Skip to Content
 

Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

37 replies [Last post]
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008

This thread is for comments and critiques on the October 2005 GDS, "The Ivory Tower", found here: http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=26896.

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Legend of the Drunken Head Master and Cram-ium, Student Athelete Edition both make me wish I could've worked out my "Tenure Track and Field" design. But it just didn't work. :-(

All the entries look very interesting...I can't wait to start reading them in depth.

K.

DanogNellows
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2008
So far...

So far... the Era game and Cubes and Sticks look interesting. I still
can't quite wrap my head around Era but I'm gonna try again with more
sleep.

Danog

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

I like Cubes & Sticks, but I'd never get to go first!

~Josh

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Maybe I'm just too picky, but two of the entries I might have voted failed to fulfill one of the contest requirements, IMHO, so I'm not voting them. One of them is my favourite game idea, though, so I still feel a bit undecided...

Seo

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Quote:
Maybe I'm just too picky, but two of the entries I might have voted failed to fulfill one of the contest requirements,

I'd be interested in getting clued on in which games those are, as they all seeme to have at least a small part of "a mechanic or component that is essentially 3-D in nature" and "put your favorite college's name here."

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Congrats to paralepsis and all the entrants!

Another fun contest in the bag.

I really liked Alumni Association. That was my vote for #1.

Mitch

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Thanks to all for indulging me in this challenge; I’m impressed yet again with the variety of what you came up with, and I hope you had fun thinking up these games. I thought the use of the academic theme and the 3D mechanic were well done by almost all of the entries. I wasn’t completely blown away by any of the solutions to the ‘licensing’ requirement; probably the most exciting was the ‘Alumni Fund’s use of a 3D topographical map, nicely combining both of the requirements.

My comments on the games:

1. Drunken Head Master

This strikes me more as a thinly veiled pretext to drink beer than a game, which I guess is the point. It’s easy to see how the game, what with the stacking and memory elements, could get pretty funny as players become more inebriated, and that, I guess, is also the point. And it definitely meets the 3D criteria. I actually think there are missed opportunities for licensing here -- it seems to me that the mugs should all have the university logo! In fact, instead of the helmet/mascot rules (which are funny), a different approach could be to have progressively bigger university-logoed mugs, such that the more you mess up, the more you have to drink each time. Maybe that’s changing things too much. I wouldn’t play this game in a million years, but kudos for some nice outside the box thinking! My third place choice.

2. Eras Academia

This did a great job satisfying the 3D and licensing requirements; I like the tower, which seems to combine the Wallenstein, Starfarers of Catan, and Andromeda devices of similar function, but with the ‘sneak a peak’ aspect that is really original. I’m not sure how solid the game itself is yet; it seems like there’s not a whole lot of planning in the game. It’s also not exactly clear how the cards work; it seems like you should get funds from these based on how many graduates you have in that category, but it’s not really spelled out how this works. So, high marks for the 3D concepts, but what exactly the players are doing is still unclear to me.

3. Degree Builder

This is exactly the kind of ingenunity I was looking for in this contest -- a real outside the box game concept. Well done! When I first skimmed the rules, I thought that the idea was that you were trying to balance the cart from tipping (ie, if you don’t have enough humanities courses, the thing topples over). In fact, I think that would have been a more thematic direction to go. Simply not wanting the scrolls to fall out during movement is interesting but doesn’t give the sense of a university student trying to complete a degree (except, I guess, insofar as the later courses are harder or something). Still, this was a good solution to the challenge.

4. Cramium

I found the theme of this one hilarious, and I think the mechanics pull it off really well. I can picture the stereotypical ‘dumb jock’ cramming all of this knowledge into his ‘helmet’, and then hoping that the right knowledge comes out during the right exam! Brilliant! The 3D aspect of the game is quite weak, and the licensing not very exciting either, so I can’t give this one my accolades. Which is unfortunate, because as a simulation, I think this is one of the best games I’ve ever seen!

