Strong, free and safe: terms for "blitzability"

[mattgslater]

I don't think there's actually all that terribly much risk that BB will become like Chess. You'll never get the element of chance out of the game. Also, the multiple consecutive actions and liberal movement rules in BB put the advantage in the favor of the acting player. So I don't think there's any danger of this becoming that much less of a "rolling, shambolic mess of fun and lunacy" just by defining a few common maneuvers and structures.

Ask any American FB fan why he likes NFL/NCAA football over other sports, and he'll tell you how there's this huge body of complex strategy that really matters in overall success, and yet at the same time it all boils down to a bunch of big guys smacking each other around, and anything can happen. They have a hundred times as much terminology as I have, and yet, you gotta roll the dice, and if it don't work, a good plan is at best a mitigating factor.

I always figured Blood Bowl was a combo of Backgammon, Chess/Go/Tafl, Talisman, railroad/diorama modeling, and American FB. The thing that makes this game truly great is the degree to which it engages both hemispheres: it's funky, unlike Chess, and hard, unlike Talisman. Enhancing one element just by considering it a new way shouldn't detract from the others, so long as people are pushing those envelopes too. Newer, funkier models are always coming out, we're always learning more about the crazy history of Star Players... and we're always getting better and better at the tactical game.

What could happen is that the barrier for rookie competitiveness could rise among groups that adopt this. My experience with rookie coaches is that they fall into three categories: the ones who are instantly good, the ones who get good over two or three seasons, and the ones who wash out, either because they never get it or because of circumstance. A dedicated science of BB would probably make the first group look more like the second, with a predictable year-over-year improvement among sophomore coaches.

I think one really important element of a good, inclusive terminology is that the terms should all be intuitive or sensible, so if you're explaining something with a diagram, you should be able to use your terms conversationally and expect the uninitiated to pick it up from context, and if you explain a term to somebody, they should respond with "oh yeah." Terms like "Sicilian" function as a buffer between the relative novice and the intermediate player; that's okay once in awhile, but I'd rather focus it on two different groups: advanced coaches looking to build a new level, and relatively green coaches looking to make the jump to "intermediate" status. It's taken me two years to build a group of coaches I can play with. I'd like to be able to bring up a crop of newbies in six months.

[The Painted Goblin]

I'd like to be able to bring up a crop of newbies in six months.

Unlikely, when you talk like this:-

Yellow is protecting its half with something resembling trap spine. But not quite, because Blitzer #2 is a strong inside picket. This is not the end of the world, as he has Side Step; if he didn't, it would be a clear no-no. Of course, if it's the beginning of yellow's turn, "strong" is a theoretical consideration, which only matters in the case of a turnover. Again, in the event of a turnover, yellow would have no safe players, but only 2, 11 and maybe 14 are in strong points; the rest are free.

Most newbies would run a mile, which was kind of my first point.

[duckwing]

Talking about intuitive; why do you use the term "strong" player for a position that I would call a weak point in your defence?

On another note; I've always thought of a screen as a line (straight or curved) of players that are protecting one side from the enemy players on the other, as opposed from a cage wich protects the inside from enemy players on the outside. Not something as narrowly defined as players standing with exactly two squares between them in a straight line.

[mattski]

I wasn't suggesting that you want to make BBowl into chess in terms of how the game is actually played but rather in being able to use terms to denote ideas, concepts and positions which enable players to be able to analyse the game on a deeper structural level. But as has already been pointed out whilst you are happy to dismiss, 'Terms like "Sicilian" function as a buffer between the relative novice and the intermediate player' yet your own descriptions are similarly complex and opaque. To understand the terms you have to understand the game and once you have the grasp of the game you need terms less and less to be able to play. Now to be able to understand concepts and become a more successful and better player is something different but as I said in my initial post this is where what you are talking about reminds me of chess. It stops being fun for me and I just want to play and learn the hard way about what works and what doesn't even if sometimes I don't understand why it actually happened that way.

Ultimately you are striving for a language around the game at a conceptual level that the majority of players have no interest in (I believe). I am far from saying that you should stop this but to me it is the difference between thinking about why a piece of music works and how complex and clever it is in comparison to just sitting down and having an emotional (rather than intellectual) response to it.

[mattgslater]

Unlikely, when you talk like this... Most newbies would run a mile, which was kind of my first point.

