|
Did you come here looking for free goon-made games? Go here! Welcome to the August TGD Design Contest. The objective, as with previous contests, is to make a game in a month under certain restrictions. Friendly Hugs? Diceless? What's this storygame bullshit? The restrictions for this contest are twofold. The first is that your game cannot be about combat or have a lot of combat rules, hence friendly hugs. The second is that you cannot use dice as randomizers. What those mean exactly will be explained in a bit. The spirit of the contest is to make that game you thought about in your teenage years which wouldn't have any combat rules in it and be totally awesome. Since you never made that game then, it's time to do so now! Also in the spirit of the Friendly Hugs, and in light of how friendly and inviting previous TGD contests have been, I will be taking a strict hardline Iron-fisted approach to the rules in this one. Happiness is mandatory, citizen. The Guidelines Over a period of the month of August, you will write a game and have it playtested. There will be scoring throughout the contest, but the determiner of the winner will be the result of your playtest. In addition, in order to qualify, you have to playtest a competing contestant's game. (You don't have to have your game playtested by a contestant, just playtested in a way that I can access.) The top three finalists will receive Forum Upgrades of their choice. In addition, the top finalist will receive a Special Secret Prize and the admiration of many especially nerdy goons. However, you absolutely must follow the rules. This is not negotiable. My stamp of disqualification is heavy and eager. What do you mean by "combat"? First of all, please don't ask me that question in this thread. Part of this is about what you think non-combat means and should be and what conflicts you can derive that aren't about killing things. But if you want a guideline on what will not be disqualified, consider the following definition: "Combat" means any RPG rules involving detailed conflict rules on how to inflict harm on people and possibly take their stuff afterwards. If that's not clear, here are some examples of games that fit the "no combat" guideline, if not the "no dice" one. Yuuyake Koyake  This is a game about being animals that help children with little problems and things. It is so cute it competes with your baby for space in the crib. It is specifically designed to eschew violence and competitions for power. If that's a bit too sugary sweet and anime for you, try... Fiasco  This game has a gun on the cover and certainly touches on violence, but none of its resolution mechanics involve any kind of combat subsystem. That's perfectly acceptable for contest purposes as far as I'm concerned, and it's a great game too. If you really need to skirt the edge, consider... Leverage  Fundamentally this game is not about combat, even with one of its archetypes being nominally focused on it. It's about the heist. That a little fisticuffs happens is expected, but it's not what the game or show is focused on. Now, we are all posters in the TGD subforum. We know that RPG combat involves Killing poo poo and Taking poo poo Afterwards in a detailed and intricate subsystem. No, roller derby is not combat. No, competitive wrestling is not combat. They are not RPG combat rules. This should be rather clear. Now with that in mind, consider the examples I have posted. They include a game where you can die and keep playing as the corpse, as well as a game with an archetype in it that's all about being a bruiser. However, neither game is at its core about these things, or involve Killing poo poo or Taking Their poo poo Afterwards in a detailed and intricate subsystem. I'd prefer if the spirit of the contest was closer to Yuuyake Koyake, but I am a realist that way. Given these facts, ask yourselves: Is my game about combat? Does it fit into the provided examples? If you can genuinely answer that it's not about combat and does fit somewhere between the three provided sample games, and furthermore your combat rules are tiny or even nonexistent (and by tiny I mean no intricate subsystem for it), then your game is probably fine and you don't need to ask my permission. Go absolutely wild with your creativity. Great, how do I sign up? You don't anymore, sorry! The final reward went to Ettin for his game Retrocausality, and all the games have been gathered in this post. Enjoy your free games, folks!
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
The last two contests were all about having fun and being awesome elfgame friends who make cool things for cool people. Naturally, this being a contest about having no or minimal combat rules, and in contrast with my usual style, I will be presiding over it with an iron fist. If I haven't made at least one lifelong Internet Nemesis by the end of this contest, I will be very surprised indeed. DO NOT BE MISTAKEN. THIS IS LIKELY TO BE A ONE-WAY TRIP. Following this are the rules. Breaking or attempting to dodge any of them will result in immediate disqualification. Whining about unfairness will result in immediate disqualification. Asking me about the rules in private messages or in the thread beyond simple requests for clarification will result in immediate disqualification. Asking for simple clarification will make me cross - ask each other! If I say I will clarify no further, I will not. If you start jockeying about someone having broken the rules or try to game the system to your advantage by trying to get other contestants disqualified, you will be disqualified with extra lack of mercy for being a jackass. And don't even think about being annoying or otherwise jackassed, y'hear? We have always been at war with Eurasia and happiness is mandatory, so in that spirit you are absolutely allowed and in fact encouraged to post about your progress, discuss with other contestants and ask each other about what these inscrutable rules from on high actually mean. Your participation in the thread won't be rated in the contest, but it will make the whole thing that little bit better. THE RULES 1. Your game cannot have combat be its main source of conflict or conflict resolution, nor can the ruleset focus more on combat than on other tasks. If you absolutely have to detail combat, you may not exceed one page of rules or other description detailing it. Trying to break this limit or dodge it by making the combat section size 8 double column text or similar is also not allowed. If you use a google doc or a wiki, I will copy your combat section into Word, put in in size 12 Times New Roman with single column and line spacing and check whether you are legal. You want to be legal, right? Furthermore, you're not allowed to ask me about what I mean when I say "combat". See the first post for details. Amendment to rule 1: Each game may have a maximum of two authors, and each author may have a maximum of two games under their name. 2. It has to be an original creation for this contest, and it must recognizably be a role-playing game by the definition of players taking on a role or persona for the duration of the game in whatever capacity. It cannot be a slightly altered version of something you made for another contest or a game you have already made elsewhere. It cannot be an addon on to an existing RPG or other game, or use any open source game document. Your sin, such as it is, must be original. 