5. Alumni Association

I also found the theme of this one very amusing, having recently received one of these calls from my alma mater. The game is nice and simple, and sounds like it would be fun to play. The 3D aspect is rather flimsy, and given that it was obviously listed from another poster’s entry from a different GDW, it doesn’t seem strong enough to outpace some of the other entries. The licensing aspect, however, was funnier than anything anyone else came up with!

6. Cubes and Sticks

I think that this one is about halfway there; there are some good ideas. I like the idea of having to win a vote to earn placement rights, and I think that this could actually work well with the hidden identity mechanic. I was a bit confused about the distinction between steps 2 and 3 in the rules; why do you first reveal some but not all of your intentions, but then turn around and reveal exactly where it will go in the next step? It’s a minor concern. I think the 3D aspect could have some interesting strategy, as you are trying to build a stable foundation for your future pieces. I also like that you can have multiple votes per player, meaning that one strong advocate could win you the placement against a group of apathetic opponents. It also means, probably, that the player immediately to your left should be your strongest ally, but it’s hard to see how you’d leverage that with the hidden roles. As I said, some very nice potential here. 2nd place for me.

7. Courseload

This is an example of why I think a brief description of how a game is played would be a much better GDS entry format than an algorithmic ‘mini-rulebook’. I found the description somewhat confusing, but the core idea is actually quite simple; it’s a stacking game, with the twist that the pieces don’t want to stack easily, making for an additional challenge (and also, that you have to move them around). I think this does a nice job of simulating the ‘balancing act’ that I thought Degree Builder was using. I wonder about the time limit; I suspect it’s important to make the game fun, but also will likely be horribly frustrating if one tries to rush too much. I also wasn’t clear on whether you score between turns; are you building 4 stacks (1/turn), or 1 big stack over 4 turns? Practically speaking, only the former is likely to work; probably after 1-2 turns, you’ll have a stack that can’t be stably built higher, and the latter turns will be about trying to get it a little higher without falling.

8. Alumni Fund

Very, very nice; I love the use of the Clocktower and the topography of the board to make interesting placement restrictions. I also like the ‘press your luck’ aspect of building buildings as high as possible, but also wanting to put your roof on before someone else does. The topography of the board also means that the lowest levels are the best; perhaps this is counterbalanced by giving them the smallest footprint or something. Can a building grow in footprint as it goes up? ie, if it’s in a valley, can the second level be larger than the first if the edges are now on ground instead of on building? Not sure if that makes sense. Anyway, a great use of the 3D concept. My 1st place vote.

9. Greek Company

Pretty abstract, and I’m not sure I understand completely how the game is supposed to work. For example, the rules say that if a player aligns 5 miniatures vertically, he wins, but how is that physically possible if each miniature must sit on a book? I think that the commonality of pieces is a good idea, although I think that in practice it could lead to a long game with lots of gridlock, since the game is all about avoiding setting up the other player for the win. I don’t see any mention made of the licensing aspect, either.

10. Dean duties

This seems like a nice academia-themed game, with elements of Princes of Florence included. I didn’t feel that the 3D mechanic was terribly essential to the game; the game wouldn’t really change much in a 2D incarnation. I think there’s some potential here, and the theme evocation is good, but it wasn’t strong enough a solution to the challenge to rank in my top 3.

Hamumu
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

I just wanted to chime in to say that the "obviously lifted" element in my game is not lifted at all. There's only one thing transparent cards DO, and that's let some stuff show and some stuff not.

It is absolutely a tacked-on element, that I wouldn't have included if 3D wasn't required, but it's not lifted from anywhere, other than from the very idea of using transparent cards (which as always, goes back to Gloom). That's like saying I ripped off Yahtzee by including dice (or maybe because you roll them to get a random number, JUST like in Yahtzee!). The gameplay is completely different, only the fundamental function of the object is the same.

That said, here are my reviews:

1. Legend of Drunken Head Master
Well, it's a drinking game, which doesn't excite me. But it does have interesting rules for a drinking game. Of course there's no actual contest here. It would be much better as a big intra-fraternity showdown, with each frat provided with a set of cans, and the first to build the proper shape wins. 3D: admirable. Licensing: Perfectly reasonable. Academia: marginal (If college football isn't okay, then college partying probably isn't too much so either).

