CRP+

Don't understand a particular rule or just need to clarify something? This is the forum for you. With 2 of the BBRC members and the main LRB5/6 writer present at TFF, you're bound to get as good an answer as possible.

Moderator: TFF Mods

Post Reply
User avatar
Shteve0
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 10:15 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by Shteve0 »

I don't know... Some good points have been made about no single body having the authority to appoint any such committee (apart from GW and, potentially, cyanide). And I doubt either of those would select on a basis that would be transparent enough for most to consider legitimate.

The NAF could of course move to rework the tournament rules that are recognised in the rankings, but they would merely be the NAF's homebrew tournament rules. Equally FUMBBL could do the same. Unfortunately in both cases I suspect that neither would make much of an impact on what cyanide or GW plan to do in parallel and as others have said you'd end up with multiple rulesets each recognised by a different group as 'official'.

As for the make up of a committee... how can anyone legitimately claim to be the best man for the job? Only a couple of people have any experience in this, or at least recent experience. Genuine question. I suspect that the majority of those yearning for a reformed BBRC imagine that it would implement the changes they want to see. If it didn't, would they accept the opposite, allow their beloved team to be destroyed and happily game on? Is it not possible that a BBRC might not cause more division by its nature?

That's before we really explore how much testing is enough testing, where it takes place and when the rulebook can be considered 'finished' again.

My own view is that the game right now is pretty damn good, and that the single ruleset is one of the strongest things we have as a community. I can see roster changes being massively less damaging than changes to core rules, but even that would probably be more hassle than its worth.

I personally think that slowly building links between naf, cyanide, fumbbl and the league management tools is the right way to go. If all parties can be brought to reach a consensus that they need to work together on new rulesets, rather than pitch that they alone are an unilateral authority (which each can claim to have a right to do, for whatever reasons) then we'll be on the right path.

Reason: ''
League and tournament hosting, blogging and individual forums - all totally free. For the most immersive tabletop sports community experience around, check out theendzone.co
Chris
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 1:18 pm
Location: London, England

Re: CRP+

Post by Chris »

Has the NAF committee approached cyanide suggesting to do a rules review for them?

Reason: ''
Itchen Masack
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: CRP+

Post by Itchen Masack »

Good sensible post from ShteveO. A rare thing on internet forums :D

Reason: ''
Image
Smeborg
Legend
Legend
Posts: 3544
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 2:02 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: CRP+

Post by Smeborg »

I have been at something of a loss to reply to plasmoid's OP. But now that I've had a good lie down, I'll try.

SUMMARY: In reply to plasmoid's original question "How many of your leagues uses CRP+ rules????", the answer is "not ours", and I won't be recommending that they do. Nor do I expect to do so in the future.

BALANCE: plasmoid's proposed rules and roster changes all derive from one thing: an obsession with "balance". I don't share this concern, nor do the coaches with whom I play. Quite the contrary, I believe that a degree of imbalance in the game is part of what makes it tick, by enabling veterans and rookies to happily co-exist in the same arena. And I suggest that the fanatical pursuit of "balance" may be a fool's errand which can never be satisfied (like the old woman who swallowed a fly). I hear loud and clear that plasmoid thinks there is a "balance" problem in his league, but let him solve that with any number of house rules in his league (something I would only try in our league if all other "extra-legal" methods had failed). But please don't inflict these rules on me, my leagues, and my tournaments.

THE "FLUFF!": The fluff (or "The Fluff!" as I prefer to call it) is what we affectionately call the imaginative side of the game. It is not without importance, and is older than most of us, dating back at least to 1954 for its main elements (the year that "The Lord of the Rings" was first published). Without being fanatical about it, I believe "The Fluff!" matters, it is an integral part of the vicarious pleasures of tabletop sports and violence. Stunty players are meant to be squishy, Dwarfs (or Dwarves) are meant to be good at catching and squishing Gobbos, it's what they do all day and all night under the mountain when they are not sleeping or playing Blood Bowl. So frankly I am alarmed at proposed rules changes that wish to overturn such basic elements of "The Fluff!" I think I'll go and have another lie down now before I carry on.

