> From: kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx > when a single one would "work". Is it a 2HOUSE game? Yeah, > I suppose. But it's not a good selling point for TreeHouse > sets, which is (at the base of it) what this particular > competition is about. Exactumundo! In the end, we want good games that encourage purchase of a second set: that's my gauge as Coordinator for accepting a submission. > Is this discussion of judging criteria a good thing? I think so. Me, too (obviously). > I'm not (necessarily) trying to get everyone to use my, > or any other single set of, criteria. Sure... but I feel obliged to clarify elements which will result in rejection of a submission, early and clearly, for the benefit of all. I am loathe to do it--I love new games, of all shapes and sizes--but I have to honor my judges' time more than that of one designer, and I have to promote pyramid sales above all. In the end, I'd rather have six really solid 2HOUSE games to judge than twelve games with a range of quality, some of which are "pseudo-2HOUSE." > But by having a bunch of ideas out here in the ether, > other potential judges can start thinking about what > THEY think are appropriate criteria. Oh, absolutely... for those still reading this thread. ;) In the end, folks will judge quality in numerous ways: play style preferences, available time, format and diction of rules (*ahem*), replayability, strategic depth, tactile or visual appeal, etc, etc.... For instance, my buddy and I have debated whether Stacktors! (Limited) would be a good contender (because it could be a very solid RPG system) or a really poor one (due to its rules length, time to learn, and relative complexity). He's of the opinion it would "stand out" for *both* reasons (my "too complex" is his "meaty goodness")--I feel it's likely to suffer from 'I'll-get-to-it-eventually-ness' and not be judged by many people. As primary collaborator on that game, it's my call as to whether it's submitted... I think not. I'm encouraging him to finish Icecaster for his submission--although, we *have* debated whether Icecaster is a 2HOUSE game or is a one-set-per-player game. Perhaps we should discuss that distinction a bit, vis a vis submission acceptance? Folks, if a game is *actually* one-set-per-player and it's presented as a two-player "dueling" game (regardless of whether it scales to more than two players), is that 2HOUSE? One clearly can't play it with less than two sets--it requires 15 mids per player--but it could also be (and is probably more fun as) a three- or four-player game; it is "artificially" constrained to two sets by "forcing" two-players-only with a rule... almost as if the 2HOUSE version is a variation on the main game. (Refer to http://www.icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Icecaster for example.) Thoughts? David