2. Eras Academia
I liked the rules on building things in this game. It was tough to follow how the graduates work, and the clock sounds like overcomplexity (or overfiddling anyway). But I think it might work and be fun. I'd probably drop the whole telling-the-future part and replace the clock with a die of the different colors, though, just for a simpler game overall (and no expensive clock component!). 3D: Sure enough. Licensing: reasonable. Academia: definitely, it's right in the name!

3. Degree Builder
This one sounds like a load of fun! My only real complaint is that (and I think the picture bears this out), the shape of the wagon and the degrees means that it's almost impossible to drop one. Oh, well, I guess if you need to have 10 at once, it would get precarious. So that's okay, I can dig it. This is just a totally simple game, that would be really fun for any age (well, any age that can get over itself). 3D: for sure. Licensing: yeah. Academia: wholehearted.

4. Cramium
I like the concept. It sounds like a fairly quick game, with a unique balancing act. I would wonder though how well that balancing is even possible. You've got two known exams and 1 mystery, plus practice. Are the odds really decent that you can draw out enough spheres of the right color to pass everything? Guess it doesn't matter if they're equal for everyone! I also wonder what the 5th exam is, since there are only 4 classes! So I think this game sounds interesting, but I have reservations about whether it would work in a fun way. 3D: not really at all, I think. Licensing: best one yet. Academia: definitely.

5. Alumni Association
Go me!

6. Sticks & Cubes
The word is spelled "clique". Click is something else entirely! I like this game anyway though. It's got elements I like: voting, bluffing, cubes, sticks. Okay, I don't care much about sticks. I could see cleverly stacking up some other color, and then winning a vote to put a cube of your color way up high. Nifty. 3D: totally. Licensing: decent. Academia: middling.

7. Courseload
I think I like this one. Can you really stack up enough discs to get B's in 6 classes (24 discs?? Do the magnets work to hold it all together?)? That's a lot. I'm not sure what to say on this one. It's got some really nifty ideas, but I think it might actually be more fun without the entire dexterity element, just as a strategy game where you collect the credits in a nice safe way on a player mat. 3D: yep. Licensing: quite good. Academia: entirely.

8. Alumni Fund
Ah, a less cynical take on my own theme! It sounds fun. I think the game would look really nice too. I like the idea of having checks of varying denominations to bid with, although I wonder how meaningful an auction just for turn order might be. Maybe if only the top (players/2) donators actually got to build or something. Or here's an interesting twist: the top donator and everyone who donates at least half what he does can build... that calls for some serious bluffing and an eagerness to toss in overly large sums. As it is, I'd conserve my checks completely for the first half of the game or so - why donate if you can build for free? I don't mind waiting a little while. Maybe the limitations of available pieces and board space make going sooner significantly more valuable than I picture. 3D: completely. Licensing: good. Academia: roughly so.

9. The Greek Company
A decidedly odd theme! I don't think I like that you can remove books. In fact, I think it may, besides stagnating the game a bit, cause serious analysis paralysis. Although maybe it's intended to work hand-in-hand with the rule that no row, column, or stack can have repeat books. This sounds like a pretty fun, and really abstract game, but definitely heavy strategy. It's like connect four with an extra 5 layers of complexity. I know I'd never get my wife to play it, no matter how cute the figures were! 3D: quite. Licensing: none?! Academia: pretty minimal.

10. Dean Duties
One ouch on these rules: you have to place the needed piece in order to claim a card? I think if you can notice a card is completed and nobody else does, and your turn comes around, more power to you! And more importantly, your hidden card can get screwed if somebody else plays the needed piece in a way that blocks you from playing it. In contrast to the previous game, I think this one might benefit from allowing players to bulldoze buildings for a fee. All those concerns aside, I really like this one. It's got a single simple premise, and it is much like my entry in the last GDS in that you are trying to meet conditions with your stacks (which leads to the same complaints I got, mind you!). 3D: indeed. Licensing: good. Academia: quite a bit, not as much as others.