ROSTER CHANGES: You will always find a ready apparent market for improvements to rosters, based on individual coaches who think that their favourite roster is under-powered. And these coaches may be quite vocal about it. But for every one of these coaches, I suggest there are 20 silent coaches who will be alarmed when the upgraded roster sees the light of day. Thus I believe that roster changes should proceed with great caution, one little change at a time, and only where there is clear consensus within the hobby. I do not object to modest changes to the Khemri roster (living proof, to paraphrase Galak, that a camel is a horse designed by commitee) or some sort of change to the Human Catcher statline (not necessarily the one proposed by plasmoid). This is because I perceive that there is widespread support for such changes (but the individual changes would still need to be agreed in a wide forum and play-tested).

PLAYTESTING: I suggest that playtesting, when warranted, needs to be done one rule (or roster change) at a time, for a fairly long period of time (e.g. 2 or 3 years), in an otherwise stable environment. Testing 11 rules changes, most of them major, combined with many simultaneous roster changes, all at the same time, does not look like an experiment to me, it looks more like a soup. Moreover, as an experiment without ground rules, it looks designed for anyone to be able to prove anything once the experiment is "concluded". This is especially the case with proposed multiple concurrent changes to the "kill stack".

ALTERNATIVE RULES CHANGES: I have my own ideas on how to change the "kill stack" (assuming we could agree that this should be changed). Why should my ideas carry less weight than plasmoid's? Because he is more vocal?

RULES REVIEW PRIORITIES: If the hobby were at a stage where major rules reform could be attempted (I don't believe it is), then I would argue that there are higher priorities than "balance". I would give a higher priority to "consistency" (based on my observation over the years that there are a number of inconsistencies in the ruleset which confuse and deter newcomers to the hobby).

THE BEST RULES REFORM: In my view the best single rules reform since 3rd Edition was the change to the hand-off rule. A lovely piece of clear thinking. Nothing to do with "balance". A minor and more recent rules reform was the last change to the Horns skill: a simplification. Just some examples of what good rules reform can be about.

DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS: Blood Bowl is played in many different environments, including tabletop leagues and tournaments, online leagues and tournaments, one-off games and "perpetual" leagues (whether tabletop or online) etc. plasmoid's proposed changes appear to be intended only for 2 of these environments (the "perpetual" ones). I suggest it does not make sense to turn the whole hobby upside down in order to attempt to "rectify" a part. I really wonder if the majority of the hobby perceives the same problems as plasmoid does.

UNITY: Call me a simpleton, but I like a game where I can travel outside my home city and country and know that I can play by the same ruleset in other cities and countries. plasmoid's proposal, taken as a whole, looks very much like an attempt to split the hobby, and I do not support it for this reason alone.

PROCESS: As ShteveO has said, there is a process to be established, in the following sort of order:

- Establish a rules review body with authority and widespread support.
- Set reform priorities and get buy-in.
- Establish play-test environment(s), with parameters (some means to measure).
- Test each proposed rules change in isolation.
etc.

plasmoid's process is arse-about-face in that it starts at the bottom instead of the top.

If we can't get the process started properly (i.e. top-down), then I suggest we are better off leaving the game as it is.

Thank you for your patience if you have got this far. I think I'll have another lie down now.

All the best.

Reason: ''
Smeborg the Fleshless
Steam Ball
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: CRP+

Post by Steam Ball »

Smeborg wrote: SUMMARY: In reply to plasmoid's original question "How many of your leagues uses CRP+ rules????", the answer is "not ours", and I won't be recommending that they do. Nor do I expect to do so in the future.

BALANCE: plasmoid's proposed rules and roster changes all derive from one thing: an obsession with "balance".
I always thought the 11 rules was some "victims of last moment U-turn" or "not enough testing to decide" rules or maybe just "BBRC dissolved while they were just ideas". Or maybe part of the exBBRC day dreaming over some beers, trying to forget the kick they just got.

And plasmoid, with his roster changes linked to those 11, is the balance fetichist. He just copied the 11 and added his ideas and comments, maybe even taking advantage of the weight they could have, just like second bird takes advantage of the one in the tip of the formation. By cramping everything under the Narrow Tier BB name, I would say he does it knowingly, at the cost of the 11 rules getting never examined on their own, just like now with your reply. He could host them in separate pages, and say NTBB is this and that plus the other 11 rules, and link to them, but no link in them to the NTBB, not even a mention of NTBB or intermixed comment, marking a clear line in the ground.

Seessh, you are even claiming the wrong author with "my ideas carry less weight than plasmoid's", when the attribution is "Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage" for CRP+ part and the OP is stashman and just asks "How many of your leagues uses CRP+ rules????", not NTBB. The "red" appears, and the "bulls" enter tunnel vision mode.

