[GDS] FEBRUARY 2014 "From Nothing, Something" - Critiques

Hi everyone,

I appreciate the feedback so far. I do agree having thought about this for the last week or two that including zero as an option makes no sense. Initially in my mind it provided a balance, but I quickly realized that it throws the game off.

I'm not sure about the 40% statistic Mr. S stated as far as winning, but I do think one way to eliminate it is to make the option 1-4 stones which also balances the combinations of evens and odds. The other rule I thought about adding after contemplation some more while waiting to get your critiques is I would probably test adding a rule that you are not allowed to bid the same number of stones twice in a row but I would have to see if that is a benefit or not.

I look forward to reading more of your feedback. I have not been doing this long and every critique is helpful toward moving from theoretical design to practical solutions and I thank all of you for helping me to view designs from a different point of view.

Peace,

David

If I understood, the "who" can be goldfish and the "where" can be... opera. The storyteller may get confused how to make sense those two appearing in a same narrative. Can be fun. Almost certainly is fun.

I worried a little bit that Who? Where? will be doomed as "no board game" by folks, so I left it out of my medalist list. The scoring looks good enough, that the activity can be defined as a game.

I liked the simplicity of this game and the voting style scoring similar to Apples to Apples (and Balderdash, and Rules Against Humanity, and Wise and Otherwise...etc.) It's effective and gives players an incentive to serve their own interests as well as make the game more interesting.

This didn't make the medals for me, but not by design, I just am simply not the right audience for story-telling games...that's what makes the game world so dynamic!

Mathematically, with the 0 in play, this game didn't make sense to me, it was definitely skewed. However, that said, even with even math, it's more a time-waster than an actual strategic game. Like war, or RPS. I didn't see a lot of player interaction or decision making that would keep it interesting for me.

Good game. Looks like a fun little game. I can’t see anything in the description that would suggest this game wouldn’t work. It needs play testing and possibly some math to figure out how to making scoring work best. Other than that, I am just not that attracted to it. Maybe it’s because dice have been around for so long, or that set collection has been overdone (I’m guilty of using it too). I don’t know. I wouldn’t say, “no” to playing this game…
I’m not sure you used pips correctly… Admittedly, I had to look up the meaning, so maybe someone can correct me. A pip is any of the dots on the dice. So, three consecutive pips (dots) doesn’t mean anything. I think you meant three consecutive dice with equal values showing. A dice showing 'three' would have three consecutive pips. Anyways, this really doesn’t have anything to do with my evaluation it’s just for clarification, and hopefully someone smarter than me can correct me here.
Why are there different colors? Is this so one player can mess up the plans of another player by taking a color they need? I think you may be able to make this game with less dice by eliminating the colors and just have players collecting runs and sets based on normal dice. Alternatively, you could use D9s with values 1-3 and three colors.

My bronze medal. Not really zero components, but all components are not hard to find in your house. Since it performed well in player interaction, and I would like to play this (I love making up weird stories) it ended up being my bronze.

It was me who asked if a dice was a valid component. The one bit information for me would be the orientation of the cube. Having colored dice means two bits of information. Outside of the GDS limits.
The game can be fun. There are a few things I do not understand. Why is a player allowed to rethrow the active dice? This is a free chance for every player to see if anything goods comes up. And if not, the dice passes back to the active player, and that player must at least discard one dice.

I had a unhappy voting, because I had just bought Las Vegas and I was anxious to see "what happens when money is removed from the equation". It was unfair to expect Dicey Moves to be a sharpened version of Las Vegas.

Passing the active die emerges many options. But it makes rulebook thicken. I can't remember all those options. I expected too much; one or two clear principles to run the game.

Had component issues with both of these.

Dicey moves with colors and pips was well out of my criteria for the challenege and didn't look much further than that. In reread, I had sme trouble seeing the enjoyment with the passing the dice and rerolling and such. Watched the Las Vegas Tabletop last night and was also confusd with the rolling and Boss designation in that game.

60 tiles, felt like cards, had colors and multiple meaning lines also not a fit for the challenege. I didn't push too far as it felt like other abstracts and some lightly themed dragon growing games I've seen and also a bit like Tsuoro (sp?)

Well, this game can work when you have not much time or resources at your disposal (for example, during break time or waiting for a train).
I’m not sure what this game has to do with pop stars OR drag racing. Racing yes, drag racing… no. This game is essentially a roll and move game but with a coin, which means even less possibilities. Also, for a simple game like this one, there is far too much math and technically 3 components, but let’s say it is just a coin. Game can be played anywhere but is abstract in that you have to imagine the cars moving. This came really could benefit from a visual. Of course that would break the limits of this showdown… but you could just flip a coin ten times each and see who has the most heads. After all that is the game you pitched.

Here is an idea for a one component pop star drag racing game. All that is required is a newspaper. Everyone chooses a famous celebrity (preferably with a common name). Every time their first name appears in the newspaper, they get gas. However, they can only use this gas if they find the last name (acceleration). When the first name is mentioned, you rip a small piece of paper from the corner of the newspaper and keep it in your hand. When you find acceleration, you place it on the table to keep track of how fast you are going. If you find the celebrity’s name (first and last together) you get a NOS boost and can immediately place three pieces of paper on your speedometer. The paper must be done one page (in order). Play finishes at the end of a newspaper section or until a certain speed is reached.

Aah, a notepad... not really one item. The game itself feels complex for the actual gameplay. When the idea is to play it everywhere, there is a lot to remember.
Taking the heart of the game, flipping coins, winning a track, or not, that could be a perfect waiting game f.i. for public transport.

You described so wonderfully tastefully the idea of the game. Tips on not being a blockhead - those came in need to me. Sorry that people lack imagination and party games dry out after a few rounds. It was a bold move to expose a this type of game to criticism. Carry on, please.

(I lost my review because I actually closed my browser when I had nearly finished my post. Please forgive me for making this one a little shorter.)

Although I liked the idea of racing with a coin toss, I was not very impressed with the $50 cash per player. It was clear you'd lose money for 4 tails in a row, but the rules did not explain when you would win money and how much. I know you're on a word limit, but for me such a crucial detail needs to be in there.

In the end I did not award this game a medal for the same reason I didn't give one to "Who, Where?". To keep scores on paper means you have both paper and coins as components, even if you use your teeth to rip the paper to keep score. Also, while the mechanic is refreshing, it doesn't offer much interesting gameplay decisions to the player.

Do you guys see that comment counter? Over 100 critiques and designer responses for the February GDS. Amazing effort by all the designers to meet some very tough critics. So big congratulations go to our top three winners - Bike (Angry Stickmen), Sonofman (Sow that all may eat), MaxGamesSiedman (Ivory tower) and Wehrner (Starfield).

Since this month was doubled up we have a bit of a break before the March GDS.

Next month will introduce some more changes to the GDS system to address the growing participation. That's thanks to all of you designers that have been participating, particularly you designers that have been submitting entries every month. This is a good problem to have.

These have been very fun and certainly refines the critical eye. Downside, I now have three more games I'm pretty psyched about finishing competing for my attention. This month's challenge has really emphasized editing and component cost management for me.