DanogNellows
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2008
what fun!

Well, since this was my first ever entry, I am very pleased with
how everything turned out. Very enjoyable contest. Better yet was
the practical experience. I never knew writing good, clean and concise rules was this hard! I also enjoyed the wide variety of entries.

I look forward to next month's contest!

Danog

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Well, first off, let me remind you that overall, I thought your entry was very solid; the sense of humor was great and the licensing in particular was funny. I just didn't think that your solution to the 3D aspect of the challenge was nearly as original or imaginative as the other entries.

Quote:
That's like saying I ripped off Yahtzee by including dice (or maybe because you roll them to get a random number, JUST like in Yahtzee!).

No, it's not like that at all. Part of this contest was about coming up with a unique 3D mechanic or component. Ok, technically 'unique' wasn't specified, but I think it's implied in the very nature of the contest -- this isn't the "rehash a bunch of existing concepts" challenge, after all. While it's true that, as you say, transparent cards don't do anything except cover things up (or not cover them up), that in and of itself is not a compelling case for your use of this mechanic being worthy of top 3 accolades.

The good news, of course, is that I was just one judge; 3 of the judges thought that your game was the best of the bunch, giving you a solid 4th place finish! So ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. And as I said, I do think you came up with a good idea for a game, but as a solution to the contest, it wasn't in my top 3.

-Jeff

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
GDS Critique

Judging was hard this month. I'm preparing prototypes for a Con this weekend, so I had time only to read each entry once. This meant many of the more involved games suffered because I couldn't appreciate the rules right away.

1. Legend of Drunken Head Master
I give big kudos to Mitch for doing something original (most of the other entires duplicated each other in some way). Unfortunately, I've never played a drinking game, so I had no basis on which to judge this. As drinking games go (at least, the few that I've heard of), this one seemed a lot more interesting.

2. Eras Academia
This was one of the games that suffered. I think there was a lot going on here, but I couldn't decipher it on the first go, so it didn't make my top three. If I survive the Con, I may go back and give it a second (and possibly third) reading.

3. Degree Builder
It was interesting to read this entry, as it shared a lot with my own (Courseload). In some ways, I think it handled the ideas more elegantly. The whole "wagons as loaded shuffleboard pucks" was pretty ingenious.

4. Cramium
I liked this game a lot -- it probably would have been my top choice -- but I couldn't really identify a critical 3D component. Beyond that shortcoming, it had everything I like in a game: clean rules, interesting natural interactions between mechanics, and mechanics that reinforced the theme.

5. Alumni Association
This was my top pick. I laughed out loud while reading the rules. The mechanics were instantly clear but their interactions deep enough to be interesting. The Calling Plans' 3D mechanic may have been "tacked on", but darned if I couldn't think of a non 3D way to reproduce the same functionality. Overall, a fun concept executed with elegance -- I wish I could play a round of it tonight.

6. Sticks & Cubes
I didn't fully get the intricacies of the rules, but this seemed like a pretty interesting game. The whole "click/clique" thing confused the crap out of me for the first 1/3 of the reading, but once I figured it out, I appreciated someone focusing on this aspect of college life. Some of the rules didn't quite make sense (step 1 says you don't have to tell people where you're putting the piece, then step 2 says you have to -- before any voting takes place), but the core mechanics seemed solid. This was my 3rd place pick.

7. Courseload
My entry. Every month, I tell myself that I'll post a summary instead of "full" rules -- and each month I blow it. This month hurt more than usual, as several key ideas were implied but not explained. Yes, the magnets help hold the stack together, but being heavier, the tend to unbalance the stack if you distribute them evenly (which is offset by the more evenly distributed magnetic field). Also, you probably can't stack 24 chips on your pawn, but there are enough cards like "Open Book Final" that let you place chips off your stack that, with luck, you might still collect a 'B' average in 6 courses. After reading Mike's comments, I agree that it might just be better the scratch the whole dexterity angle.

8. Alumni Fund
This was another complex game that I couldn't appreciate enough on one reading. It seemed well thought out and seemed like it could play wildly differently depending on the placement of the Clock Tower (this is a good thing). This is another game I should revisit when things settle down.

