Use this thread for any comments, questions, requests for clarity, etc., regarding the February 2014 Challenge in the Game Design Showdown, entitled "From nothing, something."
- Rich
[GDS] FEBRUARY 2014 "From nothing, something" Questions and Comments
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 06:54
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:57
#1
Is it a separate component?
Is the use of player screens or bags for keeping the one component hidden considered an additional component?
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:59
#2
Dice?
Is a dice a valid component?
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 14:34
#4
Good question -
Dice are one of the oldest components out there, and were so damn useful precisely because the 1-bit of information could be more varied. I'll allow it!
As a warning, I should say that obviously there are tons and tons of dice games out there already, and being a valid component for this GDS it will be very tempting for others to make dice games as well.
In other words, if you want to stand out this month you might want to put down the dice and back away slowly :)
PUSH THE LIMIT!
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 15:29
#5
Clear. Backing away right now
Clear. Backing away right now ;-)
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 16:28
#6
Colloquial bit?
Usually 1 bit means a decision between exactly 2 equivalent choices. Would the use of stones of three colors violate this constraint? Or is the constraint actually "at most 1 dimension of choice, with very few possible values in that dimension"?
Sat, 02/01/2014 - 19:15
#7
I took the Twister example
I took the Twister example with four colors of circles as givng a clear signal for variations of the one factor of differentiation.
Sun, 02/02/2014 - 03:53
#8
"colloquial" bit
Calling it out, eh?
A bit, as in a single unit of information. Not a binary bit with only 2 options.
Sun, 02/02/2014 - 04:52
#9
I might like to submit an
I might like to submit an entry, this is an interesting challenge . Is it ok if my 500 words is in a file on dropbox or somehow otherwise sent in to you? Its hard for me to compose large messages on my phone.
Sun, 02/02/2014 - 13:30
#10
Sending
I'm glad you find this month's challenge interesting!
Can you not access bgdf on whatever computer you'd type your entry and upload to Dropbox?
You can email it to me at richdurham@ominousoctopus.com as well. Or if you prefer, email me the Dropbox link to a text file formatted in markdown or HTML.
Sun, 02/02/2014 - 17:06
#11
I don't have anyway to tether
I don't have anyway to tether my pc to this phone. I live in the woods :) hoping to get some kind of internet soon, but in the mean time I am able to copy files to my phone and send them that way. I probably can just email it, i figured out how to do that the other day.
Mon, 02/03/2014 - 14:24
#12
Just to be sure
So what you mean by a component is one type of item that could have several different things on individual types of that item...(ie a stone is the component but it could be one of several colors or have several different symbols on it but you can only use stones in this example)?
Mon, 02/03/2014 - 17:20
#13
davidwpa wrote:So what you
So what you mean by a component is one type of item that could have several different things on individual types of that item...(ie a stone is the component but it could be one of several colors or have several different symbols on it but you can only use stones in this example)?
Yes, stones of several colors and stones with different symbols are both valid components for this challenge, but you can't use stones that have different colors AND different symbols. It's ONE defining characteristic.
Mon, 02/03/2014 - 20:15
#14
I feel like there has to be a
I feel like there has to be a way to abuse the 1 bit allowance to create a ridiculously detailed board game. Like Axis and Allies or something. I'm not sure exactly how. but if the symbol can be as detailed as I want it then wouldn't like "a checkerboard" count as one object with a symbol on it? Now I just put other checkerboards on the squares and somehow account for the size difference...
..Maybe my object is projector slides, and you hold one of them up to the light... Does the light count as an object?
Yes yes I know that looking for ways to abuse the rules really isn't in the spirit of the competition, but I'm having fun.
Mon, 02/03/2014 - 20:22
#15
But the question is can you
But the question is can you twist it so far without breaking votes. I try to rate hard based on my read of the spirit of the challenge. Since there are no meta-votes, we are our own critics.
Mon, 02/03/2014 - 22:14
#16
I think I have my game idea
I think I have my game idea already. I don't know that it is particularly innovative. I'm interested to see what folks will come up with.
Tue, 02/04/2014 - 01:03
#17
Your interpretation
The idea that you are your own critics is the best defense against "abuse," which will get called out pretty fast. Unless of course the voters feel it was particularly clever and stays within the confines.
My advice is to push yourself away from the boundary of "abuse or not" and towards an interesting game that CLEARLY uses only one component, with one bit of information on it.
Bad enough that dice count :p
Tue, 02/04/2014 - 07:30
#18
So if for instance my object
So if for instance my object was a square piece of cardboard about 1ft by 1 ft. and my symbol looked like this
http://i.imgur.com/SEfBxyK.jpg
Wouldn't that be well within the rules? I use two of the same object, with the same symbol. and instruct you to take one of them and tear it up along the lines and then arrange the torn pieces over the other board, discarding the blank ones....
I'm pretty sure I could come up with some pretty compelling rules for a game that simple.
Maybe the symbols should only be allowed to be used for differentiation and nothing else. As in: I can't tell you which symbol to use, only that you need 4 different symbols to differentiate the objects. that way no abusive symbols can be mandated.
Tue, 02/04/2014 - 15:18
#19
Too nice
What I'm taking away for this is that the GDS as worded is still too nice, and designers should be allowed to use one component - and that component has no distinguishing quality at all amongst themselves.
No symbols, no numbers, no colors, nothing.
In fact, I'd suggest going that route when designing a game for THIS GDS as well.
The tearable chess board example, as such, would violate the rules as written since in the end you are still playing the game with multiple components (board, pieces, all which behave differently and for some people would therefore count as separate components in their own right).
And of course you can make compelling games within the restriction - I'm hoping the designers will challenge themselves in how little component information they actually need to run their game. Things like positioning, possession, counting, all of these things can be done with sticks. Plain, un-colored, un-labeled sticks. Even better if the sticks are wider at one end.
Some designs will certainly make voters hesitate on whether it fits the essence of the challenge, and that is hopefully a risk they took knowingly. As long as that designer challenged themselves (outside the box or otherwise) and we all got an interesting design out of it, then I'm satisfied.
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"[GDS] FEBRUARY 2014 "From nothing, something" Questions and Comments\""){kind=small}
As the GDS is pretty limiting already, I personally don't think a screen or bag would count against you.
However, if you can rewrite it to use a player's pockets or use their other hand as a "screen," you might get even closer to the GDS' target in the eyes of the voters.