| Author |
Message |
neoliminal |
|
Post subject: Thoughts of a previous NAF President
 Posted: Jun 20, 2005 - 05:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Netherlands
Posts: 384
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
My original vision for the NAF was to support the hobby of Blood Bowl in whatever form it takes. It was my intention to never dictate to tournament organizers how to run their events. If someone wanted to run an All Goblin tournament, it should be allowed and sanctioned by NAF. The bottom line is that NAF members vote on the legitimacy of events and rules by their participation. If no one plays at the All Goblin tournament (or any other variation of normal BB rules), then these event wont long survive.
The BBRC was a way for Jervis to get back in touch with the players of a game who had long since tweaked by house rules certain problems with the game. I wish more designers had the guts to reach out to the community like this and face the issues their games face when played in the real world.
My activities in both NAF and the BBRC have given me a very unique perspective on the game, its designer, and the playing community. No where else can the playing community effect the rules in the same way they can in Blood Bowl.
Your input is very important. It should not be ignored that input requires work. It's not enough for anyone to read the purposed rules and reply that they would never play them. There's nothing constructive about such an act. Real input comes from explaining why rules might bother you, how playing with the rule has made the game feel different in a good or bad way, and how the new rules has impacted game balance. It's not easy. It's work. It is much easier to simply cry foul and boycott what I see as a most unique opportunity in the gaming world. True player input. |
_________________
John Lewis
Ex-NAF President
Ex-BBRC member
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject: Keep participating
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 03:46 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Can I simply support John (Neoliminal) in this comment. The only thing I want to clarify though, is some people have been specific about their concerns, and these concerns _*appear*_, by them, to be falling on deaf ears. But don't stop being specific about them, and using the proper channels to make these specific concerns and input known.
The bible talks about a woman getting justice from a crooked judge by nagging at him for justice until he gets so sick of her he grants her request [Luke 18:1-8] (the point is used to illustrate that God will listen so much more than a crooked judge - so keep praying). The same principle can apply here. Keep playing, keep gathering intelligent data, and keep participating constructively.
for interest only
Quote:
1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4"For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' "
6And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 05:55 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
| quick question for the two bbrc's then, how do you feel about jj taking away the ability for you to change rules during the rules reveiw? |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 07:42 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Personally: Not a lot. I can think of far better solutions (and have voiced them to the BBRC himself included) to solve the 'problem' he's trying to address.
But I can live with it. Perhaps the need for further rules reviews will help him to see that this decision is not for the best. But it's his game, and I have thought about it and am happy to live with it. If I wasn't, I would have resigned from the BBRC.
I hope you can maturely deal with the honest answer. And I did think about resigning. What stopped me? The fact that being close to the decision making process - and an ear to Jervis, is better than nothing at all.
It's not the end of the world. There is a 'new version' of BB in the pipeline. And JJ wants to protect a new rulebook from being obsolete quickly. I can understand and appreciate that. |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 07:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
| i would have resigned from the bbrc in the situation he's created, but i understand your points. |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 07:54 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
| how could the bbrc not realise that dp was the problem with fouling all along, when alot of the community was voicing concern? spilt milk...... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Odysseus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 01:40 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 44
Status: Offline
|
|
The problem is that many people have played the rules, didn't like them and voiced their concerns only to be brushed aside and ignored.
Telling them to keep playing and keep voicing their concerns is not really very realistic.
I think at the present time the best solution (after you have voiced your opinions) is to play whatever rules you enjoy and show your dislike by not purchasing the rules or minis that don't meet your standards.
Sad that it has to come to that but there is just no realistic way you'll convince my league to keep playing rules they don't like instead of the ones they do just because a year from now the creators of the garbage MIGHT come around. That's just not reality. Sorry. |
_________________
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MightyZug |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 03:25 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 39
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote:
But I can live with it. Perhaps the need for further rules reviews will help him to see that this decision is not for the best. But it's his game, and I have thought about it and am happy to live with it. If I wasn't, I would have resigned from the BBRC...What stopped me? The fact that being close to the decision making process - and an ear to Jervis, is better than nothing at all.
Jervis forced your hand and you felt some input was better than no input, fine.
That doesn't prevent the organization of a representative and accountable BBRC that is either electable or appointable by the NAF or another organization.
Quite simply I think we have some real assets on the BBRC we just need to remove the individual that is missing the ets part. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mordredd |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 04:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 03, 2003
England
Posts: 728
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
The way that JJ explained the changes to the BBRCs mandate at the BB tournament was that the annual review would contain errata and Q&A stuff. Anything that actually changed a rule, rather than simply making it clearer, would be held over for the next update. Updates would be significantly less frequent than rules reviews to allow the official rules to be quite stable, and the BBRC would vote on updates as well as rules reviews.
Keeping the rules stable wasn't just about protecting a new edition (he didn't mention that but it seems too plausible not to be true) but also because the printed rules were often obsolete almost as soon as they hit the shelves and that many coaches couldn't keep up with the pace of change, or didn't like (having) to.
The idea of keeping the rules stable was actually pretty popular with the coaches at the BB. Seems fine to me, at least in principle.