9. The Greek Company
I loved the theme of this game! The thought of philosophers dancing wildly on stacks of books has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to pick apart the rules. It seems like the game could take a very long time to complete. I'd love to actually try this game and see how it feels to play.

10. Dean Duties
My 2nd place choice, and another example of clear rules with deep interactions. I didn't fully grasp the intricacies of play, but I understood enough to play (I think). The game itself looks quite attractive, which makes me wonder if this is Seo's entry?

K.

Xaqery
Xaqery's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Congrats to paralepsis!

Hamumu wrote:
The word is spelled "clique".

I know.

This was my second GDS. They are great fun.

I came up with the first draft of "Cubes and Sticks" in about 30 minutes but it had some problems. About a week went by and then about 10 hours before the dealine I realized how to fix it. I then proceded to rewrite the rules about 5 times. What I submitted was rushed and not as clean as I would like. Since I can't leave things unfinished I finished it and here
is the final draft of this game: Cubes and Sticks I am sure there are still problems and spelling errors. :-)

I wish I was able to rattle off reviews of the entries but each time I try I end up writing what Jeff wrote only not as well. So at the risk of being called lazy "DITTO".

Thanks again Jeff for your time.

- Dwight

Hamumu
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

jwarrend wrote:

No, it's not like that at all. Part of this contest was about coming up with a unique 3D mechanic or component. Ok, technically 'unique' wasn't specified, but I think it's implied in the very nature of the contest -- this isn't the "rehash a bunch of existing concepts" challenge, after all. While it's true that, as you say, transparent cards don't do anything except cover things up (or not cover them up), that in and of itself is not a compelling case for your use of this mechanic being worthy of top 3 accolades.

It's not that at all - I don't care how you rated my game, or whether you liked the concept. It's perfectly fine to score it lower for being unoriginal or for any other reason (like it's not really very 3D). What bothers me is that you said I "obviously lifted" it from another game. I did not.

It also bothers me a little that you counted your own votes. I don't think the contest runner should do that (given that he is the one person, normally, who knows who made each game), but perhaps that's how GDS has been done from the beginning.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Hamumu wrote:

It also bothers me a little that you counted your own votes. I don't think the contest runner should do that (given that he is the one person, normally, who knows who made each game), but perhaps that's how GDS has been done from the beginning.

Hmm; I wasn't aware that this was verboten; this is yet another reason it will be a good thing when Bryk takes back over!

As my ineptness revealed, I actually deleted all of the entries, and so I didn't actually know the authors of most of the entries at the time I wrote up my evaluations. And in my opinion, the preservation of anonymity is a tremendous amount of effort for the host, to no actual purpose. I don't see how knowing the entrants would affect one's judging except in the case where one person wins repeatedly (read: yogurt) and a judge wants to "spread the wins around"; but this even is shown to be false, since in the first few challenges where yogurt won multiple times, it was obvious which entry was his yet he still received the most votes!

So, I don't think that my knowledge of the entrants really affected my voting, but my vote, unfortunately, did affect the contest; take away my votes and the 1st and 2nd places would have flip-flopped. I don't think that it warrants putting an asterisk next to paralepsis' win, but in the true democratic spirit of the contest, if one wants to consider paralepsis to be an illegitimate winner, you may!

-Jeff

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

jwarrend wrote:
So, I don't think that my knowledge of the entrants really affected my voting, but my vote, unfortunately, did affect the contest; take away my votes and the 1st and 2nd places would have flip-flopped. I don't think that it warrants putting an asterisk next to paralepsis' win, but in the true democratic spirit of the contest, if one wants to consider paralepsis to be an illegitimate winner, you may!

I say, just for transparency, that switching places isn't enough. Let's disqualify both of them and proclaim MY entry the winner. ;-P

Because, as Kreitler accuratley deduced, Dean Duties was my entry. I would love to know who is the author of The Greek Company. Had it included some licensing comments, it might have received my 1st place vote (actually this situation made my life easier, as it would have tied in my ranking with The Alumni Fund.

