If you have any comments or questions about the April 2005 challenge (link) for the Game Design Showdown, please post them on this thread ...
Thanks,
-Bryk
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 10:01
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 10:52
#2
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Could you please clarify exactly what the limitations are regarding the definition of "central board" and "players' boards"? Just for example, would 'Saga' or 'Verräter' be considered to have a central board? (guessing yes, but in the former case there's no siginificance to the relative spatial positions of the castles, IIRC.) Puerto Rico? (well, the ships and trading house are 'central'). Any game with a scoring track? (or do the placement of pieces on the board have to interact with each other directly for it to count?)
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 11:16
#3
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Zomulgustar wrote:
Could you please clarify exactly what the limitations are regarding the definition of "central board" and "players' boards"? Just for example, would 'Saga' or 'Verräter' be considered to have a central board? (guessing yes, but in the former case there's no siginificance to the relative spatial positions of the castles, IIRC.) Puerto Rico? (well, the ships and trading house are 'central'). Any game with a scoring track? (or do the placement of pieces on the board have to interact with each other directly for it to count?)
I'm unfamiliar with "Saga" and "Verräter" (am I allowed to say that here? ;p), so I'll just give a description instead of a relative example.
A "Central Board", in my view, is a board put in the middle of the table upon which all players interact, play pieces, etc. A "Player Board" is a (usually smaller) board that each player would get to track information, pieces, etc., on.
Anything used simply for group accounting, scoring, etc., would *not* be considered a central board. For example, the ship/trade board in PR would not be considered a central board since it is just used for group accounting and not as the main interactive focus of the game.
If you have a specific idea that you're not sure on, please PM me and I'll let you know what I think.
-Bryk
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 13:22
#4
Central Board?
What about Carcasonne, where the central "board" is constructed?
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 13:41
#5
Re: Central Board?
btaggart wrote:
What about Carcasonne, where the central "board" is constructed?
I'd say that's probably a central board. But Carc has no player boards, so you'd have to do something in that department if you are thinking of a tile laying game.
Maybe I'll go read the challenge post now ;)
- Seth
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 13:59
#6
Re: Central Board?
btaggart wrote:
What about Carcasonne, where the central "board" is constructed?
That's a good question. Between that and Zom's post (plus a bit of IM'ing between he and I), I will go back and edit that item for more clarity.
I see a modularly-built board that becomes the central playing area for all players as being the same things as a static board that starts and remains as the central playing area for all players in the game. So, it would not be allowed.
What I am trying to avoid is the big central board that all players put and move "their stuff" around on, whether that board is ready from the start of the game or is built throughout the course of the game.
Player boards/mats, scoring tracks, etc. are usually just used as a way to more easily facilitate some organization/accounting aspect of the game, but aren't really the central focus of the game.
Zom argues that PR's trading/shipping board *is* the central focus of the game, which may be the case. To which I'll say: "Okay -- don't use PR's trading/shipping board in your showdown design."
If you have a borderline/gray-area item that you're not sure about, PM me and we can discuss it. As I've mentioned before, since it really comes down to "viewer votes" in the end, I'll likely say "go for it" and let the voters decide.
-Bryk
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 14:01
#7
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
As I phrased it in my discussion with Bryk (he neither confirmed nor denied)
If there's a central area where anyone can place their pieces/cards, the spatial relations between the pieces/cards (and any distinct areas in which they may be placed) must be irrelevant, only categorical and numerical relations may mean anything.
This would include a scoring track, as well as the PR ships/trading, but exclude Carc. And to be fair, I said it the ships/trading post were the focus of player interaction, not the entire game.
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 14:55
#8
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
I have a question: how do you come up with these challenges? A list of mechanics and game types you randomly combine with a theme? Always interesting (okay, both times interesting).
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 15:02
#9
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Hamumu wrote:
I have a question: how do you come up with these challenges? A list of mechanics and game types you randomly combine with a theme? Always interesting (okay, both times interesting).
