Here's another competition of which I just recently learned. Looks like a reasonable deal; you send them a description, they chose a subset of submitted games to test out, and then you get judged by a panel of game publishers. It costs $10, and you can enter multiple times.
The plusses would seem to be that you get judges who are within the industry and are actual publishers. The $10 (plus postage) is cheap for this kind of thing. Most of the European competitions and the Mensa competition here in the U.S. have pretty steep entry fees - in the case of Mensa, it's $200! Fine if you're an established company, but pretty harsh on somebody self-funding.
Anyway, I might send my two finished games in for this - it sounds like fun. Not sure I could get to Utah on short notice, but it sounds like that's not mandatory. I really appreciate these conventions being willing to sponsor design contests - it's a neat way to polish your products and maybe get some exposure if you do well.
Showing posts with label Competitions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Competitions. Show all posts
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
October BGDF design showdown
More details on my entry when the voting closes - it has to be secret until then. Woo.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Sherwood rules
The following are the rules for the game I submitted for the September BGDF design showdown. The restrictions were that it had to have a Robin Hood theme and that it had to have two mini-games. I didn't place 1st or 2nd, but I have no idea how I did other than that. Only one guy has posted a critique of the games other than me, and the vote tallies weren't shared, so I have nearly no feedback to go on. I was pretty excited about the game, and I thought it captured the challenge goals pretty well. Let me know what you think.
Sherwood
(c) 2010 by Dave Dobson
For 2-4 players
Components:
Object: You are competing to join Robin Hood’s band of rogues. Robin prepares a contest: be the first to steal 8 shillings worth of loot and return it to the Outlaw Camp, and he’ll accept you into his band.
Components:
- Game Board - contains normal spaces (white circles), Sherriff’s Guard spaces (red circles), and special spaces (Outlaw Camp, Chapel, Castle, Village, Archery Range)
- 8 Merry Man Tokens per player
- 16 Movement Tiles in 4 denominations
- 1 Movement Base circle
- 4 Movement Tile Markers per player
- 5 Gambling Tokens per player
- 2 Cart Markers per player
- 15 Loot Tokens in 3 denominations
- 15 Arrow Tokens
- Chapel: 2 x 1 shilling, 3 x 2 shilling
- Castle: 5 x 3 shilling
- Village: 3 x 1 shilling, 2 x 2 shilling
Each player starts with 3 Merry Men and 1 Cart in the Outlaw Camp. Place the other resources in reserve off the board. Each player also gets 3 arrow tokens.
Set up the Movement Minigame to one side. Build a pyramid of four movement tiles numbered 1-4, with the 1-space tile touching the Movement Base Circle as shown in the Movement Minigame image below. Make one pyramid for each player playing.
Turn Order: The game plays as follows:
1) Gambling Minigame – each player has five gambling tokens with five different characters on them as shown:[Gambling Minigame image goes here] Each player chooses one character in secret. All players reveal their choices. If your character is not beaten by any other, you get the prize indicated. New carts and men are placed on the Outlaw Camp. Movement Tiles are chosen from the Movement Minigame.
The Gambling Minigame also determines move order, with the lowest numbered token going first. If there are ties, the player with the least treasure goes first. If there are still ties, the player who moved later in the previous turn goes first. On the very first turn, the player with the longest criminal record goes first.
2) Movement Minigame – on his or her turn, a player claims one movement tile by playing a movement tile marker on an unclaimed movement tiles. The player may only claim a tile if it is touching the Movement Base Circle OR if it is touching a tile he or she has already claimed. For example, on his first turn, a player can claim a #1 movement tile that touches the Base Circle. On his second turn, he can claim the #2 tile touching the #1 tile, or he could claim a second #1 tile.
3) Movement – Once all players have made their moves in the Movement Minigame, they may collect movement tiles and make moves. If a player elects to collect his claimed movement tiles, he takes all the movement tiles he has marked. If this leaves any unclaimed movement tiles unconnected to any other tiles, the player to the left of the current player MUST shift these movement tiles so that they either (1) touch the Movement Base Circle or (2) touch two other movement tiles in the Movement Minigame. The tiles can have any orientation provided they obey the placement rules.
