Charles the Bald - what is it?

[matthijs]

In Rossum's review of Charles the Bald, he says: "Either I'm missing something, or this isn't an RPG". Rossum complains that "the text quickly drops off into pure mechanics (effectively rock-paper-scissors)".

The Judgebot says: "This game gives me an uneasy feeling, like it's better than I realize, like playing it would be surprising and awesome. Some kind of click between the subject matter and the action of play that isn't apparent. Or maybe not - that's the thing."

Neither the reviewer or the judge have tested the game. I'm not complaining about that; very little time, and it's no secret that I haven't tested it myself.

But what are they reviewing and judging?

Some games - like Capes, Dogs, Universalis - have to be played to be understood. It's kind of pointless to try to say what they're doing just from reading them. From the rules of Go, you can try to guess how the game will play, but judging it as a game without playing it would be ridiculous.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that reviewers or judges have to spend weeks playtesting every half-baked concept (like mine) to the bitter end. But I am saying that the results of this contest can't say a heck of a lot about what games will be fun to actually play.

[Harlequin]

Do remember that they promised only to score based on estimated effectiveness in play. Obviously this is due to the time constraint you mention. But ya can't fault 'em for doing what they said they would.

Moreover, I would say that the best way to showcase emergent properties of gameplay, such as arise in the games you mention, is a suite of fine examples. Sure, it's not as good as actually playing it, but a well-written example can get across the jazz in a way that the mechanic designed to grant emergent phenomena simply cannot. I'll admit I found this lack an issue with my own read-over of "Chuckie the Chrome-dome has Serious Issues", too. (Grin.)

- Eric

[JenniferS]

[Tobias]