3. No games about having internet arguments. I mean it. It's not as funny as you think it is. 4. You may not use dice as randomizers. You can use boardgames, like Jenga or Monopoly (but not their dice either). You can use playing cards or CCG cards. You can somehow involve a combination of your giant Anime DVD/body pillow collection, incredibly useless knowledge of Touhou trivia and the random page function on Wikipedia for that matter. However, you cannot use dice as randomizers. Anything else goes. Too many games that stall in their initial stages start with picking out dice, and you don't want to stall in front of everyone watching and silently judging you. 5. You will present your rules in complete and readable format for inspection in stages. The first stage is the Project Outline. It is due on August 3rd, and none may be submitted before August 1st, both measured by Midnight GMT. And I am sure you know by now what will happen if you submit early or late. The precise details of what I want to see in your Project Outline appear below. You will present your work in further subsequent stages throughout August. The second stage is due on August 10th, the third stage on August 17th, and the fourth stage on August 24th, measured by at the latest on Midnight GMT as per the Outline. Your stages may include rules in whatever order you prefer. 6. These rules modules must contain the following: Enough rules to run a game. Enough characters or character rules to run a playtest and a sample adventure (or equivalent). Guidelines for running the playtest, complete with all required rules for doing so. You are not required to strictly organize them by these topics and you may present them in any order, but at the end of August 24th they must all be present. 7. Your game must be playtested and presented by August 31st in a format accessible to me to read, witness, watch or listen to. Furthermore, in order to finish the contest, you must run at least one of your competitors' games with similar proof as for your own game, and may not run your own. However, note that you do not need to have your game playtested by another contestant to qualify - it merely needs to be playtested. If another contestant flakes on running your game, you should not be punished for it. The onus of organizing this playtest is on you. If your schedule is busy, I suggest setting aside time right now. You are allowed to make minor modifications to all previous modules during each deadline, such as for errata or an additional pregenerated character. Trying to add entire pages of previously missing rules to a submitted document is a no-no. Following this final deadline, I will take one week (to September 7th) to judge the games, and present to you the results thereof within that period. A winner will then be selected at a date no later than September 7th. And I mean it. There will be no extensions to the above deadlines. Asking me for an extension for any reason - personal, medical, mental or otherwise - will result in immediate disqualification. There is no mercy but that which you allow yourself by bowing out and being thus affixed to the Wall of Shame.  Rule 8, as of August 2ndI am sad. There are still people attempting to bug me about exactly how much combat their games can have. This post includes the exact amount down to font, type size and line spacing. I have posted examples, with pictures. I defined the term twice. This is not a matter which is in any sense unclear. Did you perhaps not read the rules? So from now on, I am instituting a new rule. I will interpret attempts to ask me about combat-related things that are already answered in the first two posts as attempts at ingratiating yourself with the judge. Anyone attempting to do so from now on will be labelled an Ingrate, and one Bonus (should they earn one) will be deducted in the final scoring of the game. You can now lose because you asked me a stupid question. SCORING Judgment will be imparted on each individual stage of the contest. Each stage will be judged on a scale of 0 to 10. When the final score is tallied, any stage of the contest you receive a 8+ score on will grant your final tally for the playtest a Bonus. The overall winner of the contest will be the one whose game has the most successful playtest, as judged by me, based on criteria like fun, clarity, achieving your original intent as outlined in the outline and so on. The exact scoring details will be posted after the August 24th deadline. In practice, this means that your final critera - the actual playtest and how your game performs in play - is the most important factor in your victory. However, doing well in all previous stages will be accounted for. The Bonuses you earn during the contest will break ties in the final stage. If your game scores an eight for its playtest and is tied for first place, you will win if your bonuses outnumber those of your competitor. And take note! You will be running each others' games, and I'm expecting everyone to play in the friendly spirit that this entails. If I detect that you're trying to sabotage a rival game by making it look bad, and I will, there will be dire consequences. If you score 0 on any of the stages, you are disqualified. The only way to do so is to outright ignore the rules of the contest or not hand anything in, so you probably weren't paying attention anyway. Judging criteria for the other modules will be made publically available in the following weeks. Each module will have a similar rating from 0 to 10. However, for each week I will be posting Optional Bonus Point awards for achieving certain Special Bonus Objectives. Meeting any, some or all of them awards you +1 point to your final score for that module. The maximum possible score remains ten, and to be clear, these bonus objectives are not cumulative awards - you technically only need to meet one, though meeting more is appreciated. These will be different for every week: You do not gain a bonus for meeting a previous week's goal in a later module. DETAILS FOR THE AUGUST 3RD OUTLINE Your Project Outline must contain no less than half a page of text and no more than five pages. If your organization involves wiki or google docs, I will copy the whole thing into Word in size 12 Times New Roman single column and line spacing and check for myself. More detailed and complete project outlines will be regarded more highly. In addition, you must include an ad blurb for your game consisting of no more than 250 words. I will be counting, and no you may not go "a little bit over". That results in an Ad Blurb score of 0. It may be presented seperately or as part of the full outline: however, it must be clearly marked as an ad blurb (title and mark not included in the total word count) and the actual outline must still fill half a page on its own. Your blurb is not an outline. The judgment rubric for the outline will be as follows: 1. How complete and detailed your outline is and how clear your goals for the game is. A good project outline is a strong step towards completion, and you can take that from someone who's been a finisher in two of these TGD contests in a row. You will be rated from 0 to 5, with points awarded for Clarity (how easy your outline is to understand for someone not privy to your thoughts), Completeness (How many of the required rules modules and their component elements you plan ahead) and Concept (not just how interesting it is, but also how interesting you make it seem). Completeness is worth up to three points, the other two up to one each. I will be posting no further guidelines as to what Completeness entails. 2. How engaging your ad blurb is. A bad blurb is one that starts on "I guess it's like a game of romance or something" and will rate low. A good blurb is like a tiny textual orgasm that starts off slow and builds to a climax. You will be rated from 0 to 5 based on the construction of your blurb. Your goal is to sell me on what your game is about, its concepts and on wanting to try it for myself. If you want to know more, there is plenty of information on what a good blurb entails available online and I will be posting no further guidelines on it in this thread. Depending on how many outlines I receive, these scores will be made available within the next ten days or so after the deadline in whatever order I wish, reviewed in a random order. I expect future entries to taper down as the collective goony failure mounts, so this will be faster for every subsequent stage. Bonus Objectives For Stage One 1. Get an Internet Famous designer dude like an OSR blogger, current professional game designer or a big dude on a gaming forum to comment on your outline in a public venue. Mikan does not count because that would be too easy. 2. Somehow involve Sportacus the Sport Elf of Lazytown fame, and his message of healthy living and going out to get some exercise instead of sitting inside playing games all day, in your project outline. The more on-topic the reference is, the better. 