Use this thread for any comments, questions, requests for clarity, etc., regarding the August 2010 Challenge in the Game Design Showdown, entitled "Sharing." (http://www.bgdf.com/node/3606)
-Steve
[GDS] August 2010 - Comments and Questions
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 17:10
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 17:39
#1
Just to clarify if I'm
Just to clarify if I'm reading the second restriction right - 'Four or more players' means that the minimum number of players needs to be four, right? Also on that restriction, is the minimum allowed to be more than four, and can there be a maximum or does it need to be infinitely expandable?
...And with the third restriction, would it be permissible for there to be other ways for the game to end other than 'two people win,' in a similar way to the Chrononauts 'everybody loses' condition, provided the main end state is 'two winners' rather than the more customary 'one winner'?
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 09:21
#3
I was trying to think of an
I was trying to think of an example that met the criteria and thought of split pot poker variants. For example, Texas Hold'em High-Low Split. There are shared game elements (the shared cards) and, typically at least, two winners (the high hand and the low hand split the pot).
When I play poker, I tend to play crazy variants. So, along the same lines, there's Spit Hamlet Split. The base game is Spit, which is five-card draw, except that each player has four cards and there's a shared card. The best natural hand shares with the best Hamlet hand. (For a Hamlet hand, Jacks are low, Queens are wild, and Kings are dead.)
Thinking about it, though, I guess it is possible to play these games with three players. They just aren't much fun without at least four. So do they qualify? (Note that I'm just throwing these out because I'm thinking about the criteria. It would be a sad GDS if Spit Hamlet Spit won.)
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 18:21
#4
fecundity wrote:I was trying
I was trying to think of an example that met the criteria and thought of split pot poker variants. For example, Texas Hold'em High-Low Split. There are shared game elements (the shared cards) and, typically at least, two winners (the high hand and the low hand split the pot).
The way you describe it would qualify these games, but that really doesn't get into the meat of what the GDS is - just qualifying through the restrictions obviously doesn't net you a winner.
When I play poker, I tend to play crazy variants. So, along the same lines, there's Spit Hamlet Split. The base game is Spit, which is five-card draw, except that each player has four cards and there's a shared card. The best natural hand shares with the best Hamlet hand. (For a Hamlet hand, Jacks are low, Queens are wild, and Kings are dead.)
Thinking about it, though, I guess it is possible to play these games with three players. They just aren't much fun without at least four. So do they qualify? (Note that I'm just throwing these out because I'm thinking about the criteria. It would be a sad GDS if Spit Hamlet Spit won.)
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 23:21
#5
two winners at once necessary?
Is it necessary that the two victors win at the same time, or can one player win (i.e. meet the requirements for his/her victory), followed by the other 3+ players continuing play until a second person meets the requirements for his/her victory?
Mon, 08/23/2010 - 11:14
#6
Don Jon wrote:Is it necessary
Is it necessary that the two victors win at the same time, or can one player win (i.e. meet the requirements for his/her victory), followed by the other 3+ players continuing play until a second person meets the requirements for his/her victory?
I discourage it as much as I can without outright banning it.
There has to be some reason why the game goes on BESIDES the fact that you don't have two people who have met the victory criteria yet.
The most logical way I can think of this is, if Player 1 wins the game on their turn, Players 2, 3, and 4 all get one additional turn in which to score as many points as possible.
Thu, 08/26/2010 - 02:45
#7
I just wanted to remind
I just wanted to remind everyone that the deadline for August GDS entries will end at 11:59 pm Eastern U.S. time (I am posting this at 2:43 am) today (Thursday), so you have less than 24 hours to submit entries to my PM box. Make sure you've spent some time on the formatting guidelines and fit the restrictions as well as possible!
Fri, 08/27/2010 - 01:40
#8
GDS entries are now closed -
GDS entries are now closed - thank you to everyone who submitted an entry! I will have the entries posted sometime tomorrow and begin the voting round (which will run until next...sometime).
Tue, 08/31/2010 - 00:14
#9
Voting
I'd like to give voting one more day :) Haven't really gotten enough votes to justify it yet, and I know voting tends to vary in length each month.
You guys have another 24 hours past the previous deadline, and then I will update with winners tomorrow evening
Tue, 08/31/2010 - 17:50
#10
VOTE now!
I have now done my voting-duty... Go vote you too!!!
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 01:50
#11
Voting and critiques
So far in the critiques, there are only about four or five votes shown for the winning entry. That, and the fact that the lead was huge for the winner, suggests to me that somebody maybe voted a ton (maybe all six votes) for Sorceror's Apprentices. That's certainly no problem at all, but I'd really love to know how the voting broke down.
[Gets on soapbox] Also, this month and even more last month we've been getting relatively few critiques posted - including some of the participants skipping out on them. I always look forward to getting feedback, and it's one of the more fun parts of this for me. I try to put a good amount of time and thought into my comments, and I'd really appreciate the other participants doing the same. [Gets off soapbox, dodges tomato from crowd]
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 17:29
#12
Vote problem
So far in the critiques, there are only about four or five votes shown for the winning entry. That, and the fact that the lead was huge for the winner, suggests to me that somebody maybe voted a ton (maybe all six votes) for Sorceror's Apprentices. That's certainly no problem at all, but I'd really love to know how the voting broke down.
That would certainly be a huge problem, since the rules state that you can not give more than 3 votes to a single entry. I am sure that the Challenge Administrator rules out votes that do not meet the criteria. It would be interesting though to hear more critiques from those who voted.
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 05:30
#13
dobnarr wrote: Also, this
Also, this month and even more last month we've been getting relatively few critiques posted - including some of the participants skipping out on them. I always look forward to getting feedback, and it's one of the more fun parts of this for me. I try to put a good amount of time and thought into my comments, and I'd really appreciate the other participants doing the same. [Gets off soapbox, dodges tomato from crowd]
I plead guilty to this. In fact, I didn't even get my act together in time to vote. This ought to disqualify Machination (well, this plus the blatant mechanic theft from a previous GDS submission Illuminati, which I was planning to acknowledge in my critiques).
Sorry everyone. I know it messes up the voting and I'll try harder in future. Part of the issue is my long-term (~20 yrs) mental health problem; my brain has a tendency to lock up when there's too much stuff to evaluate.
I do agree that entry to the GDS should come with a reasonable expectation to take the time to read the other entries in depth and both to vote and to critique them. Personally, I know I tend to overestimate my ability to do that.
I am still planning to try and muster a decent critique of the other submissions and indicate the rightful second place holder (i.e. the one I would have given most votes to if I'd had my act together properly).
Mon, 09/06/2010 - 16:48
#14
One of the votes for the
One of the votes for the winning entry was from me. I intend to post some comments and reasoning behind my voting, but in the days since the results were posted I have been busy with 1 work and 2 organizing game convention (friday-sunday). Where is the fire btw? Why start posting upset comments less than a week after the voting ended? I will get to it sooner or later.
I purposely did not define a maximum number of players, but be reasonable - a basic, infinitely scalable Werewolf variant isn't really doing a whole lot of designing and isn't likely to get you a whole lot of votes.
I also did not define the two winners to allow for more creativity in the design space, but I can imagine several different ways for this to work:
A. One player ends the game by fulfilling a victory condition and winning by doing so. The player with the most points (who did not end the game) also wins.
B. The game ends at some prescribed stopping point. The player with the most VP wins, as well as the player with the most VP's and/or assets (money+property).
C. If two players ever control ?? percent of the board between the two of them, they both win the game.
Aside from that, no - I want two winners, and that's really the design space I'm looking for exploration in.
Thanks for the questions!
-Steve