Sorry, that's how I see it even if it sounds rude, because that it's not the first time I see "I found this page and mayb" gets a sharp "No! BB has difficulty levels as base concept! Boo!" (or "Plasmoid? Boo! Burn him!" or "And next you will ask for Bretonians too? Boo!", it doesn't matter for the result, it's the tunnel vision) and the result is bye bye any chance for any of the 11 rules.

WRT playtesting, the talk around here is that Bank was playtested, and JJ changed it (U-turn at the last moment).

Suggestion: could we get a copy of the 11 in the NAF or FUMBBL or some other site? In an effort to keep the things a bit more compartmentalized. I'm tired of the derailments, even when one of the rules could had been what we used now.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: CRP+

Post by dode74 »

the attribution is "Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage" for CRP+ part
Genuine question: are they the authors of those rules? My understanding is that they agreed they would want to test them for a potential LRB7, but I've not seen it suggested anywhere else that they actually came up with them, and I may well have missed that.

Reason: ''
Pakulkan
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: El Prat (Barcelona, Spain)
Contact:

Re: CRP+

Post by Pakulkan »

From my point of view, personally I will love a boost on stunties. I do love play goblins. But this is not the question.

For me main questions are:

1- Would be necessary in mid- or long-term to have some kind of Rules review comitee that provide us an "official" ruleset broadly accepted by the community?

I guess yes. Because fragmentation of the community will eventually come as it came in other Specialist Games when a Rules Comitee was not present. Would clarify that I am sure it will not occur over the next 2-3 years. But maybe in 4 years from now it would happen.

2- Could the NAF be this "homogenizing organization" if necessary?

I also think it is, in the lack of Games Workshop. This is not by far the optimal situation, but the alternative to NAF are forums, blogs and far more small groups of players. Also having into account that NAF and FUMBBL could collaborate in to provide these homogeneous rules.

3- Would be an issue the GW position?

While they oblitarate the game from their shops and website, I do think they will not care so much about alternative rulesets. Specially if you present them as "tournament rules" or whatever.

4- Should Cyanide to take part on this process?

I guess we are always talking about Tabletop gaming (and FUMBBL which follows TT rules). A PC game have its own rules (and bugs) and eventually its own marketing plans (e.g. Khorne) that shouldn't fit with the best performance of the game. From my point of view, we share a brand (Bloodbowl) but not really a game. One PC Bloodbowler should adapt to tabletop as a Star Wars fan should adapt from a PC game to X-Wing Miniatures game. If you like the universe, shouldn't be an issue.

5- It is necessary an update of LRB6.0?

To be honest, I don't really care about it. As stated, being a Goblin or Human player I would have some improvements. As a Bloodbowl player, my concern is more general. It is not a question of what to do or how to do it, but if it is necessary to do something.

Actually, we do have a first "alternative ruleset" from Plasmoid. We also have gamers groups playig 3ed. We never had an homogeneous situation and we will never have it. So far, the best that we could do is to assure the existance of the game, that would be eventually in danger if we insist in to use an obsolete ruleset (not now, but let's see in 5 years).

Independently of if the ruleset become obsolete or not, to have a Rules Review comitee, to have playtesting of some changes, maybe even to add some new teams to the game would assure continuity of the game. To stack the rules at a certain point by fear in GW or arguing a fragmentation of the community would be an error (no one knows, at the end of the day, but I think is worthy to at least evaluate this situation).

From my point of view, is both a challenge and also an opportunity for the NAF to fill in the place abandoned by GW as a central resource for rules canon and centralized gaming.

Independently of how much % of BB gamers are identified with the NAF, we do have a network of forums, FUMBBL, and NAF that even not being a NAF member, assure many BB players being acquainted of what NAF is actually doing. And to take care of BB Rules would eventually end in to an increase of this centralizing position of the NAF, a thing that guess almost all of us agree wuld be positive.


Reason: ''

GREEN DOG FIGURINES

Follow us also in Facebook...
User avatar
Shteve0
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 10:15 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: CRP+

Post by Shteve0 »

dode74 wrote:
the attribution is "Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage" for CRP+ part
Genuine question: are they the authors of those rules? My understanding is that they agreed they would want to test them for a potential LRB7, but I've not seen it suggested anywhere else that they actually came up with them, and I may well have missed that.
This.