3. Post your outline within five minutes of Midnight GMT on either August 1st or August 3rd. I call this the "cheeky smartass award" for reasons which should be obvious. CURRENT ENTRIES: Remember, name and/or description before I make it official. Red_Mage: Amp 2 Amp LemonCurdistan: gently caress You Erick Wujcik Ettin: Retrocausality blastron: Justice Is Blind Druggeddwarf: The Last Days of the Meek gnome7: Dungeon Manager Ulta: Jurassic Central Park willing to settle and Helena P. Blavatsky: Arcana Flaky Biscuit: Intersector Comrade Gorbash: Ministry of Heaven Kwyndig: Emperor Mittens alakath: ThU/D: Deathrow LIVE! sc4rs: Arenaball Gau: Traceuse MadRhetoric: Nothing Amazing Happens Here (すごいことなくない) UberJew: Dis?Unity Auralsaurus Rex: Stock Sharks Glasgerion: Disarmament - the game of very polite atomic crisis THE WALL OF SHAME: Here belong the names of the shamed fallen. Esser managed to get himself disqualified before the contest even began by sassing me over the rules for dice. Sion and his game of ICE Breakers didn't even make it to August 1st. There is no shame but what you inflict on yourself, but Evil Sagan took it literally. GorfZaplen, PixelScum and Namagem had an episode together. It was all too much for Beer4TheBeerGod and WhitemageofDOOM. Benedict's popemobile did not save him. CloseFriend quit an hour before the first deadline. gently caress! ZenMasterBullshit became unstuck in time. Slor The Destroyer came and went. RPZip, FewtureMD, whoda thunkit, Undead Unicorn, Benagain, CHaKKaWakka, Fuchi and MadScientistWorking reenacted the Battle at Trencsén, but played the Hungarians. DocBubonic did not partake in the good cheer. piL was routed off the battlefield. bahamut's weapons failed him. HiKaizer, Mikan, GenericGirlName and Man-Thing REGRET THIS. TK-31 was lost in the darkest hour. thanthos, FM, PublicOpinion and Radioactive Bears were overrun by Confederates at Gainesville.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Now now, read the rules!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
homerlaw posted:I'm dumb Don't be discouraged! Not only were you caught in time, but in the way I like to see - by your fellow posters! You're perfectly allowed to ask each other questions and answer them, and in fact I encourage it. But I must remain a faceless lord, silently judging from on high. Go forth and make games.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
That is no problem at all! Part of what this contest entails is your ability to organize your rules in a way that makes sense for the game you're making. The full contents of what I expect from the final product are in rule 6, but ultimately how you decide to go about splitting your stuff into modules is your process to deal with. And you will be graded on how well it works, too. I suggest using your Outline/Design Document to plan this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Benedict posted:Quick clarification query. DM advice and any other advice you see fit to mention, yes. A "How to play/Run this game" bit will not go amiss. Yes, that can mean a "what is Roleplaying?" section. What these vague unhelpful instructions actually mean is left as an exercise for the contestants.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
You had not officially entered, so ZeeToo narrowly escapes The Wall of Shame. Did I not mention? One way trip, everybody.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
This question is actually hard for me to answer, mostly because it affects who and what I can disqualify, as well as rulings I have already made. But this contest is about the games first. They are the objective and the reason the contest exists. So here is my ultimate and absolutely fair ruling. Every game must be playtested. Every game must have its author/s run at least one playtest: that's one playtest total, not one for each author. This means that if you have multiple games, you yourself must still only run one playtest, but you must get each game you make playtested. This impacts the rules for disqualification. Thus far I have focused on disqualifying authors. How then does this impact people signing up with multiple games? My answer: In the case of an author having multiple games, you are only disqualified from the contest if all your games fail to meet standards. I already pity you enough for trying to juggle two games in a single month. If a game with multiple authors does not make the cut, both authors are disqualified. And if one author of a game makes me cross enough, I will disqualify that author and anything that has their name attached to it, even if the other author has done no particular wrong. But at least they escape the Wall of Shame! However, I will now impose a hard limit. There is now a hard cap of at most two authors per game, and two games per author. The original rules will be amended to reflect this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
There is no tentative stepping. There is only the Wall of Shame, silently judging you. ONE WAY. Though Evil Mastermind narrowly escapes it through proper management of time, well done.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Gau posted:Another question that occurred to me while sifting through ideas: does the idea have to be publishable? Specifically, can it use an intellectual property or component that requires licensing? I was going to point to rule 2 ("You have to be original") and be cross, but... Red_Mage posted:I will think less of you if you don;t have signed permission to use IP that isn't yours. ...this is a much more hilarious solution. If you somehow manage to get signed permission or even a license, yes, you may use an extant IP. Otherwise, my rule 2 is so strict that you can't even use open source. And, of course, I don't mind ones where the serial numbers are filed off (see Lemon Curdistan's entry). Red_Mage gave you reprieve today, Gau. You should thank him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:Oh goddamnit, how did I miss that someone else was already doing a lawyer game? Oh, I'll give everyone time to do that until August 3rd at the latest. Or until you turn in your outline, whichever comes first. That's only... fair. e: And also, to be... fair, overlap is hardly unexpected or punishable with Shame. Legal drama is, well, dramatic! I'm just surprised there hasn't been a medical drama.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Oh, deary deary dear.quote:[20:48] <sion> add too many rules Sion, I believe this is yours.  What shame, what shame. But whining about the rules is, in the infinite wisdom in which they were written, against the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
 A busy day.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
No disqualifications recently! Well done. That it has been due to few posts, well, that is not so much to my taste. We're also closing in on the first official day where you are allowed to post your game outline, so if you're thinking about entering you should probably make a final decision sooner rather than later. However, if you feel you're too full of empty chatter that isn't appropriate for this thread and are therefore not posting, simply go to synIRC and join #tradgamesdesign via your favorite IRC ritual and let the discussion flow.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
No problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 12:20
|
|
|
