[GDS] APRIL 2015 "Loser's Lounge" - Critiques

What a great finish for Drop In Drag Race! Impressive that a single entry earned four solid Gold medals without placing as silver/bronze for anyone else. Goes to show how tastes are different across players, and hopefully means that there will be some good discussion on why people did or did not vote for it.

Congratulations also to Jackpot and Roads, Rivers, and Railways for such a strong finish as well. Five medals a piece, and spread across the spectrum, means a lot of people saw at least something good in the concept - which at this stage is a game's "development" should be considered a huge seal of approval!

Remember during your critique to say things that you yourself are probably interested in hearing about on your own entry:

• what did you like?
• what do you want to see more of to make that cool bit stand out even more?
• Why did you feel like it fit the contest restrictions or not?
• etc.

Hi!

I recently started using bgdf again and realize that I do not know how to acces the different games mentioned in this thread. Please guide me! :-)

regards,
Erik

That was a tough brief so a deserved win.

I'm afraid I wasn't one of your golden votes either. There was just too much of a random element for me. I could have the highest speed, the highest acceleration and roll a 6 and then be last because someone flipped the race order, did I accidentally drive the wrong way really, really fast? ;)

I do however like the concept. At its heart it seemed fun in a chaotic way and would likely cause a lot of laughs as cars backfire, explode and the like. I could also see the opportunity for a two (or more) part race, the first part relying on acceleration and the second on your speed. You could have the tension of being in the lead too early and being the target of people's actions.

*Drop In Drag Race*

Echo earlier comments: I think solo play is not compelling, and perhaps the luck factor is too high. The latter, though, I think would be eminently fixable through playtesting and tweaking, so I don't really consider it a significant criticism against games in this forum. I do think that the basic idea is pretty sound.

I wish I had thought of such an idea in time to enter the contest, but I think that andymorris's idea of racing against your own prediction of your result would be great for the fluid nature of the game, with people coming and going quickly. A problem that I had with all my ideas was that someone who has been playing for a while has could have a significant advantage over newcomers, making it not fun for those. My only ideas were coop games, and I had nothing interesting to add to the concept so I didn't submit an entry at all. But Andy's idea could work really well, especially if there is some small advantage to having a more souped up vehicle (perhaps you're harder to hit with attacks) but it isn't a huge advantage.

*5 by Five*

There doesn't seem to be much to do in this game other than roll dice. The decisions to make offer little tension -- only if you only need 4 points or less would you ever roll less than the maximum number of dice, and even then, probably not. It seems so hard to win that I suspect one almost never does, and instead rockets off to big numbers more often. On the other hand, the core of the idea is new and interesting, and I think that with a fair bit of tweaking, this game could be something fun.

*Clockwords*

The anagram-search aspect to this would be reasonably fun, as long as no one really cares about keeping score. But the winner would mostly be the person who spent the most time playing (i.e. the biggest loser in the "main" game), and not the people with the most skill. I'm not sure why you have players contributing letters from their names rather than just choosing some number of letters randomly. You could have offset the logging-time-equals-points aspect by having players have to draw additional letters if they are stuck, and that costs points to do. Also, by using letters of your own name, I immediately get to make ZA and ZAG on 2 and 3, for a quick 25 points, which doesn't seem fair to my friend Dale Herd.

I think with the small change that I've suggested, and you tweak the drawing cost such that it is challenging to score enough points to overcome the cost of drawing letters, this becomes the game that best fits the theme. You could drop in and out easily, personal skill would matter, and it would be meaningful to compare the scores of people with significantly different playtimes.

*Colourific*
This could be fun, but I didn't really see it as fitting the theme, especially. It doesn't seem to me that dropping in and out makes real sense.

*Eternal Quest* and *Have Sword, Will Travel*
Coop dungeon crawls need something innovative to be interesting, I'm afraid, and this forum does not really provide the opportunity to achieve that. They might be a good way to fit the theme, and maybe these are great, but I couldn't get into either.

*Roads, Rivers, and Railways*
This sounds a lot like Carcasonne, a game which is quite fun and I'd be willing to try out a variation if it offered something new. However, I don't see that it fits the theme at all, of players dropping in and out and still being competitive. The "dropping in" rule at the end really just seems pasted on, and would make for a big disruption every time a new player dropped in. Also, I suspect that it might even be a big advantage to drop in late and get to place all your meeples at once, assuming there are score multipliers available from combos, or at least ways to cripple your opponents' scores with a few well-placed meeples.