Players spend movement tiles to move pieces. A player may play one movement tile per turn. When a player plays a movement tile, he may move each of his men up to the number of spaces shown on the movement tile. Multiple men may be stacked on the same space.
Sherriff’s Guard – a player must play an arrow token or discard a man token to enter a red guard space. Similarly, if a player wishes to move a man onto a space with another player’s man, he must play an arrow token or sacrifice a man token.
Cart Movement – Carts can only move with a man. They move one space less than the move tile played (so they cannot move at all on a 1-space tile).
When a player plays a movement tile, the player to his left returns the tile to the Movement Minigame in any legal position as above (i.e. touching the Base Circle or touching two other movement tiles).
When all players have moved, start over with the gambling minigame.
2) Movement Minigame – on his or her turn, a player claims one movement tile by playing a movement tile marker on an unclaimed movement tiles. The player may only claim a tile if it is touching the Movement Base Circle OR if it is touching a tile he or she has already claimed. For example, on his first turn, a player can claim a #1 movement tile that touches the Base Circle. On his second turn, he can claim the #2 tile touching the #1 tile, or he could claim a second #1 tile.
3) Movement – Once all players have made their moves in the Movement Minigame, they may collect movement tiles and make moves. If a player elects to collect his claimed movement tiles, he takes all the movement tiles he has marked. If this leaves any unclaimed movement tiles unconnected to any other tiles, the player to the left of the current player MUST shift these movement tiles so that they either (1) touch the Movement Base Circle or (2) touch two other movement tiles in the Movement Minigame. The tiles can have any orientation provided they obey the placement rules.
Players spend movement tiles to move pieces. A player may play one movement tile per turn. When a player plays a movement tile, he may move each of his men up to the number of spaces shown on the movement tile. Multiple men may be stacked on the same space.
Sherriff’s Guard – a player must play an arrow token or discard a man token to enter a red guard space. Similarly, if a player wishes to move a man onto a space with another player’s man, he must play an arrow token or sacrifice a man token.
Cart Movement – Carts can only move with a man. They move one space less than the move tile played (so they cannot move at all on a 1-space tile).
When a player plays a movement tile, the player to his left returns the tile to the Movement Minigame in any legal position as above (i.e. touching the Base Circle or touching two other movement tiles).
When all players have moved, start over with the gambling minigame.
Treasures: A man entering a space containing loot may collect one loot counter. A man can carry loot worth 1 shilling. He needs a cart to carry loot worth 2 or 3 shillings. Players score loot by bringing it back to the Outlaw Camp. Men and carts cannot carry multiple treasures at once.
Archery Range: When a man enters the Archery Range, the player collects two arrow tokens. A given man cannot collect more arrows until he visits the Outlaw Camp again.
Winning: The first player to return a total value of 8 shillings of loot to the outlaw camp wins.
Archery Range: When a man enters the Archery Range, the player collects two arrow tokens. A given man cannot collect more arrows until he visits the Outlaw Camp again.
Winning: The first player to return a total value of 8 shillings of loot to the outlaw camp wins.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Entries in for Hippodice
I've got two entries - Diggity and Yoggity - submitted for the 2011 Hippodice Autorenwettbewerb. They have a first stage which is purely electronic - I've sent a description, rules, and some pictures for each game, and they'll tell me in November whether they want the full games to play. I'm a little worried about that, since I have to send them to Germany - it might be a little tight there on the timing to get them there by Dec. 1, but I guess I can spring for whatever fast shipping DHL has. There are customs and such to worry about too - hopefully that won't be a problem. If I even make it into the general competition, that is!
No prize for this one other than prestige and a good feeling, but they do a write-up of the top games and circulate them to companies, and it's a pretty well-known competition. Foreigners have done pretty well there, too, unlike some of the other European competitions which seem generally to prefer games in their own language. When I lived in Munich last fall, it seemed like nearly everyone I met spoke English (they start teaching it in 5th grade), so hopefully there won't be much of a language issue.
Anyway, pretty exciting.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Yoggity Reader Mail
Reader Daniel writes the following about my recent post on Yoggity:
As to what they were thinking, I can't really speak to that; they obviously enjoyed the game, or they wouldn't have ranked it as highly as they did. I wish they'd tried the trading, and I need to get people to want to.
