Ok so here's the basic premise. A games design contest progresses as normal, then...
After the game rankings are in from the judges, a playtest period of 3 months follows.
The winner's game gets played by the runners up, the runners up games get played by the third tier games and they get played by the plebeian games. No one has to playtest the plebs games. Then the second phase of the competition on who does the best AP playtest write up. Then announce grand winners and final rankings.
The comp could even have a rolling playtest award thing - the best AP playtest every 3 months wins a playtest next quarter. And can rise up the rankings. How cool would that be!
Joe thinks that the M@ke game$ fast contest will be too small to accommodate such an ambitious concept. I suspect he may be right (and a book on spam is alluring enough). But for a bigger contest whaddya think guys?
[edit: posted on Storygames too]
I like the idea...
Submitted by Graham W on Sun, 14/10/2007 - 20:08.
...but I think someone should playtest the plebs games. I like it when it's a communal thing. If it's that competitive, I'd shy away from entering.
Graham
I agree that there should be
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Sun, 14/10/2007 - 21:08.
I agree that there should be a mechanism for testing the games at the 'pleb' level (as you so kindly put it!). I've often found that, as in many things, there are fashions within the entries in games design contests and sometimes there are non-winning entires that are far more interesting (to me) than some winning entries.
I do agree that actual play should become a fundamental part of games design contests. Too many games are created and then discarded at the end of a contest (I've been guilty of that myself).
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
They should force the folk
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Sun, 14/10/2007 - 22:30.
They should force the folk at the top to playtest the lowest tier games! Punishment detail.
My one general concern with Game Chef type competitions is that you are vulnerable to who gets to mark your game (and whether you get a tough marker, others get a softer marker, or vice versa), and a fair bit of politics and popularity contests can also come into determining the winner (or even finalists).
wussies
Submitted by JoE PrincE on Mon, 15/10/2007 - 12:41.
Aww. Why can't the Olympics just give everyone gold medals for trying...
How about plebian games are those that are unfinished or unplayable at the close of the comp?
Yes there needs to be a decent judging system for this to work. Probably should start another thread on what that would look like.
There is no ban on playtesting pleb games, just no obligation. That's what you get in every design comp currently - even if you win.
This idea is to make the competition focus on actual play and commit to the playtesting component of game design. It would ensure that the prizes meant something.
I'm assuming a lot of people will drop out from the lower tiers, but you can improve your ranking by feedback and playtesting.
+++
JoE
+++
Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....
Can't help but agree about
Submitted by Destriarch on Thu, 18/10/2007 - 19:20.
Can't help but agree about the whole popularity contest thing. Last Gamechef I took part in I got criticised for not including about eight different rules that were clearly noted in the product. Reckon the reviewer didn't bother to read it all 'cause it was a really long PDF for a competition entry. That can be avoided to an extent if a panel of judges can be persuaded to mark each and every entry, but there comes a point when this is no longer possible due to sheer volume.
One way of keeping things down is to use the method used by White Wolf in their last contest. Start with X entrants, who submit brief synopses of their ideas only, less than 100 words say. From this a top Y entrants are selected to develop their ideas further, producing a document up to, say, 1,000 words long. And from this, Z finalists are selected to fully develop their ideas. It also supports the whole 'Pyramid' theme.
Ash