about a specific card which was removed from the cards available, if the tournament allowed cards as inducements would you have felt the same? its a 50K IIRc


Also, if a thrown rock had "Ruined your setup" would you have felt the same way? Just asking as it seems that its a little obtuse to use that argument in a game where the random element is an integral part of the system.

The solution is clear, vote with your feet buddy, find a tournament that doesn't allow cards in any form, youll be fine.

see this part of a previous reply

"Behind all of that is the "Fun" versus fun debate. Yes a pitch invasion can wreck your day, sometimes the rock kills your star, perfect defence can screw you (BTW he got perfect D THEN played this card, so TWO massive swings his way) but that is within variance if you like. cards just push it too far. some of them are just massive crippling moves, I am thinking the one where a player will not assist or give assists, Or this player HAS to go first. THese are "Fun" but they are the antithesis of fun.

Chess is neither "Fun" nor fun for me. The thing that is fun is that I am riding a probability wave. Like I said a good player has a feel for the game, can sense the balance of it and play within it. Now "Fun" things mess with that. I can deal with a thrown rock because that is within the curve, I can deal with perfect defence because that is too. Perfect D plus a rock (which was what this was, and a KO rock at that) is OUTSIDE the curve. It is not within the parameters of the game as played THAT is "Fun" it is not fun.

It was NOT bleating about dice, It was not Being a sore loser, IT was being an arsehole. but it got me thinking."

[Heff]

. What got me on this was a hissy fit I had at a recent Tournament that used cards. (They were given instead of weather changes on a roll off, my opponent got one)

.

This was my tournament, the rules pack was clear, I've run this tournament this way for 5-6 years now (under various names) and I've only had I previous complaint which was about a specific card which was removed from the cards available, if the tournament allowed cards as inducements would you have felt the same? its a 50K IIRc


Also, if a thrown rock had "Ruined your setup" would you have felt the same way? Just asking as it seems that its a little obtuse to use that argument in a game where the random element is an integral part of the system.

The solution is clear, vote with your feet buddy, find a tournament that doesn't allow cards in any form, youll be fine.

Now to the larger point. You use cards because you "Don't like the weather tables". Fair enough, but weather effects everybody. Sweltering heat can cost you a drive if the dice screw you but the odds are even. The rest of the table is just an inconvenience to a pain in the ass (Got a draw on Sunday at the NAF cos I could not roll a 4 in pouring rain to pick the ball up for 4 successive turns, several 3's but no 4). The cards are a d6+fame roll off for a random card.

Only 1 complaint in the previous five years does not account for the people who are self censoring their use. Lunchmoney for example in game 1 looked at his card, looked at me and said "That is a bit much" and put it down. Don't have a clue what that card was, don't care. So some people will be recognising an issue and voting with their feet.

If you don't like it don't come, is valid as far as it goes, but it closes the door on looking to see if there is an issue. Now as I have said my hissy fit was about more than a stupid game in a scout hut, I have owned that I was an ass, but mate there are people there who are managing the issue for you. There are also people there who are going "WHEE FUN" and there are people there who are going "It is in the rules, so I will do it". I come to SAW, and to Hudsons overpowered guardspam Cake DESPITE the rules not BECAUSE Of them. I come to meet people I like and have a few games. I come because I like you!

[PercyTheTroll]

Is it that with the cards (and I don't know the rulespack here specifically so I may be wrong as wrong can be) there are so many permutations that you can't possibly plan for them and you're unlikely to get balance without playing many many games with the same rule set. The kick-off table on the other hand is a constant, yes you'll occasionally get f***ed over but it's a known list of results of which only 3 or 4 will massively screw you and, because it's more constant, it'll balance out more often.

[Heff]

Is it that with the cards (and I don't know the rulespack here specifically so I may be wrong as wrong can be) there are so many permutations that you can't possibly plan for them and you're unlikely to get balance without playing many many games with the same rule set. The kick-off table on the other hand is a constant, yes you'll occasionally get f***ed over but it's a known list of results of which only 3 or 4 will massively screw you and, because it's more constant, it'll balance out more often.

Exactly

[lunchmoney]

...This was my tournament, the rules pack was clear, :

Just to play devil's advocate here...

your tourney rules pack (which was just the tourney thread's first post) makes zero mention of the weather table being replaced by special cards.
Yes you have always used them, but the 2018 thread says nothing.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=44330

we will be using the CRP rules with no additions (cards, phone apps, special pitch rules, modified weather tables (actually no weather tables at all Ect) with the exception noted above.

Is the only mention of weather. There is no exception mentioned "above".

[Glowworm]

Bob, I never going to fall out with you over this.... suffice to say that the problem with cards will not happen again.

Thank you for your feedback BTW, makes my decision making process much easier, hope to see you soon buddy.