Thanks for the feedback - I have lots to think about here.
So have you decided how to tackle the judges' "ruling" (or maybe input should be a better word)? I am thinking you can go three ways: either add more strategy to the game, accept the rulings and maybe re-theme it as a kids game or ignore them because they are wrong and do not know better. But then comes the funny part if you choose door number three.
Why do you think the judges left out a big part of the strategy in the game? Did they miss it or did they not play the whole game? Or do they not think what you refer to as strategy is some mundane thing a 3 year old can do?
I would love to hear what you plan on doing with the judges feedback and whats your next step.Daniel sets up three possibilities:
- Add more strategy - I've considered this; I really like how the game plays now, but I understand that some folks (particularly boardgame enthusiasts) might want there to be a bit more depth. One potential weakness for the game (that doesn't seem to affect how much fun it is for me, but might for some) is that there's no overarching plotline to the game - you're doing mostly the same kind of thing in the last few turns as you are in the first few, although obviously a bunch of the scoring has already been decided by the end, and people have collected different resources and cards. It's possible that I could come up with some kind of plotline this way - something that builds up over time, that might solve both potential problems - complexity and plotting.
- Re-theme as a kids' game - Maybe a possibility, but I'm not sure it's a good one, for several reasons. One is that although the gameplay itself is pretty simple, being good at the game requires making complex strategic decisions about resource use and deal-making. So, younger kids might miss out on the part that makes the game the most fun. Another reason not to do this is that the market niche I'm looking at is probably boardgame enthusiasts - they're more likely to buy a fairly obscure game from a small publisher, I think, and I'm not so likely to get the widespread play I'd need to attract a kid-based audience. A kid-oriented game wouldn't sell well to this crowd. On the flip side, if I self-publish, I'm hoping to market the game also to my former Snood customers, and for those folks, a family-friendly game (which Yoggity certainly is) that's marketed that way would maybe be more appealing. So, I don't know what to do along these lines. My idea of a great game is one that both grown-ups and kids can play and want to play - it's simple enough to understand that kids can handle it, but fun enough and complex enough that adults enjoy it and would play by themselves. Checkers isn't quite at this level, although there are certainly grown-up checkers enthusiasts. Monopoly has become nearly exclusively child-oriented, but I think played by the proper rules, it's a fine game for adults.
- Ignore the judges - that's very tempting, but I don't know that it's a good idea. On one hand, it sounds like they didn't play the game the way it was supposed to be played, so any advice they give is not necessarily useful. On the other hand, they read my rules and chose to play that way, so either they didn't get it, or I didn't make it clear enough that trading makes the game much more fun and more complex for multiple players, and making good trades is the best strategy to win overall. My suspicion is that I could easily rewrite parts of the rules (maybe add a "strategy" section) that point out the benefits of trading in order to highlight that. I think that's maybe my best option now.
As to what they were thinking, I can't really speak to that; they obviously enjoyed the game, or they wouldn't have ranked it as highly as they did. I wish they'd tried the trading, and I need to get people to want to.
Thanks for the feedback - I have lots to think about here.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Memphis results
Here's the final wrap-up from the Gamecon Memphis competition. My game, Yoggity, got third, with a recommendation that it might be better for 6-8 year olds.
One frustration - the testers apparently never traded anything, and trading is key to the game with more than two players. With two players, you can actually collect enough resources to make things on your own, and the strategy comes in when you decide how and when to use your coins and when it's a good idea to cancel an order. Plus, any trade is likely to benefit your opposition as much as you, so it's difficult to do anything other than zero-sum trades, so people tend not to trade much.
With more than two players, you don't often have all the resources you need, so you have to trade, and making good trades is a huge part of the strategy. I'm not positive the game was played by more than two at a time, so it's possible that's why they didn't trade. But I'd think they'd try it with more judges than just two, and I think I made trading a clear part of the rules, so I'm surprised that they wouldn't try trades in that case - there's a clear strategic advantage in a three player game for two players to make a trade that hoses the third. In multi-player games, the best traders nearly always win.
