Hippodice

First, congrats to all who placed in the competition. Great show!

I'm another one who's not entirely comfortable with it. You can only really measure how good a game is in the playing, and as I find it hard to believe that people are going to put together a game based on rules that I post, there isn't going to be anyone appreciating the game beyond 'yeah, the rules seem to be interesting' / 'the rules are badly written here' / 'that's an interesting mechanic' sort of thing. So I'm not sure what other people, would gain by me putting them online. Except for satisfying random curiosity, that is, which I suppose is fair enough.

I completely respect anyone's decision not to share rulebooks for their games: it's an individual call. I do want to rebut a couple of points, however.

First, while I agree that games have to be played to be understood, there's no question that many gamers (not just designers) seek to read rulebooks for new games prior to playing them, because you definitely can get an idea what a game will play like, even if it isn't the whole story. Obviously, the idea with published games is to decide "should I buy this?" With an unpublished game, there may be a variety of reasons why one might be interested in reading others' rules. Curiosity is certainly one. For myself, I tend to try to err way on the side of originality with my games, and so I like to read as many rulebooks as I can simply to know what others have done, so I can steer clear of their mechanics. (So in that sense, someone like me is actually *less* likely to steal from you if I've read your rulebook!)

I agree that the proof is really in the playing, and so I don't think it would be fair for someone to say, after simply reading the rulebook, "I can't believe this clunker won!" But there's no question that you can get way more out of a rulebook than you suggest, and the GDW, and its perceived usefulness among everyone who's used it, stands as a stark counterargument.

Obviously, if you have no lack of people to help you evaluate your games, there's no sense broadcasting them simply to sate other's curiosity if you don't already seek to do that. Just wanted to point out that the best reason for keeping mum is "I don't feel comfortable doing this", and not "I don't see the usefulness."

Again, congrats to all, especially to zaiga -- glad to hear your persistence with Gheos paid off! And, I hasten to point out that before Gheos placed in Hippodice, it won the "Doomed Civ" contest here. As usual, BGDF is on the leading edge of the game design curve!

-Jeff

First, while I agree that games have to be played to be understood, there's no question that many gamers (not just designers) seek to read rulebooks for new games prior to playing them, because you definitely can get an idea what a game will play like, even if it isn't the whole story. With an unpublished game, there may be a variety of reasons why one might be interested in reading others' rules. Curiosity is certainly one

...

Obviously, if you have no lack of people to help you evaluate your games, there's no sense broadcasting them simply to sate other's curiosity if you don't already seek to do that. Just wanted to point out that the best reason for keeping mum is "I don't feel comfortable doing this", and not "I don't see the usefulness."

There are never enough people to test games. Occasionally too few games to test, but that's a different problem ;)

I suppose that part of the reason I'm reticent is because of my approach to games design. When designing games, the rules live in my head, and vary continuously between play tests. This cunningly allows me to update the rules continuously, and unimportant rules, instead of getting set in stone (or the rule book, which is similar), simply get forgotten. (As do important rules, occasionally, to my shame :oops: (but at least then I realise why they're important)). This means that games only acquire rules books right at the end of the design process, where all the adjustment is precipitated on game balance, feeling while playing the game, and so forth. So adjustments based on the rules never feel that necessary, beyond ensuring that the rules reflect how the game is actually played (and that again needs blind testing rather than just reading the rules).

I suppose the main part that's making me feel uncomfortable is not really knowing what publishers want. As some of the publishers want to keep rules to themselves, or at least control the flow of information as a game is released, to manage the press and so forth. For the sake of uncertain benefits (at least with the way that I do my games development) I'd prefer not to scupper my chances with those publishers.

Hmm. Thinking this through, it means that I should be happy putting up the rules for games that I believe, for one reason or another, to be unpublishable. Which is indeed true - I don't have the same feelings of misgiving. Admittedly, I haven't written up the rules to any of these games (see point 1), but when I have a moment free, I'll see what I can do about them.

I also don't feel comfortable publishing the rules at this point - not because I think anyone would make illicit use of them, but to simply respect publisher's rights to privacy (I'll let them decide how to distribute the rules, if/when it gets published). But here's a quick description:

Description of “The Cows of Parma” Card Game
By Stefan Alexander

2-6 Players
Ages 8+
30-40 minutes

Components:
150 cards
80 cubes

The Cows of Parma is a card game based on production and simultaneous bidding. Each player is an Italian dairy farmer, trying to grow his herd of quirky cows by making (and aging) different types of cheese, and selling them to get more cows. The cows produce milk, which is used to bid on cheese. The cheese ages, and is used to bid on more cows. At the end of the game, the player with the most valueable herd is the winner.

Play is simultaneous, so there’s no downtime. It’s simple to learn, and players start having fun right away. But it quickly becomes apparent that strategy, tactics and bluffing are required to manage your production (so your groups will have a high value) and bid effectively (so you don’t waste that value).

Incidentally, this really is the inspiration for the game. There are a lot of games that are played with cards, and use the board almost incidentally for scoring. There are a lot of games that are played on the board, and use cards almost incidentally to influence the board position. But I could think of no games that have the position with the cards, and the position on the board contributing with equal importance to your decision about what to do next. Rally Car was my attempt to address this lack.

I understand Scurra got his prototype back of All For One, but evidently it didn't come with comments from the judges. Do they in fact furnish everyone who's game gets tested with a response letter? Should it accompany the prototype? Or is it likely to follow? I don't mean to sound antsy, it's just that I am ;)

- Seth

*bump*

The English rules have been posted.

http://www.hippodice.de/inhalt.php?pg=60

Deadline still 1st of November!

Yogurt

Hi

All entrants either email or mail their set of documents (rules, summary, etc) by Nov 1. 3 of the Hippodice folks grade the rules and usually let authors have the results mid-November. Games that make the cut must then be submitted (with the rules again) in prototype form by Dec 1. So basically you should have your prototype ready to go by mid-November. The finalists are then chosen from the prototypes submitted.

Benedict

Not me, unfortunately. My home computer decided to die a few weeks back (actually the operating system did) and the good folks at Packard Hell haven't been able to send me the correct repair CD on time, so I couldn't write the rules for my entry to be...

Anyway, good luck to anyone who enters!

I've just entered 'Gang War'. We'll see how it goes.

I just entered "Studio City". Despite having developed several very different games between last year and now, there was only one I felt was ready. And it ended up being a very similar type of game to last year's entry - a quick, simple auction game that works with lots of players. Hopefully I'll make up for in consistency what I lack in originality :)

Good luck to all the competitors!

I entered the latest incarnation of Monkey Lab game.

And now to quote Homer Simpson:

"Now we play the waiting game...ah, waiting game sucks. Let's play hungry hungry hippos."

missed it again..not that I really had much of anything

I haven't heard anything yet.

-J

I don't think you're allowed to re-submit a design that made it to the prototype testing stage. From the rules:

But hey, a year from now, hopefully A41 will be in the queue in some publisher's 2007 lineup!

-J