The themes and game type kinda just pop into my head. A couple weeks ago, I literally had the thought "a game about Imps would be cool", and then "set collection" was the immediate word-association type echo. In fact, I think I was AIM-chatting with Dralius at the time, so he may remember my odd side-track during that chat.
For the mechanics limitation, I make use of a website (link, originally found by FastLearner, I believe) to get some ideas ... and I combine them with the "things I'd like to see in a game sometime" list in the back of my head.
So ... there ya have it. Tricky and highly technical, eh? :D
-Bryk
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:12
#10
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
From today's chat, the further clarification is added that players may not place pieces on other players' boards. And apparently I'm not allowed to use a board at all. I might break that last one, though.
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:22
#11
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Zomulgustar wrote:
From today's chat, the further clarification is added that players may not place pieces on other players' boards.
I'll clarify a step further as well. If a player hands something to another player, and the player receiving that thing is in control of what is does with it, including putting it on his/her player board, then that *is* a valid option.
However, due to the "no central board" limitation, one player is *not* allowed to manipulate things on another player's board (like placing anything on it).
Simply put, a "players board" and the stuff on it, should be controlled only by the player that board belongs to.
Zomulgustar wrote:
And apparently I'm not allowed to use a board at all. I might break that last one, though.
That's one of the more important rules that I just made up out of the air and on the spot (actually an Imp whispered it into my ear) ... so I *will* be watching you!! :D {insert evil laughter sfx}
-Bryk
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:26
#12
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Um....WHAT Game Design Forum? ^_^
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:30
#13
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Zomulgustar wrote:
Um....WHAT Game Design Forum? ^_^
For you ... that would be the "______ Game Design Forum", found at www._gdf.com! ;-)
-Bryk
p.s. The Imp will be watching too!
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:32
#14
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Darn. Site's down.
Thu, 04/14/2005 - 17:33
#15
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Zomulgustar wrote:
Darn. Site's down.
Works fine for me.
-Bryk
(I think that darn Imp edited my original reply ...)
Fri, 04/15/2005 - 22:01
#16
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Ouch. The clarification that you "cannot place an item on another player's board" invalidates my design, which I submitted several hours ago.
:|
I think it would be worth revising the showdown format a bit to prevent this in the future. Maybe you could float the initial idea two or three days before you open the contest for submissions so that you can work out all the wrinkles ahead of time.
I don't generally have time to submit to the showdowns. Today I got a lucky break because I'm home with stomach flu. Losing my design to a rules clarification posted after the opening of the contest sort of hurts. :(
Not that it's a total loss...I mean, I *do* have a new design to play with...
Sat, 04/16/2005 - 00:05
#17
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Kreitler wrote:
Ouch. The clarification that you "cannot place an item on another player's board" invalidates my design, which I submitted several hours ago.
:|
I think it would be worth revising the showdown format a bit to prevent this in the future. Maybe you could float the initial idea two or three days before you open the contest for submissions so that you can work out all the wrinkles ahead of time.
I don't generally have time to submit to the showdowns. Today I got a lucky break because I'm home with stomach flu. Losing my design to a rules clarification posted after the opening of the contest sort of hurts. :(
Not that it's a total loss...I mean, I *do* have a new design to play with...
Kreitler, I know that you might be annoyed that "rules" changed from what you understood, but this happens when you have a simple, fun contest like this going on. If you worked on the game today, why did you not see the post about the problems ppl where having with a central board? Others posted about these issues yesterday (thursday), not today(friday)!!!
I agree that it would be nice to talk about the ideas ahead of time, but that would hinder the point of a 7 day time crunch, since many would start working on there game during those three days.
If it would help, I would be willing to assist Byrk in a pre-read and discussion of each contest rules. As a result this would remove me from being allowed to entery the contests, which I would glady do if it might help some of these concerns...
Sat, 04/16/2005 - 00:09
#18
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Kreitler wrote:
Ouch. The clarification that you "cannot place an item on another player's board" invalidates my design, which I submitted several hours ago.