Without the trading, the game could be probably be playable by an 8-year-old (a six year old would still have trouble, at least the 6-year-olds I've known), but with trading, you have to be pretty smart, clever, and charming to come up with good deals that are appealing to all sides, and kids would not be able to make that kind of decision consistently well.
I guess that's a problem submitting a game anonymously - you don't get a chance to demo or explain the game. But that's going to be the case if you're selling your game to the public, too, especially if they're picking it up off a game store shelf. So, I've got to make it more clear in the rules that trading is key to the game.
One frustration - the testers apparently never traded anything, and trading is key to the game with more than two players. With two players, you can actually collect enough resources to make things on your own, and the strategy comes in when you decide how and when to use your coins and when it's a good idea to cancel an order. Plus, any trade is likely to benefit your opposition as much as you, so it's difficult to do anything other than zero-sum trades, so people tend not to trade much.
With more than two players, you don't often have all the resources you need, so you have to trade, and making good trades is a huge part of the strategy. I'm not positive the game was played by more than two at a time, so it's possible that's why they didn't trade. But I'd think they'd try it with more judges than just two, and I think I made trading a clear part of the rules, so I'm surprised that they wouldn't try trades in that case - there's a clear strategic advantage in a three player game for two players to make a trade that hoses the third. In multi-player games, the best traders nearly always win.
Without the trading, the game could be probably be playable by an 8-year-old (a six year old would still have trouble, at least the 6-year-olds I've known), but with trading, you have to be pretty smart, clever, and charming to come up with good deals that are appealing to all sides, and kids would not be able to make that kind of decision consistently well.
I guess that's a problem submitting a game anonymously - you don't get a chance to demo or explain the game. But that's going to be the case if you're selling your game to the public, too, especially if they're picking it up off a game store shelf. So, I've got to make it more clear in the rules that trading is key to the game.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Rio Grande contest wrapup
I'm still trying to get a sense of what happened at Gamecon Memphis, but the result is clear; the winner of the regional there was a game called "Kings of England" by Rick Goodman. I'm not positive, but I think this might be the same Rick Goodman who was involved in a lot of real-time strategy computer games, such as Age of Empires and Empire Earth, both of which I enjoyed.
The early feedback I did receive says that Yoggity was viewed favorably (maybe 3rd or 4th of 20 games) but was seen as as too child-oriented. That seems weird to me, since a kid couldn't handle the negotiation part very well, but maybe the judges were looking for more of a hardcore wargame or something.
I'll keep an eye out for more results - the organizer of the Gamecon competition has indicated he'll post more information on BGG. I'm obviously disappointed, but I'm grateful for the opportunity.
For Yoggity, it's on to Hippodice...
The early feedback I did receive says that Yoggity was viewed favorably (maybe 3rd or 4th of 20 games) but was seen as as too child-oriented. That seems weird to me, since a kid couldn't handle the negotiation part very well, but maybe the judges were looking for more of a hardcore wargame or something.
I'll keep an eye out for more results - the organizer of the Gamecon competition has indicated he'll post more information on BGG. I'm obviously disappointed, but I'm grateful for the opportunity.
For Yoggity, it's on to Hippodice...
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Robin Hood BGDF contest
The entries are up. Some interesting ones - the Robin Hood theme made most of them overlap in terms of plot and layout, but the minigame thing led to some interesting design choices. Votes are due tomorrow - I'll let y'all know which was mine when the results are up.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
BGDF contest for September
I got my entry in for the Robin Hood BGDF contest for September. In addition to a Robin Hood theme, you had to include two mini-games, where you had a game-within-a-game to handle various parts.
This is always tricky - the minigames can end up being dull and uninteresting, and end up hampering gameplay, or they can end up more fun than the actual game. I got two in my design that I think work, would be fun without being obtrusive, and still fit the overall style of the game. We'll see what other folks think.
In some ways these contests, because of their restrictions, actually get in the way of making excellent games, because you have to honor the restrictions. In that sense, they're more like etudes for musicians - they push your skills, but they don't necessarily sound the best when played. I hope I get a chance to make a protoype and try this one out, though - I think it could be quite fun.
I'll post a link to my entry when the voting is over - can't reveal it until then.
