Critique the July 2005 Showdown entries

Once again, I'm floored by the creativity of the entries. I expected at least a couple of entries about Hannibal and Alexander. You guys always reach well beyond ordinary themes and mechanics...

Can't wait to read them all.

K.

I was sitting here refreshing the page madly in the hopes of seeing some fun critique of my entry (which oh which can it be?!), when I decided that was a little hypocritical. So I have now carefully dissected each entry with a fine toothed comb (which is a very poor instrument for dissection, so please pardon the weakness of my critique), and present to you my thoughts on each, without giving away my own entry, or so I think.

1. Raja
It's interesting to me that multiple people thought of having 'dexterity' elements in their games given the small and fiddly components we were given! That's something cool about this game, it combines 'party game' dexterity silliness with some pretty serious strategy. My favorite thing here is the market price mechanic, a really simple and elegant way of handling supply vs. demand. The instructions are really sparse, obviously got chopped to bits in editing, and they suffer for it.

2. Under The Cupboard
The honey vs. willpower mechanic is a great simple strategic conflict that really reminds me of Category 5 (though heavier on the thinking). The multiple phases of the game, especially the last phase full of Guests and Hopefuls, make it more complicated than I'd like, though. This is a general problem with the entries this month, since it's very tough to make a simple game when you have dozens of unique components you have to shoehorn in! I think this game has a lot of good serious decisions to make.

3. Game Designer Game
Speaking of the problem with entries this month, this game takes the first idea I thought of when I read the contest rules and runs with it - making all the various pieces just be abstract "stuff" instead of giving unique meaning to each (kind of a big middle finger to the contest!). This is also the other game that includes dexterity elements. A really interesting game. Things I like are the idea of stacking pieces based on any shared aspect, the grabbing of pieces, and the giving of money based on how few pieces you grabbed. I disliked the bit about explaining your idea and making up what it means. That seems excessive for a game with this stacking and trampling focus, and with such a tenuous link to the idea of designing games. I did however like that it took a theme and abstracted it out in such a funky way. One last note: seems like pounding your fist on the table is an instant guaranteed knockdown of any stack... but maybe I just have a cheap table.

4. Found Objects
This was a funny, interesting and very unique theme. It's also one of two entries to recognize the brilliance of brown disks as elephant poop. The "Critique" action in this game is very reminiscent of the "Peer Review" action in the above game too. Maybe it's just me that sees the similarity there, but doesn't it seem like there are a lot of weird pairings in the games this month (two dexterity games, two funky wargames, two smashing/pooping-on criticisms, two that were hard for me to understand, two Raj(a) ones, two that significantly add extra components, and two poop-based entertainment experiences)? I think this entry does a pretty good job of boiling down the huge number of components to a fairly simple actual game. I like how the turn auction works, how any player can have any number of turns. But is that a runaway leader problem?

5. Fall Of The Raj
I really like how this game is a fairly standard wargame, but with really abstract and funky rules to give it a real flavor. It's also cool how it has two very distinct sides to play. I can imagine much playtesting needed to balance them. This is also a great use of all of the components. It almost seemed like they really belonged in it! Except of course the mysterious Indian leader "Onion Dome" and his brother "Dragon" ("Chair" I can handle).

6. David And Goliath
Another mysterious coincidence - this game is similar to Fall Of The Raj in that it's a wargame (sorta) with abstract and funky rules and two very different sides (one that only has one unit!). The RPG type elements are pretty cool, though I think it would be awfully complex to actually play because of them. But really though, I think this game works. I really love the randomly generated map by throwing blocks around (another thing somewhat like a dexterity element, or at least more 'light' than usual), although it could get tedious if the spacing doesn't come out right the first time. Gives me kind of a vibe of those huge simple wargames that have gigantic plastic mats to play on (well, I know one such game exists anyway... don't know what it was called, but one side had a cannon fired by flipping big tiles over, the other side had an ogre).

7. Silk Road
I can't believe this game actually adds several MORE components to the list. Ouch. I am intrigued because in general I like the concept of producing goods and making them into stuff (even though I still have yet to play Settlers Of Catan, sadly). Overall, this game seems really complex. It reminds me a lot of Sands Of Time. Could it be a jwarrend creation?

