We have a winner!
Stanley Pool
by andymorris
Thanks for the thoughtful responses and questions regarding the challenge this month. This was exceptionally difficult for the "rules light" word limit, but our community proved themselves equal to the challenge! Share your thoughts in the critiques thread and look for a complete posting of results.
Entries are in!
Eight games enter, one game leaves.
Voting form here. Remember to finish voting by the end of the 15th (your local time)
Voting Format: Each person has 3 Medals (Gold, Silver, and Bronze - with values 3, 2, and 1 vote respectively) to distribute any way they choose among the GDS entries with the following restrictions:
Entrants may not assign any Medals to their own entry!
Entrants must assign all 3 Medals.
An entrant who does not assign all 3 Medals will receive a Pyrite Medal (-3 votes) as a penalty.
Please Read: Details on entering the Game Design Showdown.
Tabletop game are great; I don't expect an argument there. And one of the touted reasons is that they provide some good face-to-face communication. Of course, you probably know of some games where talking to the other players is a serious faux pas, or is actually forbidden!. Cross-boarding - the idea that you can't communicate with other players - particularly a partner - is a no-no in classic partner games like Euchre or Pitch.
To quote Mindspike:
Games like Risk are often played cooperatively, with players entering a non-aggression pact and sharing the victory. Risk is a prototypical area control game that allows partners to coordinate very easily. The absence of hidden information and the ability to openly communicate means this type of cooperative action depends more heavily on execution rather than decision making. I'd like to see what could be done to shake that up.
I happen to agree. Let's see how you can shake that up.
Your March contest is, then, to create an area-control game played with a partner or team. However, partners/team-members are not allowed to communicate with each other in any way other than the open information of the game-state.
And for a little nudge of thematic inspiration, you must use one of the following themes:
- Feudal Japan
- European invasion/colonisation of Africa
- The moons of Jupiter
- 1920s U.S. Prohibition
- Inside dreams
- Stealth and espionage
Now the details:
Theme: Must use one of the above list of themes.
Mechanic: Area control is used as a primary mechanic in the game. Must play with a Partner or on a Team. Partners/teammembers can NOT communicate.
Component restriction: None
Word Limit: Standard 500 word limit
Voting: Award a Gold, Silver, and Bronze (worth 3,2, and 1 points respectively) Medals to your three favorite entries. Any entrant that does not award all three Medals will receive a Pyrite Medal (that's "Fool's Gold") worth -3 votes!
When submitting your entry: PLEASE USE THE FORM LINKED HERE.
Submissions: Sunday the 1st through to Sunday the 8th
Voting: Through the 15th. Votes will be through a form (link posted after submission period is ended).
Voting Format: Each person has 3 Medals (Gold, Silver, and Bronze - with values 3, 2, and 1 vote respectively) to distribute any way they choose among the GDS entries with the following restrictions:
Entrants may not assign any Medals to their own entry!
Entrants must assign all 3 Medals.
An entrant who does not assign all 3 Medals will receive a Pyrite Medal (-3 votes) as a penalty.
Comments or Questions: Comments and questions about this Challenge are handled on the Comments Thread
CRITIQUES: After voting has closed the entries will be posted for comments and critiques. Post constructive critiques and commentary about the entries to this Challenge in the Critiques Thread.
GDS Details: For more details on how these Game Design Showdown Challenges work, visit the GDS Wiki Page.
Enjoy, and good luck!
-Rich and Mindspike
Galilean Moons
4 players
Players represent corporations exploiting the resources on the Galilean moons. The corporations team up to dominate all trade on the moons, but the treacherous businessmen often re-form teams to suit their short or long-term goals.
(500 words == not enough. I hope this gets the idea across.)
Mechanisms:
All actions are performed via worker placement, where a turn consists of two phases: the placement phase where you declare actions and then the action resolution phase where potentially competing actions are resolved. Most placements require an action card to be played simultaneously. These are placed face up. Some sample actions: - Mine Ore: The card and the worker location determine what is available. ACC determines amount mined. - Purchase Supplies / Weapons: The card and the worker location determine what is available. ACC determines price. - Establish Colony: ACC determines cost and/or size and defenses. - Attack existing colony: Card defines attack strength based on resources spent. ACC reduces cost. Also used to strengthen a teammate's attack.
One of the worker placement locations, which is always available and does not include an action card played, is the "Switch Teams" location. If a player uses one of his workers in that location, any other player (including his current team member) can use a worker to team up with him. The other two players are automatically stuck together. Note that there is a noticeable opportunity cost to initiating team changing. You have used two of the new team's workers, AND you have reduced the number of action cards that the team is playing in that turn, diminishing the team's ACC values. If you spend a worker to 'Switch Teams' and no one responds, the teams remain, your teammate is probably annoyed, and you've wasted the worker.