You don't appear to have officially signed up, so well done! You have shown considerable wisdom. There is a recent trend of questions, however, which I do want to address. And then I never want to address it again. That is the question of defining dice. Specifically, whether coins count as dice for this contest. This is a really, really silly question. Dice are dice, and coins are coins. How is a coin a die in anyone's mind? Is it that some games refer to it as a "d2"? I can refer to a deck of cards as a "d52", but that will not make it a die any more than slapping a "d" on a coin makes it a die. And yet I have had this question many, many times. What a confusion of ideas! So no, coins are not dice. Dice are dice. Take the rule as literally as it is given. The next person to ask this question after this particular clarification will be disqualified on the spot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Some of you may now be fiercely counting the hours. This link may prove useful for those who are concerned with or confused by time zones. Remember, no final outline submissions before midnight! It has to actually be August 1st by GMT standard, even if only by a minute.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
It is now midnight of August 1st in GMT. Rev your pretty posting rigs. e: And Ettin is so cheeky that he gets the bonus for posting before I did, but still technically on midnight! Well done.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
And the five minute cheeky-window is officially out! The next cheeky window will be five minutes before midnight, lest there be any confusion, of the final submission date. Let's see those outlines!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
  I have cut out the bits where there are excuses. I've got my eye on you, GenericGirlName. You will not escape so lightly again.  Wish granted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
I am very glad for those who have posted outlines! They are interesting and the reviews, I trust, will be edifying. And yet, I am sad. There are still people attempting to bug me about exactly how much combat their games can have. The second post includes the exact amount down to font, type size and line spacing. I have posted examples, with pictures. I defined the term twice. This is not a matter which is in any sense unclear. Did you perhaps not read the rules? So from now on, I am instituting a new rule. I will interpret attempts to ask me about combat-related things that are already answered in the first two posts as attempts at ingratiating yourself with the judge. Anyone attempting to do so from now on will be labelled an Ingrate, and one Bonus (should they earn one) will be deducted in the final scoring of the game. You can now lose because you asked me a stupid question.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Radioactive Bears posted:FYI, everybody that hasn't posted yet has less than 18 hours now till the deadline ends. This was my initial assessment. However, I have realized that I have left this deadline ambiguous in the original post. And in this one case, in the interest of having a better contest, I'm ruling in the contestants' favor! So I'm giving everyone until midnight of August 3rd, inclusive. The deadline will remain open right up until the minute it's August 4th, GMT. That gives everyone 34 hours as of the time of writing. And from now on, this will be the policy for all deadlines: They open on 00:00 of the day they begin, and close on 24:00 of the day they end. e: Oh, and I won't judge your entry until the deadline closes, either. If you want to make adjustments until then, you have time. Radioactive Bears! does this Rookies outline replace your original SUPER DIMENSIONAL DREAM!! Twilight Armageddon, or is it in addition to it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
  There is no greater obstacle than what we set for ourselves.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
No cheeky bastards for another 24 hours!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
 Real life poo poo indeed, your Holiness. I invite you all to count the minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
There are now just under two hours. And I know there are some aiming for a Cheeky bonus. It's simple, really. Post your game in the period from 23:55 to 24:00 GMT. If you miss this by even a minute past midnight, you're outright disqualified. Good luck to everyone still working!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
 To become unstuck in time is no mean feat. But you may post and discuss it as you like anyway! Speaking of time, the final five minute Cheeky Bastard window is open! Make good use of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
And Closed! Anyone posting an outline after this post is disqualified.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
So we end the first deadline with over thirty entries still in the running, at least until I find out that one of the entries thus far did something completely wrong like not having an ad blurb or having their ad blurb be too big. To everyone who has submitted an outline, you have survived into the second phase! And from now on, the ground rules are somewhat different. You have suffered my rule, and now it is time to stand your ground. I will not be posting any guidelines beyond what I've already posted under the rules for what I want to see in your modules. It is up to you to organize them, write them, and then convince me of how well your creativity, layout and writing works. It is your game, not mine: Convince me that you are right about your game. You have until August 10th, 24:00 hours, to give me your first complete module. Along with the module, you will post your reasoning for why you did the module in the way you did, either in the module itself or in its accompanying post. I will be scoring you on this module from 1-10, granting a bonus for a score of 8+ just as for the Project Outline. I will be reviewing all of the outlines in the next few days. The scoring criteria will be Clarity of Content and Readability. That means writing your game in a way I understand quickly, and for having rules that aren't dense or are easy to read without having my eyes glaze over. Yes, this is subjective. Aren't we all glad that you won't lose from just a low score. And of course there will be Bonus Objectives! Remember that the bonus objectives for the Outline do not apply for this or any subsequent phase of the contest. Otherwise, the same rules apply: You get a +1 bonus to your score for meeting any of them, but they're not cumulative. Bonus Objectives for the August 10th DeadlineThe theme for this week's bonus objectives will be Creativity. It is time to stop thinking and start creating! 1. Depict your game through an original work of art, such as a painting, a photograph, a piece of music or similar. The only restriction is that you cannot use digital/photoshop works. 2. Achieve Maximum 90's Game Designer Smug. Include an essay of no less than 100 words on how your game is the most original role-playing game to ever hit the market (unlike all those uncreative competitors). 3. Make at least twenty pages worth of game in this module, maximum letter size 14, 1.5 line spacing. And try not to suffer a hard drive failure midway through. Disqualifications for failing to meet the August 3rd deadline and first Outline scores will follow tomorrow and in the following days. Avete Vos!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
The only digital means you may use are those needed to record your creation, such as a camera or similar. Analog arts and crafts rule this day, and that means breaking out the pencils and pianos! And it seems I'll do one last duty today.  I see you signed up just to take part, Slor The Destroyer. Commendable in its own right, I suppose. But signing on half an hour late will not cut it. You are free to discuss the contest games, even make your game, but you will not officially be part of the contest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Time for a little cleanup. Reviews for outlines are forthcoming, but don't hesitate to post your progress even if you haven't seen yours reviewed yet.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