8. Gladiator Elephant Racing
It may be a culture thing (I'm gonna have to call "Brit" on this entry), but this is the one entry I had the hardest time really understanding. With a lot of re-reading I think I have it mostly down (for the longest time I thought your goal was to get to the middle of the board!). I like the freeform nature of it, how you stick your tiles together to build a path and see if you touch any hazards. Overall, it seems too complicated, with too many actions and elements to consider, though that may relate to my inability to, as they say, grok it. Which in turn may relate to the unfortunate confluence of the 800-word limit and the 6000-component contest.

9. Quintessentia
A very interesting and strange choice of theme. I have no idea where that came from (or what the title means in relation to it...). It's also another game I didn't really understand. Again this seemed like a problem with the contest - this many pieces means your rules are just full of all these different terms for all the components, and I'm always having to reference back to see just what it's referring to, and so on. It looks like this game needed another 5,000 words or so to get explained well enough for me to follow it. I got the basic gist (and like the idea of trying to have your house ready for when guests arrive), but I can't picture how it plays out at all, other than the cute cleverness of how the ice flips over and then vanishes.

And yes, I know I used the word funky too much, but it was the appropriate word in each instance.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that your game was #4 Found Objects.

Your clue was that you used this description to talk about all of the games in general.

Am I right?

hmmmm, I'm having a bit of a hard time deciding on how to vote here. Unlike last month, where you could simply imagine that you were going shopping for an Alien themed game, and then you just pick out the ones that best suited your needs, this group seemingly has too much variety to peg down. And the monster list-o-components doesn't help since that makes all the games a bit too complex and fiddle-ly than I'd like. and the fact that there seems to be the same amount of components as there are words allowed to describe the rules doesn't help!

So.....a big chunk of my voting criteria is probably going to come down to who used the components efficiently, even though I'm not really sure what that means!

I will never give up my secrets!! But I will say that I threw the discussion of the general pairings into that one just because that was the point where it was getting crazy to me (and that game 'paired' with two others at the same time). What was weird about the designs to me was that they had those similarities, but the similarites didn't seem to come from the contest rules at all - the rules almost explicitly declare "no table-pounding or careful stacking allowed!" with the list of various little tokens, yet two of the games have that. I don't know, it was just funny.

Hey Seo -- welcome back!

I don't have a problem with you entering the competition late. Sure, we'll know it was your design, but I don't think that would make much difference to most of us.

As for a journal entry, I'd like to ask anyone whose design got impaired by the word limit to repost their full rules. There are a couple of games that I just couldn't fully get, mostly because abbreviated rules left room for multiple interpretations. I'd really like to read what people originally intended...

K.

Ouch! Does that mean 'your design will be so lousy that we won't vote for it anyway'? ;-P
Just kidding.

I've just finished reading all the entries (I only begun reading today after I posted my non-entry). As many of you, I am surprised at the creativity shown. Hats off to all the entrants, and to Scurra, for the toughest GDS so far, and a very interesting one. Too bad I coudn't make it in due time.

When I first read the list of components I almost fainted! I honestly thought it was almost impossible to use all those bits in a reasonable way, yet, as Hammumu said, some of the entries really succeeded.

Congratulations to all the entrants.

Seo

I like the idea, and Bryk might like it too, as your system would let him take part more often (though if my guess for this month winner is right, this would mean Yogurt and Hammumu taking turns...) ;-)

Seo

There clearly was no Yogurt game... not a single mention of the word "pudding" anywhere!

Okay, so I guess I didn't hide my game too well. And yes, I put in that other chatter about other games because the stuff I had written on mine was too short compared to the others. Foiled again!! I think I might have to reserve my commentary until after voting in the future.

But 2nd place, I am very happy with! I believe the #1 winner was my #1 vote. That was great work. I think it did the most impressive job in terms of the actual contest because it really felt like the components belonged there. Everybody else, myself included, had some shoehorning to do (well, except the Game Designer Game, which probably would work even better with MORE components). And I don't know if those rules were just made up at random or what, but it sounds like they come together to form a really interesting cohesive game.