Anyway, congratulations to all contestants, specially to those who beat me, Paralepsis and Xaquery. As I was reading those two entries I thought: "Oh no, two more games about building University premises, and both are better than mine!" With great pain but a clean conscience my votes went to The Alumni Fund and Cubes and Sticks, in that order, with Kreitler's Courseload taking the third spot. Hammumu's Alumni Association would have been in my top 3 too had he been more serious about licensing. I loved his licensing idea, though.

Seo

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Hamumu wrote:
It's perfectly fine to score it lower for being unoriginal or for any other reason (like it's not really very 3D). What bothers me is that you said I "obviously lifted" it from another game. I did not.

I thought that was unfair too, Hamumu. The two justifications are quite different and saying an idea was "lifted" suggests you did something dishonourable, which you clearly didn't.

I didn't enter the competition this month (because the Z-Man game is eating my head) but I did vote, and in fact I voted for Hamumu's for number 1. I liked its humour and the calling plans. I'm always a sucker for player powers you assemble yourself.

By the way, having now played Gloom, I can say that Hamumu's use of transparent cards is more practical than my own in Arcadia. You can't really see through more than 4 "transparent" cards, so that's a limitation to keep in mind if anyone plans on ever using these cards for real.

Yogurt

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

yogurt wrote:
I didn't enter the competition this month (because the Z-Man game is eating my head) but I did vote, and in fact I voted for Hamumu's for number 1. I liked its humour and the calling plans. I'm always a sucker for player powers you assemble yourself.

When reading the entries, I thought that was yours, based on the sense of humour. But I had my doubts, as it wasn't about pudding. ;-)

yogurt wrote:
By the way, having now played Gloom, I can say that Hamumu's use of transparent cards is more practical than my own in Arcadia. You can't really see through more than 4 "transparent" cards, so that's a limitation to keep in mind if anyone plans on ever using these cards for real.

An easy alternative would be cutting holes in the cards. That would work for A.A., but not for Arcadia.

Seo

Anonymous
Winning

I am actually quite flattered that The Alumni Fund came in first. I wasn't really expecting to win -- really, the nice things people have said about the design so far are enough for me.

If there are rumors of some sort of administrative conspiracy, rest assured that there was probably not any sort of bribery involved.

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

seo wrote:
When reading the entries, I thought that was yours, based on the sense of humour.

I'm getting stereotyped! Watch for my next game about a small town that's devastated when a bus full of children sinks into a frozen lake.

...

Yogurt

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

yogurt wrote:
Watch for my next game about a small town that's devastated when a bus full of children sinks into a frozen lake.

Yogurt!! You just ruined my theme for next month's Challenge!! ;-p

-Bryk

Hamumu
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

seo wrote:
Hammumu's Alumni Association would have been in my top 3 too had he been more serious about licensing. I loved his licensing idea, though.

The problem with licensing for me was that my game is not one a college would be WILLING to sell. They might sell an unbranded one as a humorous take on college issues, but what college would willingly say "Hey, we harass our graduates ruthlessly!"? I mean, I'll always go for the joke if I can, so I'm happy with what I chose (and that people liked it! Yay!), but I'm not sure I had a possible "straight answer" for this. My wife suggested that you could brand it with the school's rival... but that is both still a bit of a joke and possibly libelous! I knew licensing was sort of a mark against me, and if there were money on the line, I might have gone with a different idea to begin with, but hey, it's all in fun! So I picked the most fun.

I actually came up with two games. The other was a very straight one, about building a school and making graduates. I had to go with this one though, just because it's so cynical, silly, and TRUE (if you're a college graduate, you know this! And they can track you down SO fast when you move. I had that in the game a bit, but it was needless complexity). And moreso because it was the simplest, cleanest idea I've ever had! While I do feel the calling cards are pretty tacked on, I really am proud of the core concept of just ordering your calls (not too big on the use of dice and chips... if I could just make it the 6 cards and nothing else, that'd be great!).

