More Tweaking on the Showdown -- 6 points

I am SO avoiding work...

I definitely liked the private version much better than public, all around. Lots of surprises, and the wacky game of "guess the creator". Also, every one of these other changes sounds great. I think it's good to explicitly declare no self-votes. Most of us weren't doing it, but that kind of gives an edge to the mystery voter then, who did.

I also think some form of more points than 1 to distribute is good. I really like having a bunch of points to spread around, but frankly I think the rank top 3 would actually end up more fair, even though I don't like it as much. Because with the spread around, you'd get lots of people spreading their votes thin and being totally overruled by one lone nut who just loves a certain game.

I also liked the "everything private" method, it made for good drama leading up to today and helped even things out.

1) I didn't realize co-designing was an issue, sorry. The clarifications sound great to me.

2) Personally, I liked the negative restriction; even though it was a struggle to meet, it forces me to think in a different way, as opposed to the usual "kitchen-sink" game design method, where I throw everything in and see what sticks. Every one of my designs so far has involved cards, so it would be interesting to me to have a future contest say "no cards allowed."

3) Word limit sounds great, 800 should be enough. (Die Wichtelmanner was 943, doh!)

4) The template would be very helpful, not just for the contest but for practice writing rules in general.

5) Yes, don't vote for your own. We all obviously like our own designs, it's how well you can convey your idea to others that matters here.

6) the 5/3/1 methods sounds cool.

These contests are great, it's like a "mini-design" course covering the basic tenents of game design. Maybe include some "recommended reading" links to BoardGameGeek, like a good game on Set Collecting, or examples of Hidden Information? Looking forward to next months session,

Mark

I like all yuor proposed changes. I think the word count should be LOWER than 800, probably more like 500. This could count only the 'description' part and not all the setup that will be according to the template (like number of players and whatnot).

- Seth

Word Limit

I don't know how many words I used and I'm too lazy to find out, but I think I probably used too many. My entry is clearly on the short-list for most confusing, but notwithstanding my muddled ideas and poor explanations, I still managed to get some details in there. My point is, even with fewer words than I used, it probably would have been enough had I been more succinct and focused on frameworks and concepts instead of details. So I tend to agree with sedjtroll on this: 800 words is probably high.

I don't have a strong opinion about it as I don't expect it to increase my chances of winning. ;)

I like the changes. I guess I didn't realize a codesign was an issue, either. I'd also prefer the 5/3/1 over the point spread.

Since others have already expressed the same view, I'll echo their remarks. The entries in the first two contests have simply been too long for me to even attempt reading through them and judge. If the word limit was introduced, and set nice and low -- 500 words max -- it's far more likely that I'd participate. I'm not sure how representative my viewpoint is, or how many votes the contest has gotten, I simply point it out in case it's useful.

And for whatever it's worth, I just want to reemphasize what a bad idea I think it is to view the entries as rulebooks, or games to be playtested. I have zero interest in reading an algorithmic description of how these games are supposed to be played, with bullet points for setup, turn sequence, end game scoring, etc. I really just want to read a brief paragraph describing the theme and a couple of the clever mechanics. If that's not how the contest is meant to work, that's fine, it's just as easy not to participate, but I don't see what is gained by treating it like these are actual games that need fully fleshed out rulesets, or that for some reason need to be tested to iron out bugs. The point isn't to be able to come up with a working game in a week, but to, given a few constraints, come up with something innovative and clever. Having to slog through a rulebook-style presentation to figure out the innovative and clever bits is more effort than it's worth, I think.

Just my thoughts...

-Jeff

Is it always obvious for any given set of game rules whether they will play or not? My suggestion is to not vote for the ones that don't seem like they could be massaged into a fun game.

I'd like to see the Showdown start ion the first of each month. I keep missing them!

I agree with this. This is a Design Showdown, not a Hazy Impression Showdown!

No one said that the ideas had to be half-baked. The issue is about presentation, not of content. You could still develop Die Wichtelwhatever to exactly the same point, just describe it in 500 words, instead of giving detailed explanations of how the game is played. The point is that we are telling each other how the game is played in a succint way -- a useful skill to develop if one aspires to making a sales pitch to a publisher. You can be sure that a publisher doesn't give a flying fig about how many cards each player starts with, or how you shuffle the draw pile to start; at least, not without already been sold on the "hook" of the game.