I don't talk like that in front of newbies. Yeesh, you think I'm talking only to one audience? You'd never get anybody into any subject if you started throwing out stuff like that every day. But any subject worth studying goes a million times deeper than what you give 'em on day one. Just because little Johnny is struggling with his long division doesn't mean that little Johnny's older brother Jack shouldn't be taking calculus. The only people who need to know your underlying (oh, that word is so important) terminology are the ones who want to use it to get better. Those who are exposed to its fruits without ever hearing it will frequently pick up the principles through experience, and if they don't, will figure it out when good and ready.

your own descriptions are similarly complex and opaque.

Talking about intuitive; why do you use the term "strong" player for a position that I would call a weak point in your defence?

See, this is the conversation I want to have, at least early in the process. Nobody nobody nobody has a corner on the market of what's intuitive. Something that just makes a ton of sense to you has a good chance of not making any sense at all to somebody else. So the best way to do terms like this is by committee.

I am far from saying that you should stop this but to me it is the difference between thinking about why a piece of music works and how complex and clever it is in comparison to just sitting down and having an emotional (rather than intellectual) response to it.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. When it comes to music, I learned to play so I'd be able to appreciate it on another level. I'm still not much of a musician, but now I can appreciate a piece of music in another way. I'm certainly a better musician that I'd be if I'd just tried to learn by ear....

[mattgslater]

Once you have the grasp of the game you need terms less and less to be able to play.

At this point, I don't know that. I play a pretty mean BB game, and nonetheless, I've found myself improving by leaps and bounds just by defining the things I do.

Now to be able to understand concepts and become a more successful and better player is something different but as I said in my initial post this is where what you are talking about reminds me of chess. It stops being fun for me and I just want to play and learn the hard way about what works and what doesn't even if sometimes I don't understand why it actually happened that way.

I think you misunderstood me in my contrast with Chess. The differences are fundamental and apply directly to the topic at hand. In Chess, positioning isn't just everything, it's the only thing. BB also involves a lot of other skills, like long-term resource management, probability analysis, and risk:reward assessment on a level that just doesn't exist in Chess. So improving one's space management (the point of these terms) is not the be-all-and-end-all of getting better. Also, there's a chance element, too. You can outplay your opponent in BB, and lose anyway. Nuffle is the underdog's friend, and Nuffle don't play Chess.

Positioning in Chess is much harder to pick up, because each "position" does something totally different, while all BB players have some version of the same menu of actions, and apart from MA, Sprint, Leap and positioning skills, the differences between the players mostly pertain to probability. Probability skills are easy to develop independent of BB, because they apply to a lot of things in life, while positioning skills are BB-specific. So while the gap between a rank amateur and a talented novice is similar between Chess and BB, the gap between a talented novice and a serious student of the game will always be much greater in Chess.

Magnifying this effect is the difference in entry barrier. If you want to play Chess, you read the 200 word rulebook, buy a $5 set and you're good to go. Sure, you'll suck for a bit, but each time you lose, you reset five or ten minutes later and try again, so eventually you'll get average, and then whenever you encounter another casual Chess player, you can play Chess with them. Not so, Blood Bowl. BB is a much more complicated game that takes a long time to learn. Getting a BB set is a lot harder and probably a lot more expensive (unless you're one of those guys into marble squares and gold leaf). You have to paint, and eventually you're going to start modeling. It's a two-hour game, which is often decided before the 90-minute mark; sucking up bad losses with panache is part of the culture. If you don't want it, you can't have it, and that has nothing to do with the level of the competition. So if you want it, why not invest a little mental effort in it?

Oh, and I'm happy to write diagram-heavy articles with few or no terms. There's always more than one way to say everything, and there's always more than one way to approach everything. Sometimes one way is better, sometimes another way is better. Why not load our collective quiver up with all the arrows we think we might use?

[mattski]

Glad to see that the pearls before swine comment has been lost in the internet ether. I find it hard to understand why you are shocked at the level of what you have termed hostility at trying to introduce high-level concepts and theories into a game which most of us play for fun. I am more than aware of just why BBowl is different to chess and that is one of the reasons that I moved from one to the other. The fact that you can play so many games of chess all of which start with exactly the same rules and exactly the same positions encourages, if not demands, studying them. When I did my MA in English Renaissance I did my dissertation on the relationship between a society and the games that they played. And in it I tried to argue that the more hierarchical pre-Early Modern societies (not allowed to call them the 'Dark Ages' any more) liked chess because it was spatial, and martial and lessons learnt in one game could be carried over into the next one because they were all the same.

