Skip to Content

Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

46 replies [Last post]
Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

I think you've summed things up nicely, yogurt.

As for the specific example you gave, I think the board you describe serves as a place-holder/organizer, which would be similar to a scoring track. In that case, it would be fine, in my opinion.

I'm really starting to regret the "central board" limitation ... I thought it would be a fun little creative restriction to work around. Never thought it would provide so much angst. :blush:

I'm sure there will be similar such items in the future as well. ;-D

-Bryk

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
A couple of central card decks.

Hello all, while this is my first post (I only discovered this pearl of a website last sunday night), I already submitted my updated version of the showdown today.

I hadn't read this topic, so I was unaware of the no-board-discussion. My game has no board, but it has a couple of carddecks. My question is as folows:

May the players draw from the central (-being the only-) decks, or do they have to have their own decks? (In which case I have to redesign it (?quite?) a bit...)

Cheese!
Gogolski.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: A couple of central card decks.

Gogolski wrote:
Hello all, while this is my first post (I only discovered this pearl of a website last sunday night), I already submitted my updated version of the showdown today.

Welcome! And I'm glad to see you jump right into the Showdown.

Quote:
May the players draw from the central (-being the only-) decks, or do they have to have their own decks?

Not to harp on this yet again, but it's up to the voters to decide how well the games fit the criteria. Therefore, I maintain that the less 'clarification' the better. Interpret the rules any way you like, the voters will do the same.

As far as this example is concerned, if you're all drawing cards from the same deck I would suggest that's fine. If you're all playing cards to the same in-play piles, I would suggest that's not what Bryk had in mind. As a voter, I would take those suggestions into account, but another might see it a different way.

- Seth

Zomulgustar
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Re: A couple of central card decks.

Quote:

Not to harp on this yet again, but it's up to the voters to decide how well the games fit the criteria. Therefore, I maintain that the less 'clarification' the better. Interpret the rules any way you like, the voters will do the same.

My Game:
1. roll dice
2. move your pieces according to the roll
3. landing on an opponents piece lets you move it back.
4. first player to get all their pieces to goal wins.

Interpret the rules any way you like. The other players will do the same.

Sorry for the bluntness, but I can't help but think that it's a bit unfair to participants to have the rules of the contest itself be subject to a judgment call. I'm not going to be participating anyway (a week just isn't enough time for my ideas to gel satisfactorily), but if I were, I'd much rather be judged on the basis of the quality of the game, rather than having to worry how others are going to interpret whether I should be disqualified.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: A couple of central card decks.

Gogolski wrote:
May the players draw from the central (-being the only-) decks, or do they have to have their own decks? (In which case I have to redesign it (?quite?) a bit...)

Drawing from a central deck (or decks) would be fine, imo ... that is not a "central board", in the way we've discussed it here.

-Bryk

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: A couple of central card decks.

Zomulgustar wrote:
I can't help but think that it's a bit unfair to participants to have the rules of the contest itself be subject to a judgment call.

The rules are ALWAYS subject to a judgement call... it's just a matter of whether or not someone brings it up before hand or not.

Quote:
I'm not going to be participating anyway (a week just isn't enough time for my ideas to gel satisfactorily)

Then you would have hated the "original" Game Design Showdowns, where the whole point was to come up with a game idea on the fly, and the deadline was measured in minutes rather than days. My impression was that these Showdowns were intended to be similar, but were made a week long so that everybody could participate (they wouldn't have to be available at the precise time the showdown was going on). However, that necessarily changes the feel of the contest significantly. Game ideas can be instantaneous. Game rules take time to develope.

Quote:
but if I were, I'd much rather be judged on the basis of the quality of the game, rather than having to worry how others are going to interpret whether I should be disqualified.

Nobody gets disqualified. If a voter disagrees with your interpretation of the rules of the contest, they might 'count you down' for that, but the worst that happens is that voter won't vote for your entry. Or, if the game is outstanding, but part of it sorta didn't jive with the rules, they might vote for you anyway.

My point is, the showdown's about spitting out a game design on the fly, with restrictions. How well someone does that is a subjective thing, as is how 'true to the restrictions' they are.

- Seth

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

Wow! About 12,000 words to read for the April showdown. Whoever it was who suggested length limits before, you have my ear. ;)

Despite being daunted, I am looking forward to going over these entries. It's impressive how having limits and a deadline really brings out the creativity in people!

Yogurt

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

yogurt wrote:
Wow! About 12,000 words to read for the April showdown. Whoever it was who suggested length limits before, you have my ear. ;)

Ditto!

There will be a general length limit rule added to the Showdown Overview before the May Showdown. ;-)

In the meantime -- be sure to read through all of the 13 submissions ... I'm quite impressed with the overall quality!

-Bryk

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

Oh, and I know it's a little late, but I think we shouldn't allow contestants to vote for themselves, just to shake up the voting a little.

Yogurt

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

yogurt wrote:
Oh, and I know it's a little late, but I think we shouldn't allow contestants to vote for themselves, just to shake up the voting a little.

Yeah -- a little too late at this point ... but after the voting for this one is done, I will setup a poll for that very topic.

-Bryk

ensor
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2008
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

yogurt wrote:
Wow! About 12,000 words to read for the April showdown. Whoever it was who suggested length limits before, you have my ear. ;)

I second (or third?) the call for word limits for the next contest; I like the idea of this being not just a design showdown but an exercise in writing clear and consice rules, something at which I'm sure we all need practice.

And if this becomes any more popular, I'll be hard-pressed to read over all the entries...

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

yogurt wrote:
Oh, and I know it's a little late, but I think we shouldn't allow contestants to vote for themselves, just to shake up the voting a little.

Agreed!

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge

ensor wrote:
I like the idea of this being not just a design showdown but an exercise in writing clear and consice rules, something at which I'm sure we all need practice.

Yup. Like Mark Twain says: "if I'd had time, I would've written a shorter letter..."

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
design format

Another thing to consider might be a fixed format. By format, I mean something like:

<br />
- Title</p>
<p>- Number of players<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>- Summary<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>- Game contents<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>- Game setup<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>- Rules<br />
rule 1<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>rule 2<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>- Optional rule(s)<br />
blahblah</p>
<p>- Strategic advice<br />
blahblah<br />

Most game-designs already folow something like this format, but it might make it easier to vote if it were the exact same for every entry. Also the big titles would make it easy to scroll up and down between the entries. Voters would find the same stuff in the same place and need less time to weigh certain game-aspects against eachother.

It would be easy to copy/paste the format, and then copy/paste every piece in the right space (=blahblah).
We could construct this format together of course. Just an idea, though...

Cheese.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: design format

Gogolski wrote:
Another thing to consider might be a fixed format...

I like it!

- Seth

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: design format

sedjtroll wrote:
Gogolski wrote:
Another thing to consider might be a fixed format...

I like it!

So do I! :D

-Bryk

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut