Suppose we put each game up FOR 2 weeks, but stagger the start dates by only 1 week. This way we have fresh meat to feast on each week, and we can still finish our reflections on the previous game for another week.
Does that sound amenable to anyone?
- Seth
I'm obviously open to whatever folks want to do, but I think that we'd likely run out of games faster than you think. Thinking about it, that would mean a new game every week, which would mean 52 games per year. Do you really think this group has the capability of keeping up a frenetic pace like that?
That said, this thing may just be a flash in the pan anyway, and so all of us getting a chance to workshop our games would be our primary goal, in which case, one new game each week would be fine.
Personally, though, I like the one game per two weeks. I think it's good to give one game our undivided attention, and I think both games are showing that the full 2 weeks is appropriate -- both designers have/will have spent the "weekend" updating their game, after which they gave us an updated version to critique the following week.
Obviously, I'm open to whatever others want to do. There are 4 or 5 games in the queue right now, so if people would like to pick up the pace a bit, we'll be good to go for the next month or so at least. Personally, I like the more laid-back, gradual approach, but I'm happy to put the pedal to the medal. Let's hear some other opinions!
And thanks again, sedjtroll, for continuing to make suggestions and comments about the structure of the Workshop itself. You've been a very active participant, and have advanced good constructive criticism for how to make this thing most useful to participants. Thanks! BTW, your game is next up in the queue, which means you'll start a week from Sunday (give or take a couple of days). Is that agreeable? After you will be FastLearner, then Brykovian and Bandecko, with me thrown in there somewhere, maybe, as is my wont as "schedule-master"!
-Jeff
Personally, I don't care for this idea. I prefer a much more relaxed pace.
The current method (2 weeks, then move-on) seems all good and well to me. If you're getting bored, sedj, just go and innovate something for yourself. ;-)
You're here to design games, not just to get under the spotlight, yes?
- Ender
I would also like to see things remain on a Two week rotation.
Anything faster and I know I simply wouldn't have time to read, review, and submit anything of value.
Which leads me to apologize to our first two designers for not giving any imput yet (when I said I wanted to be part of this whole process). I have been totally swamped at work and will remain so for a little while yet.
I promise I will start adding my 2 cents (whatever that's worth :wink: ) as soon as I can.
I want to apologize for my lack of input so far as well. I've read both games and skimmed through the responses, but between a lot of work and a foreign exchange student coming to stay in a week I've been swamped.
The worst is how guilty I'll feel when it's my turn. :)
I'll definitely find some time, and soon.
You're here to design games, not just to get under the spotlight, yes?
- Ender
The more design work we do, the bigger the backlog on the GDW gets, and the more games get put on the back burner and forgotten about...
;P
- Seth
Oh, and what's wrong with a little spotlight? I suppose it's no secret that I am dying for feedback on some of my stuff- but I feel like I'm contributing to the other GDW entries as well.
When Jeff originally proposed the GDW, or at least volunteered to try and coordinate it, he asked for proposals. Since I had a game that was in the exact state that was requested (rules outline but no actual playtest to that point), I offered mine to join the list.
Jeff then asked if I could move up the slot a little since he was behind with his design, which i agreed to. I see that there are other games in the "queue" now, but not that many that we need to rush into them.
Fwiw, I think the two-week period does allow people who are very busy a chance to participate in the debate. I realise that most people have made their feelings about "WarZone" pretty clear by now, and until I've been able to playtest it myself I can't properly take all those comments on board.
Because we haven't got a formal "pattern" going yet - is it expected that the designer will post lots of modifications within the two weeks, or should the game move into a Journal for that work? - then clamouring for changes is difficult to defend since there's nothing to "change" yet :)
I can see that most of the "action" on the designs is going to occur over the first week, and there will then be mostly a lull for the second week.
Perhaps we need to propose that the designer can issue a "closing statement" that formally ends the thread? If they want to move it somewhere else, then that would be the opportunity to do so.
I think two weeks per game is fine. No need to rush things, especially not when there are only a few games in the queue. Some people are busy and need some time to respond.
I think "old" threads should continue to exist in the GWD forum, so that if a designer later makes changes to that particular game or if he tested the game he can tell us in that same thread. That also means that reading and commenting on those "old" threads would occupy some of our time.
Then, if the whole Democratic Game Thing takes off, that would keep you busy as well ;)
Then, if the whole Democratic Game Thing takes off, that would keep you busy as well ;)
That is also a possibility. What's the story on that?
- Seth
Come to the chat. We go on endlessly about it. :)
Haha, yes! 8)
Also, I like the more relaxed pace but I'm not sure what I would say if I had one in the queue and ready to show it :wink: (I understand you're eager to show us your work sedj)
IMHO, one game a week would shift the focus too quickly. If you really can't wait, you may open a thread in Game Design or even have your own forum (that's what we used to do before the GDW).
Well, I already put what I've got so far up in my game journal, and I've mentioned it a lot already. I think trying any further would just piss everybody off. Anyone who wants to can look at my game journals and talk to me about my games (in particular 8/7 Central as I feel like it's very close to being done and I'd like to find out just what finishing touches it needs).
- Seth
Personally I'm mainly here to be inspired. By being around creative thinkers and whatnot helps me get my own creativity going.
Plust the more I read about games being designed the more of an understanding I get in general about games, and that I'm able to take to my own designs.
I used to just tinker around and come up with a bunch of concepts, but never any rules, and now I've got 2 games that I feel I can actually finish and lots of ideas I'm dying to tackle as soon as I do.
2 weeks is fine to me though. It gives people who don't or can't stop by every day to get a chance to catch up on what's being said and offer their input while the game is still in focus.
However, I don't see why multiple games couldn't be "in the spotlight" at the same time. This is a message board, which allows for such a luxury of having people read at their leisure.
I think within reason 2 games could be on stage at once, but I feel in order to keep the GDW in an organized manner, that this should only be the case if games start to "pile up". Such as if there were 8 games waiting to be reviewed, with more submissions on the way. This would mean that games would be sitting there for months on end, driving the designer crazy.
I say IF this were to happen, then yes 2 games should be easy enough for us to chew through and handle. I'm sure the regulars could do both in one week.
That's my 2 cents anyway
I don't hear enough of a consensus around changing to "a new game each week", so I think that for now, we should keep things as they are for a little longer. As I said, there are 4 or 5 games in the queue right now (depending on when I get mine together), and yours, sedjtroll, will be up next. If others are chomping at the bit and are really unhappy about having to wait, please let me know.
I have explained why I'm in favor of 2 week sessions, but let me also point out that having to wait a little while until your session comes up is not necessarily a bad thing. TheEnder initially posted the first version of "GuardDuty" and asked for comments, back in April or so. To be blunt, that rulebook was not good. In the 2 months between then and his "turn" in the Workshop, he polished the game a lot, hacked a lot of stuff out, and made a very nice-looking rulebook, and also cooked up a very thorough backstory (which most of us, unfortunately, didn't think he needed.) So, just because your game is "done", I think a little more time spent fine-tuning, etc, is really time well spent, and I think the Forum is good in that respect. I think it's also much more likely to be productive in getting feedback than the game journal style of posting, which, I'm sure, is what you're finding out. Part of that, I think, comes from the expectation that the game is in a somewhat coherent state (not necessarily polished, but at the least, close to being complete). Reading a poorly written, disjointed rulebook, and then offering feedback, is not a great use of everyone's time. That's why I like the idea of getting to read something that someone has invested a fair amount of thought into; there's still plenty of room for comments to make an impact, but there's something sensible there to comment on.
So, obviously, I would like to continue to have a new game come up every two weeks, at least for the near future. Again, if there's a public outcry, we can switch, but so far, I think I seem to be in the majority, so let's try one or two more like this and see how it goes. Thanks to TheEnder and Scurra for setting a great example with a couple of very nice games, and very nice-looking rulebook. I think you've set the bar pretty high for the rest of us; let's not all feel afraid to submit if our games are, by our own standards, "less good" than those two games. Let's all just submit our best work, and expect to get some useful feedback!
-Jeff
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (34) by Jacob |
| I need a 5th category of encounters (7) by larienna |
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (2) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
If 52 games a year is too many, then when we run out we'll have a lag time. I think it's better for the people waiting for their game to come up to get feedback on it asap. I figure the initial feedback can come in that first week, and then as the designers take the feedback into account and make their changes, the next game could be getting the initial treatment.
Then, when the first game is re-posted we can revisit it and look at the changes while Game #2 is being re-vamped. Also Game #3 can have the initial round of comments going on.
Eventually we will get through the games that want reviewing, and if there's a lag after that then at least it's a lag where noone is waiting to have their game reviewed.
Of course, at any time after a game has been up, if someone thinks of something (even weeks later) they can add their comment- the thread will still be around.
- Seth