This is always tricky - the minigames can end up being dull and uninteresting, and end up hampering gameplay, or they can end up more fun than the actual game. I got two in my design that I think work, would be fun without being obtrusive, and still fit the overall style of the game. We'll see what other folks think.
In some ways these contests, because of their restrictions, actually get in the way of making excellent games, because you have to honor the restrictions. In that sense, they're more like etudes for musicians - they push your skills, but they don't necessarily sound the best when played. I hope I get a chance to make a protoype and try this one out, though - I think it could be quite fun.
I'll post a link to my entry when the voting is over - can't reveal it until then.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Gamecon Memphis competition is now
Yoggity's being played today for the Rio Grande competition - I'm frustrated I can't be there, but excited about the feedback I hope to receive. It ends tomorrow, so I should know something shortly.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
New monthly BGDF contest
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
GameCon Memphis Schedule
They have the schedule up - Yoggity's on tap for Saturday early morning and early afternoon, plus I guess they could play it during the open sessions. Some of the entries seem to require 3-4 hours. Yikes. Yoggity is usually pretty manageable - 45 minutes to an hour, although it can take longer with more folks and is sometimes noticeably slower the first time people play. I hope the 1-hour timeframe is enough for it, especially if they need to explain the rules as part of that.
Exciting, though! Woohoo.
Exciting, though! Woohoo.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Hippodice timing
OK, so, I have two good candidates for the Hippodice competition - Diggity and Yoggity. Cult I think is too language-dependent; part of what makes it funny is the cards, and the jokes wouldn't be as funny in another language, even if most Germans do have pretty good English. Galapagos isn't ready yet. But those two games are both mostly language-independent (Diggity even moreso than Yoggity) and I think they'd appeal to the Eurogamers over there.
The issue? They want only unpublished games, which both currently are. They define unpublished more generously than other competitions; they suggest the games haven't been submitted to a publisher (true in both cases), that they not be commercially distributed (definitely true for Yoggity. For Diggity, does TheGameCrafter count?), and that they be under 100 total copies produced (definitely true for both - Diggity is at about 23 copies, all but seven of which reside with me or friends and family, while there are only four copies of Yoggity in the world; I have two, one's with the artist, Jason Greeno, and one is in Tennessee waiting for GameCon Memphis).
So, I think I'm OK entering both. The trick is, if I actually somehow get Diggity up and running, there's a chance I'd have more than 100 copies by March 2011, which is their final round. I have to get the art finalized and in the right formats, and then I'll probably have to re-quote it, since it's been a while since I got most of the quotes and most of them are only guaranteed for 30 days or so, and then the printing takes a while. So, if I figure it will take at a minimum at least a month to get the art ready, then a month to re-quote it, then 2-3 months for printing and shipping, plus holiday delays, I'm actually almost to when they're judging. If it takes longer than those timeframes, as it likely will, then I'm easily in the clear.
So, I think I'm OK. I can always withdraw it if things go faster than I expect, and just have Yoggity in there.
The issue? They want only unpublished games, which both currently are. They define unpublished more generously than other competitions; they suggest the games haven't been submitted to a publisher (true in both cases), that they not be commercially distributed (definitely true for Yoggity. For Diggity, does TheGameCrafter count?), and that they be under 100 total copies produced (definitely true for both - Diggity is at about 23 copies, all but seven of which reside with me or friends and family, while there are only four copies of Yoggity in the world; I have two, one's with the artist, Jason Greeno, and one is in Tennessee waiting for GameCon Memphis).
So, I think I'm OK entering both. The trick is, if I actually somehow get Diggity up and running, there's a chance I'd have more than 100 copies by March 2011, which is their final round. I have to get the art finalized and in the right formats, and then I'll probably have to re-quote it, since it's been a while since I got most of the quotes and most of them are only guaranteed for 30 days or so, and then the printing takes a while. So, if I figure it will take at a minimum at least a month to get the art ready, then a month to re-quote it, then 2-3 months for printing and shipping, plus holiday delays, I'm actually almost to when they're judging. If it takes longer than those timeframes, as it likely will, then I'm easily in the clear.
So, I think I'm OK. I can always withdraw it if things go faster than I expect, and just have Yoggity in there.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
GameconMemphis contest in two weeks...