For my own game, I think it would work well as a real game, and I'd like to try it, but I'd strip out some of it. I put in more than I wanted to, just because the components demanded it. I think the Masterpiece Board is cute, but ultimately pretty pointless. The one mechanic I couldn't resist including, even when I was trying to trim things down and I knew it was the least important, was the idea of s****ing all over someone else's work. Because that is just funny. It originally involved placing the poops onto the Masterpiece Board, locking down spaces so they couldn't be counted in a picture or flipped, but that was far worse, it would almost have to be done at random.

One idea on mine that I had after release was to turn the auction around. Say that the boss is auctioning off NON-working hours - there are 16 hours to be worked in a day (it's a sweatshop), all back in the framing and matting section. You can pay the boss off to not have to work certain hours (bid on the time discs), freeing up that time for shmoozing with the modern art crowd, your 'side' work. With that 'story', each person would receive income every round for however many discs they did NOT win, reversing the runaway leader problem, so that people who were unable to get a lot of discs (turns) would get a lot of money that they could use next time. Oh, and also I was thinking that you'd actually have to pay to complete the artworks instead of getting paid for them (maybe you have to pay the other players to look the other way on your usage of all these stolen goods). So the better you did, the more you'd be held back on the next round. Something like that. Paying for the artworks might be going too far, though.

One entry I liked that ended up just falling out of my top 3 once I realized I had to include Under The Cupboard was Raja. I think it could be a very good game. It's funny how it's a serious strategy game, but your success in it can be cut down by your fumbly fingers. The idea of building walls and having that as your defense value is nice. I could see other physical constraints - like saying the discs have to touch, but if your wall goes from one side of the tile to the other, you can prevent guys from crossing it somehow. Or that your wall is 'worth' the number of stacks it contains times the height of the shortest one (assuming you require specific stacks as opposed to making pyramids and such). There's a lot of interesting things you can do with that basic idea. The problem with this game, of course, lies in the chopped down rules, which are practically a haiku.

Oldest player first,
Play proceeds clockwise from there,
Roll six-sided die.

(an interesting idea for a contest...)

I figured I would post the more cohesive version of the rules (800 words for all those components?!?) and fill in the inspiration since I am not a Brit.
I have always thought that the chair from St Pete looked similar to a cricket picket. Since cricket is one of the most useless sports and they have lots of elephants in India where the games is more popular then it is in GB why not combine them. What could be more useless then racing ponderous elephants.

w/oFA here are the more complete rules:

Gladiatorial Elephant Cricket Racing
Components:
Cubes (31 each)
Red: Damage
Yellow: Stun
Brown: Slip Hazard
Blue: Slide Hazard
Green: Stop Hazard
50 Wooden disks: Poop
36 1” cardboard Tiles: Movement
30 Shield tokens: Attack Counters
16 Yellow Wooden disks: Score markers
15 plastic Pawns (five colors)
10 d6 (five colors)
10 Elephants
5 Team pickets
Cash

Object: To cross your finish line while riding an elephant more times then any other player.

Setup:
Each player selects a team marker and pawn color, matching dice and 50 cash. Divide the hazard markers into 5 random piles of approximately matching size, colors do not have to match. Set one movement tile in the center of the table blue side up. Players then place 5 tiles edge to edge away from the central tile and place their picket on edge of the 5th tile. Once all pickets are placed remove the tiles but the blue center tile, this forms the raceway.

2 player

5 player

Player’s finish lines are drawn from the center of the blue tile to the center of their picket. This imaginary line extends outward to the edge of the table. Players will generally move their pawns clockwise around the raceway as they can never cross any player’s finish line counter clockwise. The area inside the pickets is considered to be out of bounds (in a two player game this comes into effect as soon as a pawn crosses the center of the raceway.)

Players then perform an open auction for the hazard pools. Winning player takes the pool he wants and drops it from 12 inches or higher. Repeat until all players have dropped hazard pools. This will randomly place hazards on the board that must be navigated to compete in the race. Players place their pawns in a line next to their pickets. Each player places 2 wooden Elephants about halfway between his picket and the next picket. No player owns elephants and they may be used by any player that wishes. Place the score markers shuffled in a pile in the center of the raceway. Give each player 2 of each attack shield and shuffle the rest off to the side.

