First showdown challenge ... comments and questions

A quick one - even the BGG gaming glossary doesn't include the term, so let me ask: does Area Majority mean a mechanic wherein you are rewarded for having the most widgets in a specific region? I know there was discussion of it here, but a search was coming up fairly crappily.

I have a really cool idea already, that I will shoehorn into the game no matter how stupid it makes it! Also, it has nothing to do with area majority, so that will be even more interesting.

EDIT: I take back/expand my question... it actually says "area control". What DOES that mean??

- Seth

This reminds me, I might have forgotten something in my game entry :O

Question for Bryk regarding the scope of the challenge entries. The original Showdowns that FastLearner hosted in the chat rooms were more about writing a paragraph describing roughly how the game would work, what the theme was, etc. Seth and Mike's recent entries, on the other hand, read more like rulebooks. I'm curious which you feel is more the intended entry type?

My concern with "rulebook" style entries is mostly that time constraints would prevent me from putting an entry together, but more importantly, of judging. The prospect of reading 10 rulebooks and picking the best on a biweekly or even monthly basis holds relatively little interest for me. I think that the substance of what I would choose a winner on would be a creative use of the theme and a couple of interesting mechanics -- things that could be described in a paragraph or two. As such, having to slog through a rulebook, even a short one, and tease this stuff out is just more effort than I'd want to put in.

However, the main thing I'm looking for is simply clarification as to whether entries should be high-level descriptions or mini-rulebooks. Thanks!

-Jeff

To me, the time constraints are more about the flexibility to participate whenever one wants, rather than an expectation that folks will use the entire time. So in that sense, having a week to judge entries doesn't change the fact that I still only want to spend about 30 minutes reading the entries and picking my favorite; it just means that I have a lot of flexibility as to which 30 minute window I pick during the week.

I don't have any problem with folks fleshing out their entries, editing them, even playtesting them. But I don't see what purpose this level of detail serves: I don't see myself giving any advantage to a rulebook that has a very clear "setup" section, or a well-balanced scoring system. That doesn't seem to me to be what this is supposed to be about, and it's certainly not what the chat-room version was about. I'm simply trying to get clarification from Bryk as to what level that chat room showdowns are an analogy for these showdowns.

I don't advocate complicated time-constraint procedures that limit the amount of time people can work on their designs, or anything like that. Rules and protocols are anathema to this kind of contest: this is supposed to be simple, fun, and low-stakes. My perspective is: take the whole week, if you want it! Just, when you enter, put your entry in a succinct paragraph that sums up your theme and your couple of mechanical hooks. Don't make us wade through an elaborate turn sequence, diagrams, examples, etc, as doing that for 10 entries is just too much work.

But that's my opinion, and it's Bryk's that really matters. The sense I get from you, Bryk is that the "mini-rulebook" entries are valid but not required, and that's just fine. I'll decide based on the # of entries and the total length whether to participate in the judging or not.

Thanks again!

-Jeff

Part of this will also be affected by other entrants: Seth rather raised the bar a little by posting a full(ish) ruleset very very quickly, thus intimidating other people :-)

I suggest limiting the length of the entry. 1,000 words, for example, is plenty to describe a game fully, but only takes a few minutes to read. A length like that (even 500 words) would allow for plenty of clever creative expression while forcing people to be good rules/description writers, something that all game designers can use.

In addition to having fun, part of the idea of the original chat-based GDS was to help everyone sharpen their skills. A maximum word count would do the same.

Heck, perhaps even better would be something like a maximum 250 word summary, followed by a maximum 1,000 word additional description/basic rules. Those 250 words are all you're likely to get when describing your game to a potential publisher (that is, all that they'll read and/or listen to before making a snap judgement about whether to read/listen on), so it's a handy skill to hone.

-- Matthew