Please use this thread to post any comments, questions or requests for clarification regarding the June 2009 Game Design Showdown Challenge, entitled "Last Meeple Standing".
Zzzzz
Comments and Questions on the June 2009 GDS Chellenge
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 22:23
Wed, 06/17/2009 - 00:20
#1
Interesting!
>>>> End Game
Interesting!
>>>> End Game Goal = Last player to NOT complete some predefined goal.
Does this mean that the players have to be part of completing this goal, or does a rules based timer also qualify?
Wed, 06/17/2009 - 20:07
#3
I take it that use of "meeple
I take it that use of "meeple components" are left up to the discretion of the judges? Because it sure does seem easy to simply add "score track meeples" to any old game. Or "replace checkers with meeples."
Wed, 06/17/2009 - 20:44
#4
Ninja Checkers
I take it that use of "meeple components" are left up to the discretion of the judges? Because it sure does seem easy to simply add "score track meeples" to any old game. Or "replace checkers with meeples."
A meeple should represent a person; a checker doesn't. (But I suppose you could replace checkers with meeples and paste on a theme about two battling clans of ninjas that leap over their opponents to attack them from above. Ninja Checkers!)
Wed, 06/17/2009 - 21:29
#5
As long as some form of
As long as some form of meeple component/piece is used in the game that should satisfy the requirement I set. THOUGH keep in mind that using them in unusual ways, or as more than a simple marker/score indicator might help you gain more votes!
Thu, 06/18/2009 - 10:42
#6
Animeeples?
Would the animal-shaped Meeples work as well ... or just the people Meeples?
-Bryk
Fri, 06/19/2009 - 12:55
#7
I am using the term *Meeple*
I am using the term *Meeple* generically here, so yes animals, vikings and bears oh my!
Fri, 06/19/2009 - 13:57
#8
Hrm
Is there any way that we can get rid of the elimination concept for multi-player contests? I'm wracking my brain here and thinking that a negative scoring track might be the best way to go about it, but even then there's no guarantee against kingmaking and early elimination.
Fri, 06/19/2009 - 16:46
#9
Sorry I think I caused
Sorry I think I caused additional confusion when I attempted to update the GDS information the other day.
It should really be :
End Game Goal = Being the last player to NOT accomplish some predefined goal (so not gain 20 vp, not cross the finish line, not collect 3 sets, not use the last resource, etc).
Victory Condition = Anything you desire.
Meeple Components must be used.
Sorry for the confusion.
Fri, 06/19/2009 - 17:57
#10
Multiple goals?
Victory Condition = Anything you desire.
So could there be multiple goals? That would allow a player to remain in the game even after he has unwillingly achieved some of the goals.
Fri, 06/19/2009 - 23:29
#11
I feel kind of silly that I
I feel kind of silly that I have to ask this, but what exactly is a Meeple? Is it just the generic name for any token that represents a character or creature? Are there meeples in Chess, Candy-Land, or Settlers of Katan?
Sat, 06/20/2009 - 08:14
#12
Ask da Geek...
I feel kind of silly that I have to ask this, but what exactly is a Meeple?
Funny thing is that someone on BGG has asked the same question:
Sat, 06/20/2009 - 23:33
#13
Maybe I was bad at wording
Maybe I was bad at wording what I was attempting to define as the criteria for this GDS.
The point of this was to develop a game where the *End Game* is triggered only upon the LAST player to achieve this end game goal. The end game trigger/goal does not have anything to do with the actual victory condition. So you could develop a game where the end game trigger was the last player to *build 10 cities*. Which upon the last player to build their 10th city the game would end.
Upon this end game, you would determine the winner by your victory condition (which can be anything you want).
As such, NO player is eliminated and they should continue to play to hopefully achieve the *best* victory condition. So assume that after the last player built their 10th city, the victory was the player with the MOST VP (or whatever creative victory condition you might want to define).
Hopefully this helps clarify a little more, if not we might have to cancel our first GDS ever! Since I am not sure I can salvage this if I am still causing confusion.
Sun, 06/21/2009 - 07:44
#14
Last Scale Falling (From Eyes)
Maybe I was bad at wording what I was attempting to define as the criteria for this GDS.
The point of this was to develop a game where the *End Game* is triggered only upon the LAST player to achieve this end game goal. …
Upon this end game, you would determine the winner by your victory condition (which can be anything you want).
As such, NO player is eliminated and they should continue to play to hopefully achieve the *best* victory condition. So assume that after the last player built their 10th city, the victory was the player with the MOST VP (or whatever creative victory condition you might want to define).
Ohhhh! Now I get it. I won't add to the confusion by telling you what I thought you meant!
Thanks for clearing this up :)
{Goes back to drawing board}
Cheers,
Mitch
Sun, 06/21/2009 - 07:54
#15
Umm, I'm Sorry, But I Have to Add to the Confusion ...
I just elaborated on this requirement, since it seemed vague as I re-read it. And I would also say that all players have to be involved in completing this goal, but are obviously trying to avoid it (or be last to complete it).
So as another example, assume the predefined goal is to collect 4 sets of something. The player whom does not end up collecting all 4 sets would be considered the winner. But obviously you would want the gameplay to be such that NOT collecting the sets would prove difficult.
Not to nitpick, but ... does your latest clarification nullify the quoted portion?
For a game to use the quoted rules, the end game would actually be the victory condition, unlike the clarification.
{The smart-aleck in the back of the room pipes up, "As soon as you start the game, everyone wins, because NONE of the players have achieved the goal!"}
Cheers,
Mitch
Sun, 06/21/2009 - 10:57
#16
hmmm
How about,
There must be some task that the players are either rewarded or not punished for, if they are the last player to complete the task.
+Survival theme
+Meeple inclusion
Sun, 06/21/2009 - 17:22
#17
You can always assume the
You can always assume the last thing I stated will clarify and override any previous statements.
As such if you look at the GDS main post, it has been altered to clarify that end game and victory condition are two distinct concepts.
Mon, 06/22/2009 - 07:31
#18
Override, Override!
Gotcha. I'll be back on the 24th :)
Cheers,
Mitch
I just elaborated on this requirement, since it seemed vague as I re-read it. And I would also say that all players have to be involved in completing this goal, but are obviously trying to avoid it (or be last to complete it).
So as another example, assume the predefined goal is to collect 4 sets of something. The player whom does not end up collecting all 4 sets would be considered the winner. But obviously you would want the gameplay to be such that NOT collecting the sets would prove difficult.
As for the timer, as long as the timer is somehow tied to the predefined goal, I would say it qualifies. But obviously not knowing what you have in mind, it is hard for me to clarify.