Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:00 am
I'm fairly new to the online BB scene but have been immersing myself with all the zeal of a new convert. So, armed as I am with little information and less experience, allow me to put words in your mouths:
Under the stewardship of JJ and the BBRC and with the approval of GW the rules of BB were changed several times and I haven't seen many, possibly any, people feel that this was bad overall. Just how good the final ruleset was is contested but I think it could be shown not to be broken and, more importantly, to be at least acceptable to most players.
The analogy I would draw would be a benign heirless king. He's good enough that no-one is plotting treason and he has a legitimate claim to the throne. For many years now BB has existed and arguably thrived under this stewardship but there is no legitimate successor and so there will be no further change.
In this environment the question of whether the newer PCRP+ ruleset is "better" than the existing CRP is entirely irrelevant. All the discussion about it's name, where it is posted, who was involved in it, whether Cyanide rules become "official" etc are to do with it's legitimacy.
The treason that PCRP+ has committed is to appear slightly more legitimate than the rest of the herd and this presents an existential threat to the current game that people love. If this bastard child is officially recognised in even the slightest respect* then people start getting genuinely worried. Not because people might start using an inferior ruleset or because anyone actually cares about GW approval but because the LRB6/CRP benign autocracy is literally the only thing keeping this herd of cats within spitting distance of each other. A second extant ruleset with even a thin veneer of legitimacy could theoretically schism the playerbase and open the floodgates to anarchy where no two matches are played with the same rules and the Blood Bowl community diffuses and eventually dies.
Pedantics aside, all that Plasmoid has actually done is produce a coherent alternative to CRP and have the temerity tell people about it.
Finally, because this post is neither long nor opinionated enough, I think LRB6/CRP is an incredibly good ruleset that doesn't need changing but that doesn't mean it is perfect and couldn't be changed for the better. I have no experience with PCRP+.
What actually worries me is that GW will release a new BB ruleset that is sufficiently unbroken and recognisable enough to trigger a civil war.
*for instance a couple of rules incorporated into a third party computer game who have a licensing agreement with the people who haven't so much as thought about the game in a decade
Under the stewardship of JJ and the BBRC and with the approval of GW the rules of BB were changed several times and I haven't seen many, possibly any, people feel that this was bad overall. Just how good the final ruleset was is contested but I think it could be shown not to be broken and, more importantly, to be at least acceptable to most players.
The analogy I would draw would be a benign heirless king. He's good enough that no-one is plotting treason and he has a legitimate claim to the throne. For many years now BB has existed and arguably thrived under this stewardship but there is no legitimate successor and so there will be no further change.
In this environment the question of whether the newer PCRP+ ruleset is "better" than the existing CRP is entirely irrelevant. All the discussion about it's name, where it is posted, who was involved in it, whether Cyanide rules become "official" etc are to do with it's legitimacy.
The treason that PCRP+ has committed is to appear slightly more legitimate than the rest of the herd and this presents an existential threat to the current game that people love. If this bastard child is officially recognised in even the slightest respect* then people start getting genuinely worried. Not because people might start using an inferior ruleset or because anyone actually cares about GW approval but because the LRB6/CRP benign autocracy is literally the only thing keeping this herd of cats within spitting distance of each other. A second extant ruleset with even a thin veneer of legitimacy could theoretically schism the playerbase and open the floodgates to anarchy where no two matches are played with the same rules and the Blood Bowl community diffuses and eventually dies.
Pedantics aside, all that Plasmoid has actually done is produce a coherent alternative to CRP and have the temerity tell people about it.
Finally, because this post is neither long nor opinionated enough, I think LRB6/CRP is an incredibly good ruleset that doesn't need changing but that doesn't mean it is perfect and couldn't be changed for the better. I have no experience with PCRP+.
What actually worries me is that GW will release a new BB ruleset that is sufficiently unbroken and recognisable enough to trigger a civil war.
*for instance a couple of rules incorporated into a third party computer game who have a licensing agreement with the people who haven't so much as thought about the game in a decade