There are what look to be at least two wargames, with territory control and little units. Two abstract games, both with wooden parts. One racing-themed game - maybe a good fit for Tennessee? One hex-tile-based space exploration game. A couple that look like economic games. One that seems to be entirely card-based, maybe CCG or Dominion style. One with robots and infantry. A huge variety, which will probably make the judging even harder for the volunteers.
One of them, Ops Mundi by Jason Roth, appears actually to be his senior geography thesis. Pretty cool.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
More on the Hippodice contest
The Hippodice contest is one of the best from a designer's point of view - it's widely known, run by serious game enthusiasts, has a relatively low entry fee, and is open to all. There are English rules here, and then there's a detailed entry description (English on the second page).
They wisely review these descriptions and then solicit entries from those, so they don't get a bajillion games submitted. I think that's a recent development - I think they used to just take all entries and then wade through them, but that probably got too tiresome.
If your game is selected, it's 5 Euros plus a copy of the game sent to Germany, plus return postage if you want it back, although setting up a prepaid return and customs forms through German mail is probably pretty difficult and not worth the hassle and expense unless your game has lots of expensive components or is hand-crafted or something.
One tricky bit - if you get selected, because Germany has VAT, and because you're sending them goods, you'll have to do a customs form that describes the contents appropriately to avoid there being tax due when it gets there. I had a variety of different experiences that way in Munich when getting sent stuff from the United States last year. Most of it came through fine, but a couple items got held up for a while because the documentation wasn't in order, and it wasn't always clear why one thing made it quickly and another didn't. It might be worth ponying up for one of the international shipping companies (DHL is affiliated with the German postal system) if you're nervous about regular mail.
They wisely review these descriptions and then solicit entries from those, so they don't get a bajillion games submitted. I think that's a recent development - I think they used to just take all entries and then wade through them, but that probably got too tiresome.
If your game is selected, it's 5 Euros plus a copy of the game sent to Germany, plus return postage if you want it back, although setting up a prepaid return and customs forms through German mail is probably pretty difficult and not worth the hassle and expense unless your game has lots of expensive components or is hand-crafted or something.
One tricky bit - if you get selected, because Germany has VAT, and because you're sending them goods, you'll have to do a customs form that describes the contents appropriately to avoid there being tax due when it gets there. I had a variety of different experiences that way in Munich when getting sent stuff from the United States last year. Most of it came through fine, but a couple items got held up for a while because the documentation wasn't in order, and it wasn't always clear why one thing made it quickly and another didn't. It might be worth ponying up for one of the international shipping companies (DHL is affiliated with the German postal system) if you're nervous about regular mail.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Hippodice
The perennial Hippodice competition is rolling around again, with a submission deadline of November 1st. I'm thinking of entering Diggity and Yoggity, but I'll have to figure out what I want to do following the Rio Grande competition at the end of the month here. Could be interesting; I think maybe I would try rewriting the rules in German in that case. I regained some of my German (and designed both games) while working in Munich last fall, so that seems appropriate.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Rio Grande contest judging standards
With my entry in the Rio Grande game contest sent out, I'm eagerly awaiting the results. The judging is based on total points in a number of equally rated categories:
That's actually an interesting way to judge the contest. Obviously, the intent is to get a "good" game out of the competition. But that's very subjective; a Scrabble fiend might hate Settlers of Cataan, and a chess player might despise Monopoly and vice versa. Breaking it into the ratings above is maybe useful, but weighting them equally is maybe misleading; I'd value "Fun" and "Replayable" as far higher priorities than most of the others. You could put together a snoozer of a game that scored well in 8 of 10 categories but got a 1 in Fun and Replayable, and it would stand a better chance of winning than a wildly fun game that wasn't, say, as interactive or original or balanced.
This comment by Mark Salzwedel on BGG tries to get deeper into the categories, and it sounds like he's even providing guidelines for the judges at his regional contest. I think that's a good idea, although tricky to standardize; I have no idea if they'll do something similar to that at the Memphis regional, where my game will be. He worries that the "Decision Driven" category is a problem - since some folks like more luck and others more strategy, maybe a 3 is the desired outcome, but I think that ignores the instructions at the bottom, where you're actually supposed to rate from 1-5 depending on the impact of luck on the game itself, not on the amount of luck actually involved.
