Raising your game or, at least, getting it out of the basement.
I wrote earlier that Bloodbowl can easily become meaningless, and that dice are completely meaningless. Frankly, it's about motivation. I would say there are greater and lesser motivations. Playing to distract oneself is one thing, playing to promote the game is another and playing to mentor another coach is perhaps the greatest motivation. Simply playing Bloodbowl requires bravery, due to it's tragic nature, and playing to benefit others also takes creativity.
Bloodbowl is a creative game, involving improvisation in extreme and exceptional situations. It is dramatic, therefore it lends itself to an audience. This drama can be presented in painting, 3D-printing, streaming, mentoring, writing, as well as organizing the NAF tournaments, Squad Chaos, FUMBBL, or even contributing to these things. This approach makes Bloodbowl something that is widely appreciated and viewable. And the dice do not matter for any of these activities but this is just as true at the in-game, tactical level. You can easily lose a game due to tilt, or not knowing your opponent, or even not knowing yourself. Hell, bash-game play is based entirely on reducing the influence of dice; pick up the ball and roll 2D blocks. What's important is the story you're creating in the game, the emotions that you experience, your interaction with the opposing coach and the critics. It is the creative side of the game that brings meaning and value to it. Maybe the story is “I am a good coach because” : a) I reduce risk, b) I analyse positioning , c) I develop players efficiently, d) I do all the above! In my opinion, creative coaches are the best for the Bloodbowl community and probably the best in-game too. Chess players maybe distinguished by logical thinking but Bloodbowl coaches are distinguished by their creativity. By creativity I mean being open to the subjective criticism of your peers (and for all the smart-asses out there, I mean critique not insult and injury). Just as an artist requires an audience, Bloodbowl coaches need the criticism of each other and not just objective statistics or rankings.
The win rate is not a good representation of a coaches skill. It says neither if certain turns were critical nor if the coach made the correct decisions at the correct times, both in-game or as team development afterwards. I would say, most people win due to luck. That is because no opponent is going to let you walk into the endzone. You will need to roll some dice. However, the ball-carrier is a choice. For me, being able to score with a designated player (as well as hiding this intention from the opponent) is a much better example of a coaches skill. I guess the same could be said for blitzing with the same player and hoping for a CAS. Now for some math, if always blocking Av8+, then there is a 1/15 chance of a CAS. Assuming you get a knock down every time, it looks like 2 SPP per game could be realistic for a designated blitzer. A further incentive is that a coach always gets a blitz action and not always a touch down. On the other hand, a touchdown grants 3 SPP and there is the possibility of a second. The point is that team development is a good indicator of a coaches skill. In the words of Jervis Johnson, the game creator, anybody was supposed to have a one-in-three chance of winning a game. Even Andy Davo would admit to losing 20% of his games just because of Nuffle. Win rate was never intended to be the game's golden standard.
For people who stream Bloodbowl winning is a luxury and the audience will probably watch regardless of the result. Frankly, watching streams does not necessarily help you win more games. Bloodbowl is a fascinating game because it is not about winning. It's much more about interaction: between players (the distance, characteristics etc.), between the coaches or with the audience. I believe bringing Bloodbowl into the public eye is important and meaningful. In order to do that you literally need to get out of the basement. Of course table-top is the best situation but online is "virtually" possible, as Bloodbowl 3 streamers have shown. It`s the interaction, feedback, critique between coaches (including spectators) that fosters creativity in-game and in the community. Whether it is a mentoring situation for beginners or at the national team level, being a good coach is not about the dice. Being a better coach requires exposing yourself to the public or at least your peers. Having spectators at a match is one way to do this but so is painting, writing or mentoring. The point is to do something that requires an audience. Mathematics and logical thinking are certainly supportive for playing Bloodbowl well but the game requires much more creativity and improvisation, and usually in the face of tragedy. How much creativity one puts into the game is a function of one`s motivation. The greater the motivation the greater the creativity.