:|
I think it would be worth revising the showdown format a bit to prevent this in the future. Maybe you could float the initial idea two or three days before you open the contest for submissions so that you can work out all the wrinkles ahead of time.
I don't generally have time to submit to the showdowns. Today I got a lucky break because I'm home with stomach flu. Losing my design to a rules clarification posted after the opening of the contest sort of hurts. :(
Not that it's a total loss...I mean, I *do* have a new design to play with...
Kreitler ... I don't think all is lost ... check your PM's for my reply specific to your design. I don't think you're outside even the clarified rules.
-Bryk
Sat, 04/16/2005 - 11:56
#19
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
First off, thanks Zzzzz and Bryk for your help and replies. I appreciate the kind responses to what may have been some "sour grapes" on my part.
Also, I understand that this is a simple and fun contest, and it defeats the spirit of it to get annoyed and/or over-engineer the process.
Zzzzz wrote:
If you worked on the game today, why did you not see the post about the problems ppl where having with a central board? Others posted about these issues yesterday (thursday), not today(friday)!!!
Sloppiness on my part. I read the challenge page and saw the links for "further questions and comments", thought to myself, "everything seems clear to me! Guess I'll get started", and didn't look back.
In future, maybe the link could be preceded with bold type indicating that it contained "rules clarifications", so that thickies like me won't misunderstand. It might also be helpful to put it at the top of the challenge page, as opposed to the bottom, so people with short attention spans will definitely see it.
But these are minor tweaks to help the 2% of people who don't know what's going on. Overall, I think the challenge is well thought out and implemented. You guys do a commendable job providing BGDF members with a fun challenge, especially since it's strictly voluntary on your part.
Sorry if I came off as rude.
Sat, 04/16/2005 - 12:40
#20
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Kreitler wrote:
Sorry if I came off as rude.
Kreitler I dont think you came off rude at all. It is important for members like you to give feeback, it helps the community grow in a positive direction. And what you commented on could have easily effect multiple members, and I dont think anyone thought about this impact. At the same time I think this might just occur with the showdowns, since they are done sort of "ala carte", and I am sure ppl will always have questions about the rules!
Sorry that you felt bummed about your design being screwed, I hope Byrks messages to you help in the long run!!
Sat, 04/16/2005 - 23:19
#21
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Something that occured to me while I thought about this issue today is that I need to clarify my role a bit.
To be honest, I don't see this showdown admin role as a rules enforcer. I see the role as coming up with things to challenge other designers, clarifying those challenges when asked, taking care of the "paper pushing" duties (accepting submissions, presenting them, collecting the votes, etc.), and generally keeping the whole thing flowing.
If a term or rule is vague or needs clarification, I'd be just as happy to have anyone who wishes to pipe up give their opinion on it. I see my own posting as more just giving my opinion than "setting down the law".
I'm not going to refuse an entry because someone doesn't fit the exact letter of my initial intention ... these are challenges -- do you think you've met the challenge? The reason I can fall back on the "let the voters decide" cop-out, is because that's where I really think that decision should lie.
Now, if someone where to submit a college basketball simulation with a big central board, no cards, and no set collection for this current challenge, I might question him/her about it, because it would be obvious that it doesn't even come close to the spirit of the showdown. Otherwise, I'm comfortable letting the voters determine how well an entry fits the challenge, and how "good" it is.
-Bryk
Sun, 04/17/2005 - 23:02
#22
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Would anyone object to a Lost Cities-style board? Players share draw and discard piles, but otherwise don't interact.
Sun, 04/17/2005 - 23:06
#23
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
yogurt wrote:
Would anyone object to a Lost Cities-style board? Players share draw and discard piles, but otherwise don't interact.
I'm not familiar with that game ... anyone else have an opinion?