But I just can't see that BBowl lends itself to this type of thinking. If you see a Knight on a chess board you know what it can do but a Lineman. Where is he? What race is he? What skills does he have? What is his relationship with the field, the ball, his team-mates, his opponents? All of these have to be taken into consideration before you can have an informed opinion of his value at that moment in time. Or, you just play the game and enjoy the time that you have spent playing it. It is always difficult to bring in what are often thought of as higher-level thinking into anything that we do which is considered as being a past-time because eventually someone always just frowns slightly and says, 'but at the end of the day its just a game'. Today that man is me; that is my pearl and I cast it before no-one but myself.

[mattgslater]

Okay. Point?

I did cut that "pearls before swine" bit out for a reason. It was ill-considered.

I guess I have an ethical problem with "don't go there, because it sounds hard, and I don't want other coaches to get better around me while I keep goofing off," which is what I'm hearing. I play this game because it's hard. It works your sense of space, your math buttons, your time- and resource-management skills, playing on your emotions all the while. It's Go, Backgammon and Blackjack all rolled into one. I've played hundreds of games looking for the best one, and this is my game, for those reasons. It looks fun and silly, but that's just a pretty façade to conceal the steely challenges underneath. If I want beer and pretzels, I'll play Talisman, or even better, Settlers of Catan. That's a good-natured game.

[mattgslater]

But I just can't see that BBowl lends itself to this type of thinking. If you see a Knight on a chess board you know what it can do but a Lineman. Where is he? What race is he? What skills does he have? What is his relationship with the field, the ball, his team-mates, his opponents? All of these have to be taken into consideration before you can have an informed opinion of his value at that moment in time.

So you do understand me. 'Cause that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.

You can think of a BB player on the pitch at a time as having four different causes, in the Aristotelian sense:

#1: Model, player number, team (material)
#2: Position, profile (formal)
#3: Location (efficient)
#4: Role at the moment (final)

#1 and #2 are taken care of by the rulebook, and we have a serviceable terminology for #4, inasmuch as we're going to get role in the absence of location. #3 is the only uncharted territory, and it's uncharted because it's harder to discuss than the others. So that's where I am.

[Joemanji]

Be careful not to tread over that line marked 'arrogance' Matt. If people reject your terminology it may not be because they don't understand it. Many people I know personally think its just plain silly and adds little-to-no value. This is a game played widely and many of the people here know each other and have played each other numerous times. People travel to different countries to test themselves against the best. They have earned each others' respect. You may be as good as you think you are, but IMO you haven't shown that as yet. In all your threads I have not seen anything new, but I have seen a hell of a lot that is just plain wrong. I guess that may be part of the issue. If Podfrey or Frikipe came along with these terms people may buy into them. But you are always going to have to work harder.

[mattgslater]

Ah. See, that I respect. Sadly, the issue for me is a combination of geography and resources. Y'all are over there and I'm over here. Man, I hate that. I feel like a caged animal.

What I'm trying to get to is that we do a lot of things over and over, applied in different contexts, that we don't have terms for. There's a geometry of BB that involves certain patterns, expressed in different ways for different purposes, and there are certain common exceptions to those patterns. But we don't have any vocabulary for any of it, so we can only talk about it in little bits and pieces.

[Pipey]

Matt, I think the problem you are trying to solve doesn't really exist. Or what is probably more accurate, you are the only person who perceives it as a problem to be solved.

I actually admire what you're trying to do as a fellow lover if the lexicon of the game. But you can't contrive any language, that's not how languages develop. It is an organic process and terms will develop as required.

Language is also economical, such that terms with little or no currency are not used and die out (or will not be not coined in the first place). I'm afraid much of your initial set-up terminology is in this category.

Your posts are thoroughly entertaining though and I do enjoy a lot of your use of language, even if it frequently resembles self parody!

I think you're probably quite mad put nonetheless keep up the Charlie Browns / Loaded Polygons / Folded Kippers etc etc

It's all good fun but I reckon you're on to a loser if you think people will ever use all your jargon...