First Ten Outline Scores Before the reviews proper begin, let me quote the guideline and scoring rules I posted when the contest was launched. quote:Your Project Outline must contain no less than half a page of text and no more than five pages. If your organization involves wiki or google docs, I will copy the whole thing into Word in size 12 Times New Roman single column and line spacing and check for myself. More detailed and complete project outlines will be regarded more highly. In addition, you must include an ad blurb for your game consisting of no more than 250 words. I will be counting, and no you may not go "a little bit over". That results in an Ad Blurb score of 0. It may be presented seperately or as part of the full outline: however, it must be clearly marked as an ad blurb (title and mark not included in the total word count) and the actual outline must still fill half a page on its own. Your blurb is not an outline. It immediately came to my attention how many people missed the most important factor: that this is a project outline, an outline for the entire process of writing, planning the different modules and similar, which means planning not just the game but the process of writing the game. As this forms completeness, and completeness is a large part of the score, that may prove problematic. However, that alone does not disqualify you from the contest, so you may breathe easier. After all, how amazing is it that I managed to get a bunch of presumably grown adults to hamfistedly force Sportacus into their games? That puts me in a good mood, let me tell you. Scores will be from 0-10, and any result of 8 or higher earns you a Bonus in the final round. So, time to begin. Ten outlines will be posted today, chosen at random. GenericGirlName's Sugar Cube Quest The ad blurb is short, but amusing. It doesn't quite work to grab me, however, and it's somewhat unclear whether you are collecting sugar cubes yourself or whether your character is - or both. In any case, the blurb could be improved by referencing the specific procedure of play less and hyping up what you do to gain sugar cubes - rather than going over the roles, focus on what the roles, and therefore players, do as those roles, and also why. Ad Blurb Score: 3 The outline is very clear about what it wants to accomplish and why. It also covers procedure of play. The roles are a little unclear, with terms being somewhat undefined. For instance, "Sugar Cube Quest is played with a single deck that takes on two roles". What roles? And how (and why) can it be replaced with a standard deck of playing cards? Most things are relatively clear from the context, though. There is no plan as to how the project will be written and the rules divided, though the overview of the rules themselves is fair. All in all, it's an odd little concept that doesn't rely on a setting to make itself work. You're on a quest for sugar cubes, now go quest! I like it. It even goes so far as to make Sportacus an active part of the rules and makes it work. Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 6 + 1 Sportacus bonus = 7. Just a little more effort! Lemon Curdistan's gently caress You Erick Wujcik The ad blurb promises me a teenage drama/Canterbury Tales style roundtrip-storytelling version of Amber. I love it. It draws in the customer by telling them how they relate to the product, and is like a miniature story all on its own. One mark against it is mentioning what is technically a competing product in one that is meant to sell yours, but it's hardly avoidable what with the game's name and all. I'll be excited to see this game deliver. Ad Blurb score: 4 The outline is sparse but says what it wants to say efficiently. It does cover procedure of play, and the concept is very interesting (an overtly competitive game as well, very fitting) but there is no plan for how to achieve the goal of writing the project beyond an overview of the rules. Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 4+3 = 7. No compromise of the artistic vision by mentioning an Icelandic health elf, but also no bonus earned. I'll leave it to the author to decide whether that is worth it. willing to settle and Helena P. Blavatsky's Arcana BAM. YOU are a wizard. Strong opening, leading to a hilarious setup. Short, snappy sentences carry the momentum set by the opening line. The ending doesn't have nearly the punch of the opening, but I can't deny that it's an effective blurb. Ad Blurb score: 4 The entire rest of the outline is like an ad blurb itself, which is not bad at all! It's clear about what it wants to achieve without being bogged down in any kind of mechanics language at this early stage, and it sells the concept thoroughly. However, it does not plan out the project itself beyond a basic overview of the rules and procedure of play. Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 4+3= 7. So close. So close. Ettin's Retrocausality Even if this game weren't within the first cheeky window (by somehow managing to stay inside it before I posted about it, no less), this blurb would manage to practically fill that gap on its own. It starts slow and builds up well, and my god how many dinosaur jokes can you plausibly fit into 250 words? It catches my interest, it's funny, it involves the reader, and it promises wild things. The one criticism I have is that it's a bit of a rollercoaster rather than a buildup towards a single conclusion, but that's not a big problem. Ad Blurb score: 4 This outline is very clear on its goals, it goes over its basic mechanics and procedure of play, it maps out the entire competition ahead of time, and isn't this just about the perfect game to do that in? It remains interesting and funny, with references to what can be used (and notably what will not be) and lays out alternate concepts which can be used, drawn on or discarded as the project evolves. Not just the game, but the process of making the game. Exactly as the doctor ordered. Outline score: 5 Final Score: 4+5 +1 amazing Sportacus reference/Cheeky Bastard = 10. Retrocausality earns a Bonus. Auralsaurus Rex's Stock Sharks The blurb certainly involves the reader. It doesn't do much to sell me on the game, but the idea of the game directly addressing the reader like a friend isn't bad at all. It starts off strong, stumbles over itself a little bit, then picks up after the drunkeness bit to a reasonable conclusion. Ad Blurb score: 3 The outline covers how the game will play, the basic rules concepts (with notes that it's not set in stone - smart planning) and lays out a barebones plan for the future. Very bare bones. It's there, but there's not a lot to it. That still merits recognition. Outline Score: 4 Final Score: 3+4 +1 Sportacus/Cheeky Bastard = 8. Stock Sharks earns a Bonus. TK-31's Psychodrive I can't help but feel that this blurb would be more effective if the first sentence were cut, or moved to the end. Draw the audience in before trying to sell them your product! The sentences run on just a little too long, and the payoff doesn't grab me much: it's a little too middle-of-the-road all the way through. Ad Blurb score: 3 The outline itself also hedges its bets a little too much. It talks about what the author wants to do, but won't do here, or how this is all really important (I guess), or making your destiny (whether you like it or not). It's clear (although terms are defined a little out of order), but it doesn't feel enthused about what it wants to do. It does thoroughly plan ahead, complete with examples, rules and play procedures, so full marks there: the one area it has trouble is in selling me on it. Outline Score: 4 Final Score: 3+4 +1 Cheeky Bonus = 8. Psychodrive earns a Bonus. self_invention's Earth Needs Rock Stars A great blurb, first from a point-of-view character who builds it up as a blurb should, then an overview of the setting built in the same way, continuing naturally from the first. I have just one complaint: The blurb isn't specifically marked as such, as was requested, so that drops the score by one. Whoops! Ad Blurb Score: 4 But drat does the document not let go anyway. The rules are a bit bare bones but they catch my interest, and the rest becomes more or less a table of contents minus the contents. There is also no plan to divide the rules into modules. At least I'm sold on the concept! Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 3+4= 7. You include Jem and the Holograms but not Sportacus, and alas only an Icelandic elf counts towards the bonus. Radioactive Bears' The Rookies "A Diceless RPG by Radioactive Bears" indeed. Dare you to quote that one out of context. Hell yes sports movies. What a way to kick your audience right in the combined nerd inferiority complex and following up with a shot at their nostalgia. It communicates what you do in the game without ever once specifically referring to anything but the theme of the game, and that's quite something. Short, easily grasped eye-catching sentences with a payoff at the end. Ad Blurb score: 5. The outline catches my interest, promising an interesting system for meeting the themes of what it's emulating rather than trying to stat out the minutiae. It covers basic gameplay and rules, but there is no plan for how to proceed or split this concept into separate modules from this point on. The fact that the sports RPG managed to avoid invoking Sportacus is amazing to me, by the way. Outline score: 3. Final Score: 5+3= 8. Without invoking a single bonus objective, The Rookies earns itself a Bonus. Red_Mage's Amp 2 Amp Well that's a -1 for not specifically marking the Ad Blurb. The outline does build up very well, written like the concept of a scene in a movie or in a manner meant to make the audience visualize it and using words like a drumbeat to emphasize everything, but the entire thing is just a block of text. An effective blurb, but marred. This should have been a clear 4 or 5. Ad Blurb score: 3 The outline has an interesting collection of titles and... yeah. Some of them don't even have vague references to what will be in them. I'm interested, but it doesn't do much to feed my interest. The concept itself is rocking, making a game out of another game in a way only geeks can. But there is no plan on how the project - or even the game itself - will proceed! I am not at all clear on much of anything here. Well, besides what I presume the author considers important: the bit where you play Guitar Hero! Outline Score: 2 Final Score: 3+2 = 5. A bumpy start for this garage band. Flaky Biscuit's Intersector Wow. Yeah, okay, you got me. Short, powerful sentences constructed in a fairly classical rhetorical style. Tossing out concepts and ideas that drag you in, begging for an explanation, each building on the last. Involving the audience in the mix halfway through, carrying towards the conclusion, ending on a question the game will presumably help you answer. Alternately, this blurb might cause someone to recoil from sheer perceived pretentiousness immediately upon contact! I can't give this less than full marks as an ad blurb. I don't think this could do anything but provoke a strong reaction in the audience, whether good or bad. Ad Blurb score: 5 Aaand where's my explanation, damnit. Talk about tossing someone straight into the pool! I'm interested, the concept is fascinatingly weird, but it doesn't really work with me to clarify itself! There's an overview of the rules which I can technically work my way through (emphasis on work), and what is there is interesting, but there is no plan of action to go forward and finish the project. The only thing I know is that I want to learn more, and there's no helpful button to push to get it. Outline Score: 2 Final Score: 5+2 + Cheeky Bonus = 8. I don't even understand it, but Intersector still earns a Bonus. And that's ten outlines reviewed. I'll do no more today to make things fair for everyone else, but I feel we're off to a great start. Hopefully, these outlines will aid the authors and everyone else in proceeding as planned. Assuming you planned, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
 Can't even hand out bonuses without a disqualification, can I?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Ten Outline Reviews It's time for the next ten reviews. But a note: If you're waiting for your outline to be reviewed before continuing, don't. You're losing valuable time worrying over little. Kwyndig's Emperor Mittens This ad blurb is minimally descriptive, but it's just not very good at selling me on serving a psychic cat emperor. What does Mittens want? What does he do? Why do people compete to serve him? How do they do this? What is a Region and why do I choose it? With 250 words to work with, a few more could have been spent to spruce this up beyond the absolute minimum. Ad Blurb score: 2 The game outline itself reminds me somewhat of a game designed to play a petty bureaucrat from China who will one day be deposed by a daring band of xia out for vengeance. And that's not a bad thing! Domain management is a neat area of RPGs that isn't too often (or well) explored. However, the terms are undefined for the most part throughout the document, making it a little unclear (I didn't even understand that it was a game of domain management until almost halfway through!) and there is no plan for how the game will continue to be written. Outline score: 2 Final Score: 2+2 = 4. Not a bad concept, probably not a bad game when it is made, but this outline is slapdash. Gau's Traceuse -1 for not specifically marking the ad blurb, I'm afraid. A short but interesting piece, immediately establishing important things and concepts. Given a couple of rewrites, the blurb itself could be made to run where it jogs. Ad Blurb score: 3 It seems Gau had a newer outline posted, so I have revised this section. This outline now covers basic play much more thoroughly (which is to say at all). Now I'm far more sold on the concepts presented, and the gameplay outline grabs me really well. Trying to simulate the feel of running in a game like this is a great objective. It still doesn't plan the other modules, but it's far better than the original. Outline score: 3 Final Score: 3+3 = 6. Better, but not perfect. This would be a seven if not for a missing label! Ulta's Jurassic Central Park What can I say? This game, its concept and its blurb has captured the hearts and mouths of hungry gamers already. It's short and funny but cuts off rather abruptly in what feels like the middle. Ad Blurb score: 4 The concept is tight, I can't deny that. I look forward to any playtest recording being absolutely disgusting. The concept is summed up in a series of clear bullet points that tell me what the game is about. What I am not as clear on is whether the three sections outlined for the rules are meant to be a plan for how to write the game. I take it as such, but award it a -1 penalty for being unclear. Outline score: 4 Final Score: 4+4 +1 Sportacus = 9. Jurassic Central Park earns a delicious Bonus. Mikan's Roster Interesting? It's not every day I see a game try to sell me on the idea of ruining my life. It also doesn't tell me what the Roster is, other than a ticket to potential greatness. In this case, the blurb is based on the deliberate withholding of information to catch interest. It's not perfect, but it works. Ad Blurb score: 4 The outline itself is functional and direct about what it intends and why, with a nice overview of how the game is envisioned to work (if not a 100% complete one). There is no plan for how the modules will be written. I like the concept, but it doesn't do a lot to sell itself to me. Outline score: 3 Final score: 4+3 +1 irl Sportacus = 8. Roster writes itself a Bonus. PublicOpinion's The Mage-Lords of Arymavon It's quick, it's short, and half of it is trying to sell me on the specific mechanical implementation rather than the game and its themes. It works, but it could be made to be so much better. Ad Blurb score: 3 The outline itself runs on a little bit, but it covers the procedures of play, some basic rules and, impressively for this competition, a to-do list. It's not the to-do list I wanted, but it gets a point anyway. The idea of three-stooges style game of powerful wizards is funny and interesting, and the game is very clear on what it wants to accomplish. Outline score: 4 Final Score: 3+4 = 7. Just a bonus objective away. UberJew's Dis?Unity I almost missed where it specifically marked the