I should also point out that it doesn't seem to me that the goal of the contest is, or ought to be, for people to come up with game ideas that they will actually pursue development of. If that happens occasionally, or even frequently, that's fantastic, but I don't think it should be a driving concern of the way the showdowns are run.

I vote for playable games with my credit card. The point is this contest isn't (or at least, I think it shouldn't be) to be able to make a playable game -- no one can do that in one week (well, not a finished, balanced, fine-tuned game, anyway). The point is more (I think) to have fun coming up with a set of mechanics that fit the requirements and that show some imagination and innovation.

Hmm. Maybe we're not all on the same page about what this contest is supposed to be about. Perhaps Bryk could clarify his vision for what the scope of the contest is supposed to be. I think we all agree that it's supposed to be fun, but not about much more than that...

-Jeff

You don't have to insult the name of my game to make a point, Jeff. It's the internet, you can copy and paste. Maybe "half-baked" was a poor word-choice on my part, I meant to say I appreciated the incentive of the contest to move an idea past the cool idea stage to something I might be able to playtest, and doubt if I would be doing that if the contest was structured differently.

Yes, I think we have very different expectations for the contest, both of which would be good contests and highlight different skills. If I understand correctly, you want it focused on writing hooks and clever ideas, like the back of the box description or the overview section of BGG, while I like the idea of more development into a concise playable ruleset. I'm happy to leave it up to Byrk as to the direction it takes.

I understand your point now, Dave, and I agree, if you think a word count limit will be a hindrance to clarity, that's a valid concern. I don't happen to share that concern, but I agree that it's a consideration.

Oh, come on dude, it's the internet -- thick skin, you know? I'm sorry if my inability to resist a mild jab at an unpronouncable German name hurt your feelings. (that too was meant to be read sarcastically, in case my unwillingness to use 'emoticons' made that unclear...)

If it cushions the blow at all, I like TMBG too, although I think that "AKA Driver" is the best song on John Henry, (although "Meet James Ensor" has grown on me the more I listen to it).

But I don't see why you couldn't do that even with a different entry format. The more fleshed out the game is in your own head, the more effectively you'll be able to articulate how the game works and why it's interesting.

Yes and no. What I'm interested in seeing is a concice summary of the rules, but it's not because I want the contest to become an excercise in who has the flashier writing skills. Rather, I feel that what I find interesting and challenging about these contests is the ability to come up with actual mechanics from a few restrictions. Real game design doesn't work that way -- the world is always wide open to create a game about absolutely whatever you want. These contests are cool because they force you to formulate design solutions that conform to externally imposed limitations.

In that sense, detailed algorithmic rules descriptions are, to me, wasted space. We all have plenty of practice writing rulesets. Moreover, playability is a non-factor. No one is ever going to playtest these, except possibly the designers themselves. The judging criteria I'm interested in using relate entirely to how well the designer took the limitations imposed by the contest and used them to spark neat and original theme evocation and game mechanics. And what I'm saying is that I'm unable/unwilling to do that with these somewhat detailed rulebook-style entries. This is why I advocate the short, "blurb"-style entries -- because they distill the entry down to its essence.

Being honest -- do you seriously care how some other entry's game is set up? How many piles you separate the tiles into? How many cards are given to each player at setup? How many action points a player is allocated? How many victory points having a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is worth?

The point shouldn't be (in my opinion) to judge who has the game that's most likely to play well and bug-free -- it should be to judge who has come up with the idea that shows the most promise to be interesting and fun with further development (which, I hasten to remind you, all of these games will need anyway).

I agree with this, and it really doesn't matter to me what his ruling is. I commented today mainly for the selfish reason that I think the contests sound like a fun idea, but I don't see myself participating in the current incarnation, and I'd really like to get involved. Obviously, if everyone is happy with the current format, it should stay as it is -- I'm not advocating a change simply on my account. Simply giving the parameters under which the contest would be more useful/interesting to me, in case my viewpoint is of any interest.

Sorry again about the little dig,

-Jeff

It's true, I could definitely still enter the contests; my concern is more with the judging side. I'd love to read through all of these great ideas, but 13 mini-rulebooks just exceeds the amount of time I'm able to invest. Of course, as Dave notes, if the point is to have a somewhat fleshed-out model of the game that can be thoroughly understood by the judges, then someone like me who isn't looking to invest a lot of time in judging may not be the model around which to build the competition...

-Jeff