-Bryk
Sun, 04/17/2005 - 23:48
#24
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
yogurt, can you explain what the board actually does? From the geek pictures it looks like something I would consider a central board. But I am also assumming the board is being "used" by both players. Seems like players discard to the board (or lay cards on the board in some fashion), if so, if an opposing player can pick up a card that another opponent places on the board, then I would really consider that a central board.
If you could please give me more info on how the board is actually used I would appreciate it, if not mu judgement of it being a central board may be WAY off, since I am assuming some things from pictures on GEEK.
Mon, 04/18/2005 - 09:40
#25
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
yogurt wrote:
Would anyone object to a Lost Cities-style board? Players share draw and discard piles, but otherwise don't interact.
Hmm, that's a tricky one...
The Lost Cities board is just a way to organize five different discard piles, and like rummy, a player can either draw from the face down deck or from the discard pile (in this case one of five discard piles).
I'd allow it, but I wouldn't want anything else happening there except draw and discard, no interaction between the things you discard.
Mon, 04/18/2005 - 09:57
#26
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
ensor wrote:
... to organize five different discard piles, and like rummy, a player can either draw from the face down deck or from the discard pile (in this case one of five discard piles).
This is when I would say that discarding my cards "influences" other players pick-up options on the board. So I would think that the board is central since players could effect each others choices since they are allow to pickup from this "common" location. But again this is just me, personally I would be fine with the use of this type of board, if the actual use of it does not influence or alter an opponents gameplay.
Mon, 04/18/2005 - 12:39
#27
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
Ensor has the description I'd use too: the Lost Cities board provides you with five spots for the five discard piles. Players can pick up cards that their opponent has discarded. (The board is chrome, really.)
I have to say, I'm a bit amazed that allowing players to pick up other people's discards is controversial. Many traditional card games like gin rummy would count as being board games under this definition!
Also, I'm not sure disallowing all player interaction was the spirit of the original post, although only Bryk can speak to that. Some examples of disallowed games might clear this up. (For example, would the new Walk the Dogs game be allowed? http://www.gamefest.com/news/feature_detail/2372_0_3_0_C/ )
My view is that a shared pool of set items that could be bid on or manipulated (e.g. switch two pieces on the table, then draw any set) should be allowed.
I may have to convert my game to solitaire mode... ;)
Yogurt
Mon, 04/18/2005 - 12:53
#28
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
yogurt wrote:
I'm a bit amazed that allowing players to pick up other people's discards is controversial ... I'm not sure disallowing all player interaction was the spirit of the original post
Amen.
Mon, 04/18/2005 - 13:19
#29
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
yogurt wrote:
I have to say, I'm a bit amazed that allowing players to pick up other people's discards is controversial. Many traditional card games like gin rummy would count as being board games under this definition!
It is not really controversial, I am just being a nit picker, Sorry! How is this for an answer, are the cards a board? NOPE!!! So if the cards are not a board, they cannot be a central board, since they are cards. So you can use it!!! (As long as the cards are not used to create a board)
Mon, 04/18/2005 - 13:20
#30
Comments and Questions on April 2005 Challenge
I should offer something constructive here too. Here's how I would phrase the "no central board" limitation:
There should be no central playing area where players place pieces representing themselves, their influence or their ownership. For example, games that would not be allowed include Parcheesi (pieces reprenting players), El Grande and Carcassonne (pieces representing influence), or Ticket to Ride and Colossal Arena (pieces representing ownership).
And don't get me wrong, I know Bryk doesn't want to be the rule overlord here and I appreciate all he's done already. I just want to polish this one requirement a touch.
Yogurt
I figure I'll get asked for clarification on point #2 in the mechanics limitations, so I might as well jump the gun and pre-respond to that ... ;)
This means that there should be a mechanic in the game that uses information hidden to all or most of the players.
Since the game already needs to use cards (per mech limit #1), simply having players hold cards in their hand (or other part of their own private holding) will not satisfy this requirement.
I hope that's a bit clearer ... if not, let me know and I'll take another swipe at explaining it.
-Bryk