ad blurb. This is a good format for an ad blurb, but the specific emphasis could use a little work. "It is the height of the Cold War" has a harder punch than "That's only if you can hold the country together", y'know? Still a strong effort with short, clear sentences. Ad Blurb score: 4 It doesn't cover procedure of play, but it does mention what it needs to accomplish in its rules modules. It's not a perfect plan, but it's a plan. It goes over what will work, what to avoid, has an interesting concept and doesn't mince words. Outline Score: 4 Final Score: 4+4 = 8. No bonus objectives, but Dis?Unity earns a Bonus for keeping it together. Man-Thing's That's a bit too much of the "short chat in elevator" tone. "Designed as a game to be played over the course of a night, say at a wine party or Smash Brothers get-together" doesn't work for me at all. It carries the concepts across, but as a blurb to sell me the game it could use a complete reconstruction from the ground up. Ad Blurb score: 2 The outline itself is clear, has a strong concept and outlines basic play procedure, but I suppose the actual plan of how to accomplish it got bogged in red tape (or some other such clever pun on municipal politics). The cards are a very nice touch, and show considerable effort and care, but the outline itself is lacking. Outline score: 3 Final score: 2+3 = 5. You won't REGRET THIS, I hope. Radioactive Bears' Super Dimensional Dream!! Twilight Armageddon For some reason I was expecting Super Robots. I suppose a dream realm works too. Honestly, the biggest problem this blurb has isn't to do with the blurb itself, but with the title of the game. It feels like a thematic mismatch. It also doesn't quite know how it wants to end. Ad Blurb score: 3 This outline is detailed and clear, confident on its concepts and has a clear idea of what it wants to accomplish. It doesn't plan out the modules, but it's obvious the author has a clear concept of what they want the game to do when it's finished. Thematic elements, procedure of play, core mechanics and mechanical addons are all detailed well. Outline Score: 4 Final Score: 3+4 = 7. That title, man. sc4rs' Arenaball I like how this blurb starts out by grounding you in a near-future sport and then suddenly BAM world peace, gang wars and performance enhancers. And then you're tossed into that mix and told to do well, which is also fun! The sentences could be made shorter and the whole blurb a little more exciting to really catch the sports feel, but that's my only criticism. Ad Blurb score: 4 The blurb covers its plans for the future (with a hilarious note on it being under construction - well yeah!), its core mechanics, its setting, the expected procedure of play... it's a thorough, detailed plan. The one problem is that it runs on a little bit in places, but it covers everything it was supposed to and does it well. Outline score: 5 Final Score: 4+5 +1 Sportacus/Cheeky bonus = 10. Arenaball shoots and scores a Bonus. MadRhetoric's Nothing Amazing Happens Here (すごいことなくない) Oh the humdrum existance of a person who lives in the intersection between at least four different animes. It gets the point it wants to across, but the problem with trying to depict crushing apathy is that it can come off as apathetic and unexciting. That's good when building towards a theme, not so good when it comes to selling people a game. Still, it makes it work in its favor by sprinkling exciting things and depicting them as grey and lifeless. Ad Blurb score: 4 The outline covers what the game is about and how it's meant to go... up to a point. After the basic overview, it lists chapters and titles without really mentioning what will go in them, and also doesn't plan its modules ahead. It does maintain a funny consistent tone throughout, though. Outline score: 3 Final Score: 4+3 +1 Sportacus (and how everyone feels about the dude) = 8. Nothing Amazing Happens Here earns a Bonus, if it cares about that sort of thing. For my next batch, I'll finish off the rest of the entries. If you don't see yours reviewed yet, again, don't let that stop you or drag you down. Keep working on your thing!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
And all the reviews I hadn't done yet are in this post! I somehow expected more wailing, gnashing of teeth and  between posts.thanthos' Lil' Eldritch Horrors (and its Outline) This is by far the strangest premise I've read in this contest. Sort of a cross between Call of Cthulhu and Baby Geniuses, with you playing as the horror-baby? That is weird. So it's a good thing that the blurb establishes this succinctly, clearly and entertainingly for its potential audience! It has a few too many run-on sentences, but it's good nonetheless. Ad Blurb score: 4 The outline lays out not just a basic overview of the rules, but also a set of goals to design towards. It does not plan the competition out in terms of modules, but it's a good list and a good overview with a strange but interesting premise. Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 4+3 = 7. Sacrificing Sportacus for tone gets you close, but not close enough. Capfalcon's Road Trip -1 for not specifically marking the ad blurb. Now I know I've criticized other games for doing this, but Road Trip's blurb focusing on mechanics is actually not a bad choice - you already know what a road trip is and what it entails. It could afford to tie the mechanics a little more closely to what we consider familiar road-trip elements, however, and it feels a little lifeless. Ad Blurb score: 3 Now I'm guessing that the "steps" here are supposed to be the modules. However, it's all a little opaque to me, so it loses out in clarity. The basic system itself is much more clear, as is the description of how play is intended to proceed. And finally, you're welcome for learning more about Icelandic sports elves. Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 3+3+1 Sportacus' mysterious past = 7. A single label away. gnome7's Dungeon Manager: A King's Reward I'm a sucker for a bit of domain management and I love me some dungeon keeper. This blurb doesn't really add to my already extant interest or make me particularly excited about this version of those concepts, and is just a little bit stilted. It's a good start of a blurb which could use some rewriting. Ad Blurb score: 3 This is an outline? This is practically an entire game system! I'll give it a point for effort, even if the modules are not planned, but it also earns a -2 penalty for exceeding the space limit I set for the outline - no more than five pages for the outline itself! Outline score: 2 Final score: 3+2 +1 Sportacus = 6. This would have been a bonus if it had followed the rules. bahamut's Something Wicked This Way Comes (and Outline) Drop the entire first paragraph. I understand that it's trying for a sort of comedic tone, but undercutting the product doesn't really work unless you do it throughout the entire blurb, and its tone clashes with the rest of the text quite a bit. I really, really like this premise of the horrible human family and the tiny people who have to deal with them, and aside from the first paragraph it's a well constructed text, but that first one is doing it no favors. It would probably have been a five without it. Ad Blurb score: 4 Well, this outline is minimal, but it's clear, it explains a little bit on the rules and the passive-aggressive style without devolving the game into some kind of player-on-player antagonism is excellent. No plan for modules, however, holds it back as it does so many others. Outline score: 3 Final Score: 4+3 = 7. Up the ante, and down the unneeded paragraphs! Druggeddwarf's The Last Days of the Meek Bullying, huh? Well it's not the first time I've seen an RPG deal with internal issues. This one takes it to an almost supernatural level, casting the problem as a faceless evil. The blurb is interesting, but it doesn't explain the game itself all that well and the formatting could use a little work. Ad Blurb score: 4 I like that one of the listed goals of this outline is to get rid of the Stupid Newbie avatar. That is dedication