Suggestions for a Better GDS Submission (from the archives)

Thanks Bryk. My 10c on the word count issue:

Please keep the flexability - it would be very difficult for anyone to write an exact word count, which is why students are allowed to go slightly over (or slightly under) when writing assignments. A 5% allowance is reasonable.

If people feel it necessary to identify what soft ware should be used when doing a word count the name one in the rules, but please ... name one that the majority uses.

Continue to publisher the higher word counts, I don't think it stops people reading the entries but may encourage authors to revise what is written so that they become easier to read.

I'm kind of torn on the word count limit.

On one hand, some limit has to be set as just a matter of practicality. Whatever the number is, there would be situations where a designer would wish he or she had more to work with.

On the other hand it's very annoying to see criticism of the game I submitted that assumes I didn't think something through because I didn't comment on it or explain it in more detail when the problem is actually that I ran out of words. As I was going through explaining things I found myself having to tear things out left and right just to met the word count. And with the entries being anonymous until voting is over, I don't feel like there's any way to respond to criticism that I think is unwarranted. I mean, sure, I could jump in and explain and then lose the anonymity, or I could wait until the voting is over, in which case it's kind of too late to matter, at least for the purposes of the competition.

I also see a number of things in other entries that I just don't understand, or that I think I understand but don't seem to make sense. But I don't feel like I'm in a position to know if it was just some failed idea off the top of someone's head or if it was thought out and works well in practice, because we don't have examples or anything. And with the word limit so low and no way for questions to be answered before votes need to be cast, I feel like I can't judge things fairly.

At 800 words no entry can fully describe any game of anything but the most basic (and, face it, bland) nature. I guess if things stay the way they are, the competition should be treated as the best brainstorming contest or the best simplistic game that can be put together. And that's certainly a valid way to do it, but I don't know that the entrants and voters are treating it as such, or that doing it another way would be bad either.

Considering that you were one of the people who made comments on my design that would have been cleared up quite easily if the word count were higher (or if there were some method for designers to answer questions without revealing their identity), you've already demonstrated that the current method leaves something to be desired. While you are certainly free to disagree, that doesn't change the situation itself in any way.

If it's the word limit that's the "big part" of the challenge, that's certainly one way to do it, but then it's going to limit the kinds of games that can be submitted and be more of a writing contest than a design contest. If that's how people want it to work, that's fine too, as long as the people participating and voting know that. For example, any criticism of lack of details, etc., is automatically misplaced if the word count of the entry is at the limit and the details require very specific examples of individual components to explain. And if the voters expect more details than can be fit within the word limit for certain kinds of games, if I participate in the future I'll only submit games that have such a limited scope and complexity that 800 words can adequately explain all there is to say.

I couldn’t agree with you more Dan. Unfortunately my entry turned out to be a much larger scale of a game than planned. I struggled with how I wanted to submit my rules. This being my first entry and reading past reviews how critics were left in the dark about how the mechanics actually worked put the fear in me that 800 words just wasn’t going to interpret my rules in a standard rules format. So I tried to explain them instead of just posting the rules themselves and letting you all read my mind and fill in the holes. Well my idea turned into a wall of text no one cared to understand.

What does this tell me now? Make simpler games I guess. And shoot from the hip, because I wasted a lot of time on this one and blew it on writing the rules. I admit my formatting skills could have been better but, I had on my "Game Design" belt +5 not my "Writing” belt. I agree there has to be a limit somewhere but I’m positive if could of posted my original rules in there entirely it would have been different.

All in all I had fun with this one and look forward to the next.

As Zzzzz pointed out, we have to remember what the GDS is, and is not. The main thing is that it's for fun. There are no prizes except about two weeks of bragging rights (until the next GDS starts). Most of the submissions are throw-away designs that never get developed after the contest is over. And there's a new contest every month, so if this month's didn't work out well, at least you've got some experience to apply to next month's.

And I was wrong about there being no prizes. The critique thread is a prize in itself. That's where you find out what problems other designers see with your design, and where you hear about their ideas for improving it. I always read the entries and critiques, even in months where I don't enter myself, and I usually learn something. If nothing else, this is where you'll find out what parts of your painfully-trimmed 800-word entry were confusing.