And since I didn't put these up before, my votes were #1 for Alumni Fund, which is well deserving. I don't think it's groundbreaking or anything, but it's rock-solid, just sounds great. There's something that feels Carcassonne-classic about it to me, which I can't really explain, just has to do with the mental image of nice looking blocks being stacked with roofs on top (which Carcassonne has nothing to do with, hence I can't explain it). And the clock tower is a great feature. I think there'd be a real tactile and aesthetic pleasure to this game (The Greek Company I could see also having that) that would make me want to play even though it has nothing to do with the gameplay.

#2, Degree Builder, good old-fashioned roly poly fun. I probably wouldn't have picked it until I went back and read more carefully and realized that trying to smack into other carts to spill them is a gameplay element. That's fun.

And #3, Dean Duties. I really liked the various "stack up college buildings" games, and while Alumni Fund takes top honors there, this is my second choice. I'm a sucker for "make something that matches this card". Had to do a lot of juggling for 3rd place though, with Sticks & Cubes (the other stacker!) and Cramium also good contenders.

Xaqery
Xaqery's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

I was talking with my non-bgdf board game friend about the transparent card issue here. We both agree that it is fine to do but something that unique is clearly going to draw the attention.

This lead to a question I wanted to pose here. At what point does some new mechanic become common? Like dice.

for example: I have wanted to use the everyone-plays-a-different-role each turn mechanic like in Citadels or Puerto Rico but it doesn’t seem common enough yet and I am afraid that people here would consider it non-original.

- Dwight

Gamebot
Gamebot's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Xaqery wrote:

This lead to a question I wanted to pose here. At what point does some new mechanic become common? Like dice.

for example: I have wanted to use the everyone-plays-a-different-role each turn mechanic like in Citadels or Puerto Rico but it doesn’t seem common enough yet and I am afraid that people here would consider it non-original.

- Dwight

I would say that as long as you can add something to that mechanic to make it your own, it is ok to use.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

yogurt wrote:

I thought that was unfair too, Hamumu. The two justifications are quite different and saying an idea was "lifted" suggests you did something dishonourable, which you clearly didn't.

It's obvious that I used a word that isn't commonly understood to mean what I understand it to me. To me, to say that someone "lifted" a concept or mechanic is basically a factual statement of how game design works in most cases; B. Faidutti "lifted" the role selection mechanic in Citadels from Verrater; Puerto Rico "lifted" its "add gold to the unselected roles" mechanic from a very similar mechanic in Vinci. It's not meant to be a word with a negative connotation.

I certainly wasn't alleging that Hamumu did anything dishonorable, merely that, in the context of this challenge, he did something that was not worthy of top 3 honors, from my personal perspective.

And the context of the contest is a crucial point for seeing this; if Hamumu had said, in a Game Journal, say, "Hey, what do you guys think of my new game 'The Alumni Association'?", I would have probably noted the transparent card aspect but wouldn't have viewed it as a bad thing; the only reason I viewed it unfavorably here is because this is a contest where originality is highly prized.

And since it's on a similar subject:

Quote:

I have wanted to use the everyone-plays-a-different-role each turn mechanic like in Citadels or Puerto Rico but it doesn’t seem common enough yet and I am afraid that people here would consider it non-original.

Originality matters differently to different people. To me, it's highly important, and I'd never design a game that used as a major core mechanic that was already found in a different game. However, many excellent games, such as Puerto Rico, the Greatest Game Ever (TM), are really just a creative reassembly of existing mechanics and concepts. So I think I tend to a more extreme view than most. Obviously, it affects how I judge these contests, and obviously not everyone will judge by the same criteria. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I'm not saying that others should adopt my views.

I do think role selection is vague enough that one could use it without feeling bad; it's when you start lifting (there's that word again!) specific implementations of it, such as the actual drafting system from Citadels, that I'd be concerned (but many people wouldn't!)

As with most things in design, it's probably a "do what you're comfortable with" thing.

-Jeff

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

On reflection, I was out of my gourd.

What I thought was unfair was the idea that Hamumu wouldn't have thought of using transparent cards without the recent and local example of Arcadia, when of course there are all sorts of games with transparent components, just like there are all sorts of game where you stack blocks.