to a theme right there. It's a great plan with dos, do nots and an overview of what can go into the game, but it doesn't plan the modules ahead. Outline score: 3 Final score: 4+3 = 7. Fight on. alakath's Deathrow LIVE! I advise everyone to check this document out if you haven't already. Although the three-column formatting annoyes me a little in the outline section, it's certainly clear enough! The blurb itself is very good - I'm awarding it a full five. Short, punchy sentences which introduce quickly grasped concepts, laced with humor throughout. The one criticism I have is with the formatting, but in this case that's not much of a problem so much as a stylistic quibble. Ad Blurb score: 5 The outline covers the basic rules (the system evokes a Roman gladiator feel which helps the theme along), the themes the game is going for, a sneaky (sp)ortacus reference, and the casting of the GM as the announcer of the games is inspired. Added to this is a full plan of what will be posted and when. Outline score: 5 Final Score: 5+5 +1 cheeky/mortacus = 11, but the max is 10. A unanimous thumbs up grants Deathrow LIVE! a bonus. FM's Due Process -1 for not specifically marking the ad blurb. It's an ad blurb which will remind people of the Devil's Advocate, and therefore Keanu Reeves. Even so, it's a strong blurb which poses a moral dilemma to the audience, always a gamble but great when it pays off. Ad Blurb score: 4 Well, it's drat detailed, I'll give it that. Even so, it lacks a plan for the modules. I think a lot of work will go into making this system as clear as it possibly can be, but I understood it just fine this time around. The aspect of using a big hefty book of rules as a randomizer appeals to me for some strange reason. Outline Score: 3 Final Score: 4+3 +1 Cheeky bonus = 8. By the book, Due Process earns itself a Bonus. Comrade Gorbash's Ministry of Heaven It's like someone read Exalted, discovered the Sidereals and said "This could be an actually good game". And if you don't understand that sentence, be glad. A good consistent tone, lots of neat words and concepts tossed out rapidfire, involving the customer with the product, it's all present. I feel it peters out a little towards the end, though. Ad Blurb score: 4 Small, clear, basic. It doesn't outline all of its specific mechanics in detail, but it probably doesn't need to. There's a strong plan for how to proceed from concept to game from week to week, leaving space for whatever odd things come up during the design process. A good outline. Outline score: 5 Final Score: 4+5 +1 Cheeky = 10. His most Excellent Divine Minister of the Workman's Comp Bonus hands one out to Ministry of Heaven. Glasgerion's Disarmament Hm. Something about this blurb confuses me a little. Maybe it's that the transition from term to abbreviation is a little abrupt? I know I stopped reading it halfway through to remind myself what a CBC was. Other than that, it doesn't really feel like it's building towards an exciting climax, more like a laying out of basic facts delivered in a fairly standard way. Could use more work. Ad Blurb score: 3 It took me a second to understand what a "TBD chance mechanic" was - to be decided, hah. This document is a little unclear, but it covers basic rules and gameplay but does not plan its modules ahead. I do like the concept as presented, even if it is a little confusing. Outline score: 2 Final Score: 3+2 +1 Cheeky bonus = 6. A gem in need of refinement. I think that is all of the outlines, though I could be wrong - I am currently battling a fever. Let me know if so, and I will remedy this. Congratulations to everyone who earned a bonus, and I hope this will motivate everyone to craft their games well. (If the impending lash will not, of course.) I'll also take this opportunity to clarify something. From now on, it's up to you to justify your game to me, not for me to prescribe what shape your game can take. Therefore, if you feel that your game is complete in just one module, you can post it by August 10th and remain in the competition through the other deadlines as long as you explain your reasoning. Similarly, if you feel it's a complete game in just two modules, you can state that on August 17th. However, after that point, you can post no further modules. You lose out on chances to earn further (or any) tie-breaking Bonuses for the final act. You may perform minor edits up until August 24th, but no more. The question isn't whether I accept your game, but rather whether you are confident enough in what you're presenting to carry you through the entire competition. I leave that choice to you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:I've heard a few complaints that my game Intersector is a bit hard to follow. In an effort to clarify what it's going for, I've created an additional ad blurb that will (with any luck) be easier to understand. As always, I strive for the largest possible audience. Tio estas mirinda kaj bela.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
I did miss blastron's outline! It also brings us up to an even 30 entries, which is excellent. blastron's Justice is Blind Hm. First, -1 for not labeling the blurb. A little shortening of a couple of those sentences, a little less stilted language, maybe an exclamation mark or two after the more dramatic lines, and this would be a great blurb. Compare "sworn to find the absolute truth behind each case such that the correct verdict may be delivered." to "Sworn to find the absolute truth behind every case so that the correct verdict can be delivered!" It's a good skeleton of a blurb, but not a great one. Ad Blurb score: 3 The outline itself is a basic system overview which is fairly clear and lays out the basic expectations in the system. Having players form both the defense and the prosecution without making the game antagonistic is also interesting. However, it lacks an overview of where to proceed from there and any information on future modules. Outline score: 3 Final Score: 3+3 = 6. You'll get to the bottom of this one yet. So many courtroom games! I do admit that it's a good source of structured conflict and drama. What I wasn't expecting was so many different takes on it, even if they've been whittled down. To anyone who scored low, don't be discouraged. At least one game that I rated low in the outline has already entered playtesting and seen improvements! Ultimately, the playtest is what determines the winner.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Hm. I marked you down as done for some reason, HiKaizer. Turns out that it's because I wrote your review but didn't paste it in with the others. Naturally, I am infallible and therefore terrorists are to blame. Vote to continue the war forever. HiKaizer's Confucius Says: Don't Wake Up! This blurb is a little run-on and stilted. It gets the game's concepts across, but not entirely clearly or quickly. If we look at it as a customer in a store, it's not a blurb that hooks me quickly or that is entirely simple to read. There is also the bit on stealing into other people's dreams, which is a bit of a weird solution to the proposed problem that isn't really explained. Ad Blurb score: 3 I am counting the "final document" as a plan of the modules in this instance, albeit not a very detailed one. Now the fortune cookie mechanic, that hooks me as a concept more than the blurb did! This is likely to involve some crazy fortune-cookie dream logic. Along with an overview of how play is expected to proceed, this is a fairly complete but undetailed outline that suffers a little bit from misplacement of the common comma. Outline score: 4 Final score: 3+4 +1 Sportacus = 8. Confucius says, this game earned itself an elf bonus. Hope the bonus was worth the wait. e: There was also one last thing, now that I think of it. One blurb I left undone and could not remember why. But now I do!  A shameful display.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
 It's begun, though not yet known. Anabar Thy'lend. Chain of Dogs in the Malazan tongue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2012 05:59
|
|