New participants (we seem to have a lot of new members lately, which is great!) will learn not to expect full details in a GDS entry. Participants will learn which details are important and which aren't. An interesting exercise might be to take a complex game that you didn't design, and see how well you can describe it in 800 words and two images.

And while Hedge was kind to praise them, I should point out that my alleged mad writing skillz have never helped me to win a GDS. In general, a confusing entry won't win, but neither will a brilliantly-described but poor design. It really is about the design, not the writing; but clear writing is important to a designer too, so it's not unfair that that be part of the challenge.

is surely part of game design?

I used to do the GDS quite a bit, and had some success with it. I've never found the 800 word limit to be much of an issue. In fact, I really tried to get the word count down to something like 600. Anyway, here's a few pointers that I have.

-- As has been mentioned before, you aren't creating a ruleset, but more of an overview. If you can make a simple game, then , sure, go for a rules set. But really, this is more of a cover letter than a detailed expose.

-- It's important to find one main gimmick, and hang the rest of the game on that. Clever, interlocking rules that require descriptions of balance is going to make people's heads hurt trying to relate each part to each other without a "physical game" in front of them. The gimmick doesn't have to be really a physical thing; it can be a clever rule, but you should focus on that. After reading the entry, the reader should be able to remember "oh yeah, that's the game with the wacky cube tower (Wallenstien)" or "That's the game with the revolving role selections (Puerto Rico), where the role gives a bonus to the player who picks it."

-- I don't know if this has happened recently, but I was always stumped by entries that spent 400 words detailing every card in their deck. Giving one example card is fine. See "use of images" below.

-- Starting out your entry with a component is probably not important. I messed around with introducing components when they came up in the description and had good results.

--I generally frowned upon the use of images that contained descriptions that would otherwise be used in the 800 maximum. However, images are insanely important since they can easily provide an example that would take many words to explain, and help clarify possible misconceptions.

There has always been discussions in the past of whether images should count as X amount of words or something. Generally, a single example image isn't frowned upon. So, you may as well use it while you can. And it doesn't have to be pretty either, Here's an entry of mine that used an image from Excel.

--Don't get bogged down into making a super complex game. Keep it relatively simple. Again, focus on the "gimmick," or what makes the game unique.

--Think about different ways of organizing your description to make it easier to understand. The above link to Love Me Blender entry I used a footnote system. The actual basic game rules take up less than 400 words. The footnotes allow for "asides" for better explanations of what is going on. This helped in creating a "more pure" straight read of the rules, with some timely help that the readers can hunt down if they are confused.

Anyway, that's about it at this point. Hope this helps.

Here you go!

I'm a fan of sticking to the word count. It helps me refine my entry to the essential substance of the game, and encourages me to be as clear as possible. I like the challenge of outlining a game in an engaging and complete fashion within the limit, and I think that 800 words are enough to do so.

In terms of the competition, I think a word count helps keep the playing field level. I like shazzaz's 5% rule of thumb for allowing leeway, though I also think one can add a lot of substance in 40 words. Regardless, I don't think entries should be disqualified for being over the word count; I'm interested in seeing whatever people come up with. The current system of posting word counts and letting voters decide works admirably.

To my mind, the GDS should be treated the same as any friendly game. Competition is part of what makes it fun, and it's most enjoyable when everyone plays by the rules and has an even chance of winning. But worrying about technicalities drags the game down; forgiving minor rules breaches makes the experience better for everyone. In the end, it doesn't matter who wins, so it's all about playing the game well.

A suggestion: What about occasionally changing the word count, allowing less words for a game that's supposed to be simple, or inviting more complex games with a higher word count allowed?

I imagine this has already been debated elsewhere, but I miss the old GDS voting method. The current system appears to be much easier to administer, and I like allowing all users to vote. Still, the 10-point allocation system was flexible, generous, and great for indecisive people such as myself. I liked having the opportunity to pick a favorite, but still give points to games with good ideas even if they weren't my favorites overall.