[JPB]

Is it that with the cards (and I don't know the rulespack here specifically so I may be wrong as wrong can be) there are so many permutations that you can't possibly plan for them and you're unlikely to get balance without playing many many games with the same rule set. The kick-off table on the other hand is a constant, yes you'll occasionally get f***ed over but it's a known list of results of which only 3 or 4 will massively screw you and, because it's more constant, it'll balance out more often.

Well, it's a matter of design really. Cards are more difficult to balance, but it's possible.

And the argument of it “balancing out over time” is a bit misleading, as it does nothing for the coach who gets massively screwed that one game.

From "permutations and balance issues (too many variables)" to "balanced by applying constantly", is a bit of a leap, that doesn't really make sense. How does "everyone gets screwed in turn" make the effect balanced? Shouldn't that be rather acceptable? As it's not balanced when it applies.

Besides, cards can be balanced, there are many trading card companies who work on balancing such scenarios. It really should only be a matter of ingenuity.

Imo, the kick-off table is taken in strides by coaches because of its nature, i.e. it's more psychologically different, than better balanced. And I think that's what card design needs to take into account, it needs to become psychologically acceptable.
As said:

Another aspect to consider: when Throw a Rock happens, it's the will of Nuffle, and completely out of both Coaches' control. It might ruin your drive, but your opponent didn't specifically cause it to happen. Cards are very specifically played by your opponent, and usually at the worst/best possible time, and I expect that carries an emotional impact with it, particularly with the cards that are of a "take that" nature. It would be hard not to feel a bit put-upon when your opponent deliberately compounds an unfavourable kick-off result with a take-that card.

Which I believe is exactly an effect cards need to avoid, or it needs to be designed like the Wizard. There are many other elements, like BB being a very strategic game, and an element, like cards, that hits a coach by surprise and messes up all the planning is terrible. It can feel intrusive. Another aspect the kick-off table avoids as it's outside of regular play.

All it really needs is better design to fit it into the game better.

I believe cards can be used competitively and I believe they could add fun (actually "variation" may be a better word) in campaign games. However, I don't think either has ever been the case. To me cards are mostly potential, that has never been fully explored.

[dode74]

How does "everyone gets screwed in turn" make the effect balanced?

The same way Rock Paper Scissors is balanced.

[Regash]

"Paper is nicely balanced but Rock is totally overpowered." said Scissors.
Like that?

[JPB]

How does "everyone gets screwed in turn" make the effect balanced?

The same way Rock Paper Scissors is balanced.

I'm not sure if this is a joke? I assume not as I see no smilie. Which means I disagree. It's a bad comparison. Rock Paper Scissors is totally different to a kick-off table that starts a game. Rock Paper Scissors is the game.

[spubbbba]

How does "everyone gets screwed in turn" make the effect balanced?

The same way Rock Paper Scissors is balanced.

I'm not sure if this is a joke? I assume not as I see no smilie. Which means I disagree. It's a bad comparison. Rock Paper Scissors is totally different to a kick-off table that starts a game. Rock Paper Scissors is the game.

I think most people would find the game less fun if every time you played 1 team dominated and had won by turn 4 of the first half. If it happened equally the game would be balanced but still rather dull for both players.

One of the appeals of Blood Bowl is that it has a good mix between skill and luck. In a game like chess a much better player won't get much out of playing a seriously weaker opponent. Whilst in Blood Bowl the dice can still pull off surprises. In comparison snakes and ladders gives the player no agency at all and the winner is always random. You may as well let a computer determine it for you.

[PercyTheTroll]

And the argument of it “balancing out over time” is a bit misleading, as it does nothing for the coach who gets massively screwed that one game.

I think that's a fair point. There are lots of things in BB where you can get screwed over. Buy a wizard and roll a 1 for your lightning bolt for example. But if there wasn't any randomness you'd lose the charm of the game (for want of a better phrase)

From "permutations and balance issues (too many variables)" to "balanced by applying constantly", is a bit of a leap, that doesn't really make sense. How does "everyone gets screwed in turn" make the effect balanced? Shouldn't that be rather acceptable? As it's not balanced when it applies.

I think there are two effects here. Firstly there's the known possible outcomes of the KO table. You know that Blitz is a possibility so you plan for it. Cards, because there are simply more of them, are harder to plan for and therefore feel more like an arbitrary change of the flow of the game.

Then there's the psychological thing of the KO table happening more often so you see it balance out more. The cards may be balanced but because you see them relatively rarely it feels different. Pretty much as you said!

I think if anything I'd make Blitz a more common KO table result. If it has a 1/6 chance of happening at every kick off people will play for it more and be annoyed by it less (the downside being it favours high scoring teams and makes games longer).