[GDS] August 2010 - Comments and Questions

Just to clarify if I'm reading the second restriction right - 'Four or more players' means that the minimum number of players needs to be four, right? Also on that restriction, is the minimum allowed to be more than four, and can there be a maximum or does it need to be infinitely expandable?

...And with the third restriction, would it be permissible for there to be other ways for the game to end other than 'two people win,' in a similar way to the Chrononauts 'everybody loses' condition, provided the main end state is 'two winners' rather than the more customary 'one winner'?

I was trying to think of an example that met the criteria and thought of split pot poker variants. For example, Texas Hold'em High-Low Split. There are shared game elements (the shared cards) and, typically at least, two winners (the high hand and the low hand split the pot).

When I play poker, I tend to play crazy variants. So, along the same lines, there's Spit Hamlet Split. The base game is Spit, which is five-card draw, except that each player has four cards and there's a shared card. The best natural hand shares with the best Hamlet hand. (For a Hamlet hand, Jacks are low, Queens are wild, and Kings are dead.)

Thinking about it, though, I guess it is possible to play these games with three players. They just aren't much fun without at least four. So do they qualify? (Note that I'm just throwing these out because I'm thinking about the criteria. It would be a sad GDS if Spit Hamlet Spit won.)

Is it necessary that the two victors win at the same time, or can one player win (i.e. meet the requirements for his/her victory), followed by the other 3+ players continuing play until a second person meets the requirements for his/her victory?

So far in the critiques, there are only about four or five votes shown for the winning entry. That, and the fact that the lead was huge for the winner, suggests to me that somebody maybe voted a ton (maybe all six votes) for Sorceror's Apprentices. That's certainly no problem at all, but I'd really love to know how the voting broke down.

[Gets on soapbox] Also, this month and even more last month we've been getting relatively few critiques posted - including some of the participants skipping out on them. I always look forward to getting feedback, and it's one of the more fun parts of this for me. I try to put a good amount of time and thought into my comments, and I'd really appreciate the other participants doing the same. [Gets off soapbox, dodges tomato from crowd]

I plead guilty to this. In fact, I didn't even get my act together in time to vote. This ought to disqualify Machination (well, this plus the blatant mechanic theft from a previous GDS submission Illuminati, which I was planning to acknowledge in my critiques).

Sorry everyone. I know it messes up the voting and I'll try harder in future. Part of the issue is my long-term (~20 yrs) mental health problem; my brain has a tendency to lock up when there's too much stuff to evaluate.

I do agree that entry to the GDS should come with a reasonable expectation to take the time to read the other entries in depth and both to vote and to critique them. Personally, I know I tend to overestimate my ability to do that.

I am still planning to try and muster a decent critique of the other submissions and indicate the rightful second place holder (i.e. the one I would have given most votes to if I'd had my act together properly).