For Yoggity, my entry, I think the framework above might actually help me, since the game's strengths are a reasonable fit with the categories. My game is more of a family game, and some of the other entries in my regional contest (shown here) look a bit like heavier wargames, although you can't tell too much from the pictures. Games like that, even if they're awesome, are going to be more likely to lose points in the Broad Appeal and Simple to Learn (and often Wait Time and Replayable) categories.
Of course, it will all be up to the volunteer judges and how they decide to apply the categories, so there's no sense worrying too much, but it's interesting to ponder.
Scale for each criterion is set at 1-5. For each criterion that does not positively or negatively impact the game (or simply doesn't apply), the criterion is scored at 3. If a criterion does impact the game, the score is adjusted positively or negatively and a note/comment is made to explain the decision. |
That's actually an interesting way to judge the contest. Obviously, the intent is to get a "good" game out of the competition. But that's very subjective; a Scrabble fiend might hate Settlers of Cataan, and a chess player might despise Monopoly and vice versa. Breaking it into the ratings above is maybe useful, but weighting them equally is maybe misleading; I'd value "Fun" and "Replayable" as far higher priorities than most of the others. You could put together a snoozer of a game that scored well in 8 of 10 categories but got a 1 in Fun and Replayable, and it would stand a better chance of winning than a wildly fun game that wasn't, say, as interactive or original or balanced.
This comment by Mark Salzwedel on BGG tries to get deeper into the categories, and it sounds like he's even providing guidelines for the judges at his regional contest. I think that's a good idea, although tricky to standardize; I have no idea if they'll do something similar to that at the Memphis regional, where my game will be. He worries that the "Decision Driven" category is a problem - since some folks like more luck and others more strategy, maybe a 3 is the desired outcome, but I think that ignores the instructions at the bottom, where you're actually supposed to rate from 1-5 depending on the impact of luck on the game itself, not on the amount of luck actually involved.
For Yoggity, my entry, I think the framework above might actually help me, since the game's strengths are a reasonable fit with the categories. My game is more of a family game, and some of the other entries in my regional contest (shown here) look a bit like heavier wargames, although you can't tell too much from the pictures. Games like that, even if they're awesome, are going to be more likely to lose points in the Broad Appeal and Simple to Learn (and often Wait Time and Replayable) categories.
Of course, it will all be up to the volunteer judges and how they decide to apply the categories, so there's no sense worrying too much, but it's interesting to ponder.
Friday, September 3, 2010
BGDF Results
The results are in. My game, Caravan, came in second in a massive four-way tie at five votes, well behind the winner at 11 votes. The winning game, Sorceror's Apprentices, was a neat idea - played on an Othello board, but with a magic contest theme. I certainly think it deserved to win, although it would need a ton more design, detail, and testing to make a fully-realized game, and I think the victory conditions are not workable as written.
I'm curious about the voting - that huge a lead is uncommon, since most folks split up their votes among many entries. I wonder if somebody sent all six of their votes or something like that. The voting is kind of a game by itself.
I'll post the rules to Caravan up here soon. I didn't get a chance to test it; one commenter worried about stalemate, which I was also concerned about, and that would be a very real danger. I think I might give it a try - I've got a hex mat and some poker chips that would work.
I'm curious about the voting - that huge a lead is uncommon, since most folks split up their votes among many entries. I wonder if somebody sent all six of their votes or something like that. The voting is kind of a game by itself.
I'll post the rules to Caravan up here soon. I didn't get a chance to test it; one commenter worried about stalemate, which I was also concerned about, and that would be a very real danger. I think I might give it a try - I've got a hex mat and some poker chips that would work.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Off to Tennessee
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Yoggity ready to go
I got my new versions of Yoggity from TheGameCrafter. I need to put the stickers on the parts (wouldn't want to make the testers do that kind of set up) and make sure all the components are OK, and print up a nicer box label than TGC does. But then I should be good to go to send it to Memphis for the Rio Grande regional contest. Along with my hopes and dreams. And return postage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