*Inevitable ending*
I think you might have gotten better traction, here, if you had led with what you call the Quick End. That is, if you described the game as "Players are added as they are knocked out of the main game. Once the main game is finished, that triggers the final round, when the Indians all attack." I think that the challenge could survive the idea that people do not leave the game unscheduled, only join it, and that could work well in this game. Somehow the Indians should keep getting stronger, more or less proportional to the opportunity the players have to build defenses, for one massive (but it has to be quick) battle at the end.

(I totally wish I had thought of this idea for the challenge) You might say that the last two players in the main game (that is, the winner and the final person knocked out) play the Indians side of the final battle, and all the players who have been preparing their defenses play out their side.

*Jackpot*
I'm not sure I followed this, but it seems almost completely luck. I'm willing to believe, however, that I simply misunderstood.

I thought this one had some real potential. While at first look it didn't appeal to me, as I considered its possibilities, I will admit the concept grew on me.

I was a little confused at first as to how the round would work if people could change positions, but once I got my head around the way the positions would work, it began to sound interesting.

It struck me that the game would be largely defined by the cards played, and therein lies the strategy, but that strategy could all come to nothing if the colour that scores differs from what you were hoping.

Careful strategy could pay off, but could also frustrate if you fail to earn stars! I thought the stars worked well, though they might work to hold players in the game, reducing the fluidity of players leaving and coming into the game.

I liked the abstract feel of the game, and would be curious to see how the rules developed over time with play testing.

Thank you Mindspike!

Regards,
Erik

I voted bronze for this entry. I really like the setup and the way the goals are structured. However, adding sixteen numbers might be a bit much for some people, so perhaps the third goal could be modified slightly. I agree that the system for the action cards was more complex than it needed to be. What if you used action dice instead of action cards? You could have one more of each type of die which you roll to start your turn. You then decide with each one either to move one in that colour with the same number as you rolled or change the number of a die in that colour to make it match what you rolled.

Also I think you should be rewarded for how quickly you complete your goals. If you put the numbers 1-4 on the edges of the goal card, you could easily track up to four turns to achieve the goals by simply rotating the card. If you don't get it after four turns, you fail and must take a new one. You could then use the average number of turns to complete a goal card as your score (failed cards counting as a five). Low score wins. That would be perfect for player flexibility coming in and out.

Overall interesting concept nice job

I think the basic premise of the game is pretty solid. I like idea of the risk/reward balance for deciding how many dice to use as you try to get back to zero. It could make for a quick and easy game that only needs dice and paper, but I don't think it would be interesting enough to play solo. I think the system outlined here still needs work. If I understood it correctly, it would be difficult to get down to zero.

I like word games as much as the next guy, so I like where you're going with this. I'm not sure about working together. I think this could work as a pen and paper only game. Everybody writes down all the names at the top of a paper and then you get a fixed time to try and come up with all the words for the clock.

This one got my silver. I felt the essence of the challenge was a solo game that others could join. I thought this idea did a great job of capturing that. I think it'd be a interesting dynamic. My biggest concern would be laying out such a large grid of cards. It could be a bit fiddly.

Big kudos to the winner. When I read that game as the first entry I knew it would be a hard challenge. The results got me a bit downcast since I only scored 3 - but the upside for my mood was that my gold,silver and bronze matched the result.

Everyone have said much of what should be said but I will just pick a few of my notes and repeat others:)

Drag Race: I also thought the events seemed too gameshifting. I was wondering if it should have a win condition.

Clockwork: Great idea. The game would be easier with more players? A problem could be the accumulation of points over time.? I really like the master track sheet. Quite difficult to play solo ?

Colorific: Seems quite clever. Though I am not sure if it will be never ending or luck if
you succeed.

Eternal Q: Almost got my vote ; The overall idea is great. Could be fun to have a simple eternal quest table you can join. But there is too much focus on specifics and not so much on why it would be fun/gameplay.

Have sword. Too me this sounded very fun. I like the different situations that arise from the card combos monster/location.

RRR: I was unsure about the ending - "tiles saying one more turn"?. Very smart with connection tokes - that can change the situation. I can't predict how often you should move a meeple from a good spot? Maybe there should be more stuff affecting the tiles already laid out.

Jackpot: This also grew on me when re-reading it. I think bluffing would play a central role - and I like that.

Inevitable Ending: I loved my own theme - and while reading the earlier comments Im very happy too see I at least got 1 silver. My own problem with the game is that it relies a lot on balance, especially when other players join. How does the indians get equal stronger. Another issue was what options should the Indian player have.

I would like to know if you think I describe rules too in depth or my rules are too poorly described?

Thanks @Zag24 for you comments - I like the idea with the winners playing Indians.