GameGame 1.0 is out

Yep, finally. There are two files. First, the cards:
Download GameGame_cards_Release1.0_printouts.pdf (64.1K)

I hope they print out okay, I did some tweaking to the colors so that they would work better in B/W as well. I suggest they should be glued onto cardboard for better endurance.

Second, there is a rule manual, with some additional info about the concept and its premises:
Download GameGame-RuleManual.pdf (2751.8K)

Without doubt, there are rule omissions, typos, and such. Please comment on those here for version 1.1.

I would be very grateful to hear about any experiences with the game. Please use the comment function so that anyone visiting can see. You can also e-mail me directly.My thanks to everyone who goes into the trouble of setting the game up!

Comments

[Selentic]

I've read through the rules to the GameGame, and i think it might actually make an interesting game of its own - with a few alterations...

The big weaknesses of the design, as far as i can see, are in the scoring system and the "Publisher" mechanic.

I'll take the publisher first. As he is allowed to discard all the "budget" tokens (except one) as well as give them out, yet is awarded two tokens for free, what incentive does he have to give any of the other players more than one token?
Even if this is commentary on the state of the industry, it just seems like a better design to either force the Publisher to divvie out all 5 tokens each milestone, or to replace the publisher mechanic with some system of voting (by all the players).

I like the idea of using a set of generic cards to form the framework for a player described idea - it has a feel very reminiscent of classic "Balderdash" gameplay.

However, there seems to be little incentive for the players to actually come up with interesting ideas, as the game lacks any mechanics for rewarding good ideas and punishing bad ideas. I see that the players (and publisher) are intended to vote for the best ideas presented during the scoring phase, but there does not seem to be any game-mechanic reason for them not to vote so as to maximize their own relative score. That is to say, a wily player has no reason not to give their votes to those of their opponents who are the furthest behind in score. (Identically, a wily "publisher" will attempt to evenly spread the budget amongst their opponents.)

Perhaps the game's system *is* designed toward generating an even score amongst all the players, but, even so, it seems that this obviates the need for the players to be creative and innovative in the presentation of their "game ideas". (As wily players will only vote with previous scoring information in mind.)

What is needed is some system of scoring that takes the particular details of the player-created card descriptions into account. One possible method for accomplishing this is use a per-card voting system: After the players all describe their ideas, they all vote for which idea from each card type (component, goal, victory condition, mechanic) was the best, and award one score point to the winner of the vote. Discussion and critique of the ideas before the vote is encouraged! It also seems like a good idea to hold a similar vote, and score reward, for the validity of the overall game idea. (So there would be five votes, and five points awarded.) This way a vote (and discussion) is held for each player-created idea, and there is less chance of a player "gaming the system" for his own advantage, as the points are awarded by a consensus of all the players. (Though some way to break ties will often be necessary. A coin toss?)
This vote system could also be used in place of the "publisher" to award "budget" tokens at each milestone.

All, in all, i think it is a very interesting idea, possibly even a useful tool, and i look forward to trying it out.

[Aki]

Thanks for the comments!

I see your points. Yet, during the actual play-testing sessions leading up to the 1.0 version, the game has always generated a certain atmosphere of 'good will', which has downplayed the competetive motives that your comments mainly focus upon. In the game sessions there generally has a been a bunch of players who both know each other and work together for common goals (e.g., in game design). This kind of context has, of course , contributed to the atmosphere. But then again, I've play-tested the game in contexts that it is aimed for: among design/development/research teams, and game design students. In other contexts, the potential weaknesses you describe might become more of a handicap.

Also, there is really no direct guidance about role-play in the rules, and yet there always has been, especially the publisher role has brought that up. Consequentially, most publishers have been quite nice, or 'evil' in a sarcastic way. Notably this has been more evident in their comments - i.e. the role-play performance - than their choices of dealing out the money. In other words, the spontaneous role-play in the publiher role has lead to quite generous spending. This of course can not be generalised, though.

If you put a session up and find significantly different experiences, I'd like to hear about them! In general, I think my experiences with developing the game (which I'm documenting to my Ph.D.) highlight the tension between formal aspects, such as a supposed weakness of a specific rule, and the informal aspects of actual game play and player creativity. As a formalist myself, these experiences have been very useful!

In fact, as paradoxical as it may sound, practice has shown that GameGame is not at its strongest as a pure game, but as a 'game-like exercise' for a lack of a better term. And that is something that I myself, as an outspoken ludologist, would have frowned upon some time back ;)

I agree that the voting system is not optimal. To my experience, players haven't really cared for it, as the play experience as such has seemed to provide a sufficient qualitative experience, and the quantitative procedure of counting votes has seemed somewhat indifferent to the players. Nevertheless I decided to keep it there to facilitate the needs of more competetive-minded players. In any case, among the about thirty players involved in play-testing there has been virtually no-one playing only in order to win. Actually quite a significant amount of the votes have indeed been cast based on the pitching/role-play skills of a certain player rather than the rules about who has the best formal combination of cards. So sales persons can play and win the game as well ;)

Besides the context matters decribed above, many of my observations might be partly due to the fact that most players have been playing the game for the first time. What I'm trying to get going is systematic sessions with the game among the same group, which would give new experiences and tweaks to the rules, no doubt.

[Paul B]

I was curious about GameGame so I downloaded the rules pdf, however I was a bit turned off by the powerpoint style format. I've played alot of board/card games and personally I think that a good rulebook is very important.

If you want to make it easier for people to try your game out, I suggest you write a proper set of rules that aren't presented in dotpoint format.

Nice idea for a game though! You've got me thinking about making a card game with the theme of playing board/card games!

[Aki]

Thanks for the comment, you definitely got a point. The rulebook is on my 'to do' list, I just wanted to get the first version released out of the way. Therefore the ppt also has some stuff about the premise of the game. The rulebook will be a lot more compact, hopefully. Stay tuned for it, I hope to upload it by the end of November.

[gerraldo]

GameGame looks very interesting (game and brainstorm tool) - need to try it soon... :)

Here are some things I noticed:
- Sequential Movement is doubled
- Missing (from relations on other cards): Accelerating, Voting, Weapon Mechanics
- Environment & Interface cards are nearly unreadable (white text!)
- Asset Cards text over 2 cards on 1 page

Some mechanics I missed:
- Paralell Movement
- Gambling
- Bluffing
- Reinforcements
- Eliminating
- Diplomacy
- Dexterity
- Controlling

I will later comment more, after having really played GameGame... :)

THX and CU

[Aki]

Hi

and thanks for the observations - I'll try to upload version 1.1. in the coming weeks as I've gotten some good hints about how to improve the 'playability' of the PDF in general.

Regarding the mechanics,in my mind some of the ones you mention are not mechanics but tactics (bluffing) or strategies (diplomacy) which can be achieved by executing particular mechanics, such as different communication mechanics. But this is a topic I discuss in my thesis, and there is no space nor need to go into it here. Dexterity for instance is certainly a good one to add.

[Mr.White]

Check out Dragon's Landing at http://www.dragonslanding.com/mambo/

The GameGame was reviewed on Ep 27.