Were the members of the BBRC given a different pitch? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Keep participating
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 06:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Babs wrote: The bible talks about a woman getting justice from a crooked judge by nagging at him for justice until he gets so sick of her he grants her request [Luke 18:1-8] (the point is used to illustrate that God will listen so much more than a crooked judge - so keep praying). The same principle can apply here.
There are so many levels of insult and taboo touching in that statement it's not funny. I would think people would know by now to leave the bible thumping and politics at home.
I believe that there's a fundamental difference in the way that people are viewing the game right now and people seem to be on one side of the fence or the other. The issue - who owns Blood Bowl. Legally, GW owns Blood Bowl. They can do whatever they want with the game. They can discontinue the whole line tomorrow. JJ owns nothing. He sold the rights to Blood Bowl years ago. If GW decides tomorrow to have someone else work on the game then someone else will take Jervis' place. Both of those facts though mean nothing in the face of the fact that no matter what they do they can not force us, the consumer, to use their product. We decide how it's used. We purchase the game, the figs, the magazines. We pay the salaries and we are the single most important factor in all the decision making process. Without the consumer Blood Bowl is nothing more than a box on a shelf in some store somewhere.
JJ is not God.
We play the game. We buy the product. We have the final word. We are God.
It's laughable and would be funny if it wasn't a reality we are facing to celebrate a 20th anniversary of a game by tearing apart what has worked for a decade and start over from scratch.
The tired and sad story of "try it you'll like it" is getting very old. We are not a group of 13 year old kids who change their opinions at a whim. We are all intelligent enough to read a set of rules and decide, simply based on that, if they are good or not. If a rule set cannot even stand up to a read through test how can it ever expect to attract new players. For that matter how can it expect to gain any level of serious support other than from those who worked on it.
The NAF should not now or ever enforce any set of rules on the tournaments it's supports. The NAF is a meeting point and not a policing body. A seperate rules committee though is rapidly becoming a vialble option. In reality if GW persists in destroying the official rules of the game it will become a necessary evil to have a stand alone committee to simply maintain what we have now. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 02:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2696
Location: Undisclosed
|
|
@ Neo - (Feeling the need to respond as for some reason I get the feeling it was directed at me!) I don't need to play it to know I don't like it, there are to many major rules in there that I dislike intenetly, major rules that if I house-ruled them out, would make a mockery of "playtesting" the rules! The same stands for the 6 or 7 veteran gamers I play with that I showed the Vault 1.0 rules to, and which we have subsequently looked at each of the following versions.
Are you saying because we've been playing long enough to know what we do and don't like, and can see that we won't enjoy these rules, that we (or more accurately, I) shouldn't present those views on the forum?
bacause if you are, then you're not going to hear a lot of negative feedback, and you're going to get a distorted view on the feelings coaches have for this game.
However, as for the NAF "forcing" rules on TO's, I agree that's a bad thing. |
_________________
_____ and rankings - that is all
#27 of the "24 club" (due to some dodgy accounting)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Babs |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 03:26 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: We play the game. We buy the product. We have the final word. We are God.
It's laughable and would be funny if it wasn't a reality we are facing to celebrate a 20th anniversary of a game by tearing apart what has worked for a decade and start over from scratch.
The tired and sad story of "try it you'll like it" is getting very old.
Firstly, if you took offence at my post, none was intended. It was merely used to portray an illustration of a principle. Certainly not "Bible thumping".
Second - the principle was not to indicate that JJ was somehow God. Hopefully you know me better than that! I argue with JJ than most people! Even most on the BBRC!
Brian and others, I'm cetainly not pushing some old "try it you'll like it". I'm saying rather keep showing clearly that it's broken! This may require playing the broken game though.
And lastly, the sad part is that we are not God. GW pre-pubescent innocents are the ones who will make or break games sales - not us old doddering dinosaurs of pre Playstation entertainment! We only make up a very small proportion of Blood Bowl sales of any new release. Your faith is misguided my friend.
Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly no brown-nosing JJ yes man. Surely my post in this thread (look up ^ ) tells you exactly that.
Anyway, I'm not wanting to steal the limelight on this thread. Darkson's post has some valid stuff I'm not wanting to distract from... |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 23, 2005 - 04:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Babs wrote: And lastly, the sad part is that we are not God. GW pre-pubescent innocents are the ones who will make or break games sales - not us old doddering dinosaurs of pre Playstation entertainment! We only make up a very small proportion of Blood Bowl sales of any new release. Your faith is misguided my friend.
I find that very hard to believe. In fact I find that hard to believe about any of the specialist games range. Warhammer, 40K, LOTR yes I agree but all the evidence I've ever seen points to the fact that that the majority of people who put their dollars on the table for Blood Bowl are over 20. The simple fact that Blood Bowl is a niche market and not always on the shelf means that if you're playing Blood Bowl you went after the game, it didn't attract you.
If that were the case and my faith was misguided then how did we ever get rid of 4th edition? Did all the little kids who play BB get together and ask their moms and dads to write GW?  Well ok some of the people may have been acting like children. We the consumer have the power and those comsumers are not children. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 23, 2005 - 06:19 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| Babs has a point. If the younger market buy the new boxed set it will be a success (from a commercial standpoint). If they don't it won't. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 23, 2005 - 08:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
| "If they buy", meaning we are now trying to modify the game to make it appealing to a younger crowd? |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