Also, if you Google CRP+ you'll note that its web address is /ntbb, and is intractibly linked to plasmoid's (other?) house rules.

What plasmoid does with his house rules is obviously his own business, but I'm afraid his openly unscientific approach and methodologies, combined with a potentially misleading association with concepts such as the BBRC, the CRP and the concept of tiers (themselves a statistical construct by nature) forces me to point out that I have a very basic objection to any suggestion they're can be considered a viable or legitimate alternative to the actual LRB/CRP. If anything they're far less stable than the CRP, having been given only a fraction of the testing afforded to the core game, with frequent tinkering rendering any and all data gathered in the process basically useless.

I get no joy from pointing that out, but I think its important to bear in mind in the context of some of the other posts here: house rules are house rules, and I'm yet to see anything that convinces me plasmoid's deserve any special attention.

Reason: ''
League and tournament hosting, blogging and individual forums - all totally free. For the most immersive tabletop sports community experience around, check out theendzone.co
Pakulkan
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: El Prat (Barcelona, Spain)
Contact:

Re: CRP+

Post by Pakulkan »

Shteve0 wrote:I'm yet to see anything that convinces me plasmoid's deserve any special attention.
CRP+ is just a propitiatory topic to discuss a more general question regarding official rules, GW abandon of SG and NAF role in the future of the community.

I just found this point arosing from the CRP+ proposal, and would open a new thread if necessary, my interest is focused on the questions listed above, and the feedback from other gamers regarding these topics.

Reason: ''

GREEN DOG FIGURINES

Follow us also in Facebook...
User avatar
Shteve0
Legend
Legend
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 10:15 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: CRP+

Post by Shteve0 »

Pakulkan wrote:From my point of view, personally I will love a boost on stunties. I do love play goblins. But this is not the question.

For me main questions are:
1- Would be necessary in mid- or long-term to have some kind of Rules review comitee that provide us an "official" ruleset broadly accepted by the community?

I believe that the surest way of triggering a splintering of the community would be to set up an arbitrary rules committee withiut the support of each of fumbbl, cyanide and NAF. Even then, tabletop leagues are a whole new ball game. Any new change to the core rules would be problematic.

2- Could the NAF be this "homogenizing organization" if necessary?

Not alone.

3- Would be an issue the GW position?

If they object and cyanide support is not secured, then yes, absolutely.

4- Should Cyanide to take part on this process?

If you think a single translatable ruleset is imoirtant across areas and formats, then absolutely yes. If you don't, I guess not.

5- It is necessary an update of LRB6.0?

What's all that wrong with LRB6 that would require starting from scratch?

The NAF can act as a repository for rules without rewriting them.

Reason: ''
League and tournament hosting, blogging and individual forums - all totally free. For the most immersive tabletop sports community experience around, check out theendzone.co
Gaixo
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 6:18 pm
Location: VA

Re: CRP+

Post by Gaixo »

Chris wrote:Has the NAF committee approached cyanide suggesting to do a rules review for them?
My understanding is that members of the committee have had semi-official conversations with Cyanide. No idea if anything useful came of that.

Reason: ''
Image
perraks
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:37 am

Re: CRP+

Post by perraks »

txapo wrote:A game belong to those who play it!! Don't forget the point! We should elect a new BBRC using the NAF for that it would be great elections to hold!!! :smoking:
This !! !)

This 11 rules make the game better. CRP+ should not be a problem for GW because they sell BB no more. Neither should be for Cyanide because BBRC just make their game better and it's easily fixed with a patch.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: CRP+

Post by dode74 »

This 11 rules make the game better.
That's your opinion, but it is not the opinion of everyone. That's a large part of the problem.

Reason: ''
perraks
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:37 am

Re: CRP+

Post by perraks »

dode74 wrote:
This 11 rules make the game better.
That's your opinion, but it is not the opinion of everyone. That's a large part of the problem.
I agree with this but to "ensure" if some changes are good or not for the game we had the comittee. Without it we would still be playing 3rd rules, and i think the vast majority of us agree that 6.0 are better than this. With this, maybe some day we have the 8.0 and say, definetely better than 6.0.

Reason: ''
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: CRP+

Post by dode74 »

And again we come back to questioning the validity of any committee.

I'd love the game to develop, I truly would, and I know most people want that too. It's just not as simple as "let's do it" without a serious risk of schism.

Reason: ''
Post Reply