Game Play:

Players closed fist auction for the right to choose to go first or last each turn. Other players take their turns in clockwise order. Each player then rolls both dice or places one die with the 6 side up. Each player that rolls a 1 on any of his dice will place a poop counter directly behind any one of the elephants not ridden by another player’s pawn. If none are available you may not place poop.

Attack and stun counters are placed beside your pawns as needed during play. These can be removed at the end of the turn. Your pawn could end up with multiple counters during the course of a turn.

The number on the dice is a player’s Action Points. As you spend APs decrement your dice. Players spend APs on one action at a time passing to next player clockwise. Your pawns are moved when you spend your last AP (if you spend you last AP before any other player you may move all your pieces immediately,) all tiles you played are removed from the table. You may spend APs for the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Foot) Move one of your pawns: 1 AP
You move pawns by placing one edge of a movement tile on the edge of one of your pawns. You may move a pawn as many times as you want to as long as you have action points. Pawn’s movement tiles cannot touch another’s so that no pawn from any player will cross paths. Movement tiles may overlap previous tiles in the same path for times you may need to move only half a tile to get into position.
If your movement tile touched or covers a hazard you must resolve the hazard immediately. Hazards are removed from the table as they are resolved. In case of multiple hazards you choose which one to resolve but you only resolve one hazard even if you land on multiple copies of the same hazard.

(Rider) Move an elephant you are riding: 2 APs
Elephant movement resolves much like foot movement with the following exceptions. Elephants require 2 APs to move. Also you may place Elephant movement tiles over another pawn. If your movement resolves before that pawn is moved you will add a wound counter to that pawn.

Hazards
Slip – Riding elephant: left opponent places your pawn next to the elephant. You pawn receives a stun counter. Foot: no more movement tiles for this pawn.
Slide – Foot: left opponent places a tile for movement for this pawn. This does not require an AP.
Stop – Riding elephant: no more movement tiles for this pawn. Foot: lose an AP.
Poop – foot: no more movement tiles for this pawn.

Mount an unridden elephant: 1 AP
Place a red tile on top of an elephant that your pawn will move next to or is next to. Place a pawn next to elephant on top of elephant when resolved. You cannot move an elephant that you would mount this turn.

Fight for ridden elephant: 2 AP
If your movement tiles would end your pawn next to a ridden elephant you may place a shield counter face down on the last tile. You may add additional shield counters for 1 AP each. Opponent may place shield counters beneath his pawn for 1 AP each. When resolving actions both players reveal shields at same time.
Attacker wins: defender knocked off elephant (place to side of elephant) and takes stun counter, attacker mounts elephant.
Tie defender knocked off elephant (place to side of elephant.)
Defender wins: attacker receives wound counter.

Push pawn: 1 AP
If your movement tiles end your pawn next to opponent’s pawn you may place a red tile next to opponent’s pawn for 1 AP, resolve this tile when resolving your movement. You may not push a pawn riding an elephant. Pushed pawns do not trigger hazards but do remove them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pawns ending the round inside the out of bounds (area enclosed by the pickets) are returned to their starting picket. (In a two-player game a pawn is considered to be out of bounds when it crosses the center-line and are placed at the starting picket immediately.) Pawns may not be moved counterclockwise across finish lines but can be moved any direction as long as they do not do so.

Any time something prevents resolving pawn movement completely resolve as much as possible. For example: Player 1 has placed 2 movement tiles on one of his pawns and player 2 moves his pawn into position and pushed his pawn and resolves his movement pushing player 1’s pawn. If player 1 cannot place a movement tile to get back to his original path then he loses the tiles he placed previously.

End of the turn: You may remove only 1 stun OR attack counter at the end of the turn. A stun counter is removed for free. Wound counters must be removed by paying 2 shields. Wounded or stunned pawns may not use APs. All players draw 1 random shield if have less then 6.

When your pawn cross you own finish line while riding an elephant you take a random score marker from the middle and gain cash equal to the number. Player with most markers is the winner. Ties are broken by most remaining cash.