[mattgslater]

All? No way. Some? Quite likely. What I'm thinking is that I'm onto a hodgepodge of three things. Which is which is quite beyond me, and I'd venture beyond any one coach with any certainty.

1) A few gems, concepts that will change the way people think about how they play (though, for the tourney set, probably not the way they actually do play);

2) A few terms or conventions that will ultimately slip into the lexicon;

3) A bunch of chaff, hopefully a minority but unavoidably a considerable fraction, that either goes nowhere or sparks a few conversations and dies away. Eventually, some of that will evolve into #1 or #2, or something similar will come along to replace it.

The problem with defining things as you use them is that you have to assume that you (me, we, each of us) don't see the whole picture. I figure if you define everything once, the most relevant elements will stick, and then the rest will fall away, like a stonecutter starts with a rock of one size and finishes with a smaller one. Some of it will come back, or more likely will be rediscovered and renamed, as strategic development builds on itself. BB isn't a lump of clay. It's already there, set in its form, and it is for us to carve from it the shape of the One, or as close to that as we are able.

[Pipey]

I do like the term Ziggurat!

But be careful that it's not just <1% of your stuff that makes its way into the lexicon, when the other 99% comes across as utterly ludicrous!

But if you don't mind the risk then fair enough!

I also use Standard Charlie Brown quite a lot, though more in ironic homage to some of these whacky threads! No doubt you have entered the popular consciousness in some UK circles (even if as a byword for byzantine complexity of analysis / outrageous terminology).

[mattgslater]

Frankly, I only care what y'all think of me inasmuch as we're still getting somewhere. And I do think we're getting somewhere. From where I sit, my/our understanding of BB is the thing that matters, and for me this is a marathon, not a sprint.

These terms scream at me as immediately useful. If they end up with different names, c'est la vie. But they'll make talking about the game that much easier.

Screen: x - - x vs. fence x - x and wall (or something) x x
Trap: o x x
Lock x - o x
Square (on same plane) vs. wedge/edge (one column/row off)
SOME kind of line terminology (3210123, 1234567, A-G, whatever)
Names for common 11-man D setup (Charlie Brown/Ziggurat, Arrowhead)

I'm not married to the names of the terms, but I think it would be easier to describe particular plays with something that does the job. FWIW, only "trap" is an American football import (though there are a few other AmFB terms of the same name). Beyond that, there's probably (okay, definitely) a lot of isolated utility, but only a few distinctions that really matter.

I think you're probably quite mad

Perhaps the first clue what when I said I'm looking to find the form of the One on a Blood Bowl pitch. It's not quite like the guy who sees Elvis in his cheese sandwich, but it's possible that I'm just nuts. That doesn't mean I don't see something.

...yzantine complexity of analysis / outrageous terminology

Yup. That's pretty much why I majored in philosophy. I'll take Rush over Kiss, thanks. But it'll get simpler as it gets clearer. Everything does; a perception of simplicity is either a stand-in for a failure to understand something on its most fundamental level, or the product of the intuitive absorption of such a vast amount of data as to be functionally incommunicable without a thorough exploration, probably built on a series of disciplines, each with its own concepts and principles. Blood Bowl is no exception. The way it is now, you either get BB positioning (and other disciplines that aren't so much the subject) right away, or you get whipped around until you figure it out on your own or quit. So there's no guarantee that you are building good habits unless you play the tournament circuit or with coaches who play the tournament circuit. Having played against people from four different isolated Western U.S. communities (San Diego, Eugene, Okie City and Phoenix), I've seen/learned four radically different schools of thought, all/most of which used some things, and with a lot of real uniqueness between them. As someone who's pretty much locked out of the tournaments by geography (OK, I'll probably make it to next year's WC Quake...), I need another way to pick y'all's brains on subjects you clearly lack the mechanism to talk about, or you would.

I mean, it's not like I don't know what kind of material is out there. Coach, brilliant though he is, spends a long time talking around concepts he clearly uses and has clearly not enunciated in his own head. The articles on Martin's website are full of smart-but-confusing play diagrams and verbose explanations, because there's just no choice. Posts on TFF "tactics and team development" are 85% team development. I just can't shake the feeling that there's an "invisible frontier" in BB, yet unexplored because it's yet unseen, or only glimpsed in Play-Creator images and clumsy code diagrams, even though it's right in front of us and we access it all the time without thinking about it.