However, given my stance back with the Tom Jolly patent thread, I obviously don't think there's anything dishonourable with using ideas from other games, although I would usually call it "borrowing." So please ignore when I said otherwise. :)

(Sorry for continuing to derail the thread, but if someone brought up Jolly, I wanted it to be me.)

Yogurt

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

jwarrend wrote:

And since it's on a similar subject:

Quote:

I have wanted to use the everyone-plays-a-different-role each turn mechanic like in Citadels or Puerto Rico but it doesn’t seem common enough yet and I am afraid that people here would consider it non-original.

Originality matters differently to different people. To me, it's highly important, and I'd never design a game that used as a major core mechanic that was already found in a different game.
:
-Jeff

Well said, Jeff! Way back in March, when I first became aware of these showdowns, I set a design goal for my entries: do something that nobody else is likely to do. I don't always succeed, but when I do, that's when I get the most pleasure. Along the way, GDS has helped me to become a better writer. The whole judging thing serves a vital purpose, in my opinion, in that it forces the judges to read each entry with a critical eye. Without judging, we'd all just give each other a pat on the back and walk away without learning anything.

Mitch

disclamer
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Regarding transparent cards

I don't see transparent cards as a new or innovative mechanism, or even a mechanism at all - they're more accurately thought of as an implementation (the playing of cards and laying of tiles are mechanisms, which are neither new or innovative).

Gloom is primarily a Take That game, like Munchkin or (going all the way back) Mille Bornes. You play bonuses on yourself and penalties on your opponents until someone achieves a certain victory condition. There is no real innovative mechanism there. The innovation in Gloom comes from the implementation - the use of transparent cards to track the various bonuses. Gloom could just as easily have been implemented as regular cards with some other method of tracking each character's various stats, much like Munchkin where weapons and armor cards are just left in the playing area to keep track of bonuses and levels are tracked with a die. (imagine the reverse - Munchkin with transparent Item cards that stack on your Character card, clothing him in armor and putting weapons in his hands,etc.)

Arcadia makes much more clever use of this implementation, yet remains a tile-laying game with some set collection and area influence mechanisms, similar in many respects to Carcassonne. Actually, Arcadia seems less gimmicky than Gloom and migh make a pretty cool little game if published.

Alumni Association, which is a clever game as well, makes use of the transparent card implementation in an even more disposable manner than Gloom (no offense!).

Sorry for the threadjack. I think it is an important distinction to make in design consideration.

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Regarding transparent cards

disclamer wrote:

Alumni Association, which is a clever game as well, makes use of the transparent card implementation in an even more disposable manner than Gloom (no offense!).

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree.

If you mean that the "special powers" part of the game is disposable, that's not really a critique of the use of transparent cards.

If you're saying that the transparent cards themselves are an unnecessary way to implement the "special powers" mechanic, I have a challenge for you: come up with an alternate system that reproduces identical behavior in as elegant a fashion (and by elegant, I mean "with as few components and rules"). I tried to do it myself, and found it incredibly hard.

K.

seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the October 2005 GDS entries

Cards with holes instead of transparency might work just the same in AA, IIRC the game.

Seo

disclamer
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Regarding transparent cards

Kreitler wrote:
If you're saying that the transparent cards themselves are an unnecessary way to implement the "special powers" mechanic, I have a challenge for you: come up with an alternate system that reproduces identical behavior in as elegant a fashion (and by elegant, I mean "with as few components and rules"). I tried to do it myself, and found it incredibly hard.

K.

Obviously, this exact special powers mechanism would be difficult to separate from the implementation, because the mechanism is a function of the properties of transparent cards. It can't help but be the most "elegant" way to achieve that effect, because that's exactly what transparent cards are designed to do. You may as well challenge someone to duplicate the effects of the Wallenstein cube tower without using a Wallenstein cube tower.

Here's a challenge for you: tell me what actual gameplay value the transparent cards add to Alumni Association.

edit: removed edit to repost.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut