Iron Game Chef - AAR

[Mike Holmes]

I'd like to conduct an after action review of the contest. I'll personally chime in with more notes later, but I wanted to start out with Eero's thoughts so that they don't get lost. In general I don't like to alter much duiring a competition, but I would like to use some of these ideas potentially for the next competition.

Here's his post in it's entirity:

If we're going to do that, might it be an idea to post the link-backs on the tuesday after all the entries are in - otherwise the collection posts will be as difficult to find as the pieces of the game are?

I agree. Let's leave the index posts for now - I hope Holmes-sama issues some sensible rules about this asap, so we get some organisation. I suggest the following, but emphasize that it's simplest if Mike makes the thread-structure decisions. No democracy in the corps, as they say.

Suggestion:
The Chairman opens a new thread for indexing when he gets around. No posting at all to this thread, except for one collection post per game, in the format suggested by chef Laviolette. Chairman's first post gives rules and guidelines for the collection posts. When Tuesday night comes around a trusted individual (chairman himself?) goes through this thread for a final time and adds collection posts for any games whose authors haven't been around to do the post himself.

The reason for a separate thread and the collection posts would be that unlike in previous years, we seem to have quite many games here, many of them in multiple parts or hard to distinguish (small titles). The high quality of the competition really earns it a second thread, don't you agree? The collection thread can be used for the final judging, too. This way the competition is much easier to experience for later readers. Responsibility towards history and all that.

If the IGC continues to grow, I suggest Mike starts next time from the assumption that he'll be having three threads: the competition, the collection and the judging. If the collection thread is instituted at competition start it's easy for a competitor to add a post to the final version of his game there. It can even be made mandatory, so we get a formal part to participation too: only the games you put to the collection thread are judged.

I also don't want to give the idea that I wasn't paying attention to other ideas - I'll be addressing any I come across. But feel free to make comments here, and post about the contest in general.

Mike

[C. Edwards]

Lots of great stuff in the IGC competition!

One constraint I'd institute would be a one game limit per participant. It calls for a lot more decision making when you must represent your game design-fu with a single entry. Also, with the way the competition has grown, it only makes sense to me to have a "one entry per chef" rule so as to keep the contest from becoming bloated and unwieldy for as long as possible. This should also ease some of the chairman's burden.

And I second everything in Eero's post.

-Chris

[Dav]

I like the idea of spreading some of it out a bit.  I really enjoyed being able to pseudo-smacktalk on the main thread, and listen to the hilarious ramblings of people bubbling over with creativity and horrifying japanglish, but I think also having a condensed version that "cuts to the facts" is nice for easy reference.  

I was showing some of my friends the competition (mainly because I wanted to show them Seadog Tuxedo), and my search was consistently punctuated with "this is the one... no, wait... I think there is a revision... this is the final draft... no... yes... maybe."  Walt's handy index thread is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

I think the competition thread, the thread that Ralph started in RPG Theory, and an Index thread is just peachy.  As well as perhaps a thread such as this so that myself, and the other peanuts from the gallery like myself, can bandy about ideas for the future.

One question I do have for the dandy Chairman would be: how do you determine the four words?  Random pick?  Some guideline?  I noticed that one of the others had contained one of the four classic elements (I think it was fire), and this one had ice (which, while not necessarily one of them element-thingies, is close).

Just curious.

Dav

[Mike Holmes]

I like the idea of spreading some of it out a bit.  I really enjoyed being able to pseudo-smacktalk on the main thread, and listen to the hilarious ramblings of people bubbling over with creativity and horrifying japanglish, but I think also having a condensed version that "cuts to the facts" is nice for easy reference.

Yeah, I think we're all sorta on the same page there, but the question is how to do this best without breaking Forge standards of posting. The thread is, as is, an exception to some rules - so I don't want it to get any further away from standards than it already is. But, yes, I think that a few linked threads might be most appropriate.

Walt's handy index thread is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

Haven't even seen it. Is there a link in the main thread to the index? If not, someone put that in there quick! :-)

I think the competition thread, the thread that Ralph started in RPG Theory, and an Index thread is just peachy.  As well as perhaps a thread such as this so that myself, and the other peanuts from the gallery like myself, can bandy about ideas for the future.

Sounds pretty good. Not sure about the last one, but it sounds a tad like it's wandering into speculation or "concept" territory. Not sure we want that.

One question I do have for the dandy Chairman would be: how do you determine the four words?  Random pick?  Some guideline?  I noticed that one of the others had contained one of the four classic elements (I think it was fire), and this one had ice (which, while not necessarily one of them element-thingies, is close).

This was asked last time, too. It's a closely guarded secret. One that I'll let you in on now. :-)

Basically, I go and find some random sentence generator or the like on the web. Then I just go down the list produced looking for words that seem to be neither too specific, nor too general. I want words that won't make all the games the same, but yet not so broad that they don't represent any constraint at all. They should be inspirational, but not channel things too tightly. For example, I'd reject Schooner, but I'd accept Ship. I'd reject Life as too general for Sci-fi, but I would accept Biology. I take the first four that I come across that fit the bill.

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

One thing I've bandied about in the spirit of "how I'd run this kind of contest" is having a some more people taking on regular tasks. After all, this is in good fun and it shouldn't ruin anything if people who don't like to design on a given week were given a chance to participate.

The thought blossomed of course from Mike asking around for people willing to take on the roles of commentators. What I'd perhaps like to see is that he indeed chose a couple of non-competitors before the next competition to fill the roles. Comments are an important factor for the mood and chef motivation, and it's fun, too. By having a couple of "official" commentators you'd ensure some ostensibly outside commenting apart from the chefs. By making choices early and official you'd maybe avoid the timidity evinced by non-competitors this time. Only a few felt brave enough to comment on the games (I assume it was that people were astounded by the chefs, not that they didn't care).

Another thought for the chairman is instituting a board of judges. A couple of other people to sound things off for him, you know. Could make judging more fun too, maybe lessen the workload involved and even make the final choices better (not to say that I don't have absolute confidence in the chairman, of course). An ideal choice (or the one I'd go with, that is) would be offering the positions to any and all former Iron Chefs to take in their leisure.

That's one more thing; I'd consider if the competition was more enjoyable if the old iron chefs weren't judged in it. This'd heighten the honor of the title, I feel, rather than lessening it. They could still participate and get reviewed or take on venerable commentator roles, but would not be considered for appointing a new master chef. This'd implicate a little different aesthetic to the competition, one to be preferred IMO.

Anyway, in a couple of years we could start having chef battles and/or challenge matches, if the mood really took hold, when you consider the interest the competition has garnered ;) Get the titles in circulation and all that...

Warn about the competition approaching a couple of weeks in advance the next time. Just post a thread about it to generate interest and awareness. This should maybe give a chance for some of the chefs to arrange their things beforehand so they'd have time for it instead of having to bow out.

The final suggestion for now is to be cool and lenghten the judgement period considerably. Take a month, or two, or even a whole quarter next time. I feel that that would keep the competition simmering nicely for the while and give us something to root for. It'd lessen the workload as well and make the decision more sensible. You could even have two phases if there's more than twenty games and choose some for actual playtest. The longer you take, the more gravity the choice has, I feel.


And to repeat, these are all just some ruminations as requested. I don't want to imply any right or stake in the matter; it's not my place to try to pressure for any changes in a great competition. Likewise I might sound like megalomaniac there and like I really took the titles and stuff RL-seriously, but you should take it as simple respect. I find this great fun, and it's always funny to create ritual structures to strenghten roleplaying. You do realize that there's a considerable amount of that in the competition :?)

[Eero Tuovinen]

I like the idea of spreading some of it out a bit.  I really enjoyed being able to pseudo-smacktalk on the main thread, and listen to the hilarious ramblings of people bubbling over with creativity and horrifying japanglish, but I think also having a condensed version that "cuts to the facts" is nice for easy reference.

Yeah, I think we're all sorta on the same page there, but the question is how to do this best without breaking Forge standards of posting. The thread is, as is, an exception to some rules - so I don't want it to get any further away from standards than it already is. But, yes, I think that a few linked threads might be most appropriate.

That's what I'm thinking, too. It's a failure for us if in the next competition people start to feel like starting threads left and right because IGC already has so many or something like that. You should indeed strive for a structure with minimal threads and as close to Forge guidelines as possible. At the same time we're looking for maximal fun. I don't think that Ron will mind a couple or three threads instead of one, if it's warranted by structure. Let's do a breakdown:

A possible outline:
One thread started at -(two weeks) to competition:

[*]"The Iron Game Chef approaches", a thread in Site Discussion outlining the timetable and referencing previous competitions in one place. An opportunity for newcomers to ask all those rules questions and for everyone to clear some time for it. Useful in raising awareness, too. Highly appropriate because the competition is a site event, after all.
[/list:u]
After that, two threads started when the competition starts:

[*]"The Iron Game Chef", the main thread with the traditional announcement. The place for all development posts, comments and general business. Belongs to Indie design surely, if something does.
[*]"The Iron Game Chef submissions", the thread to separate actual submissions and their final versions from the chaos of the main thread. Only for short linking posts with title, a couple of lines and a link or more to the posts in the main thread containing the game text. One post per submission, only submissions posted here count, and no other posts than submissions. Doesn't belong anywhere by the letter, but we all know that the spirit is more important as far as rules go. Ron would probably give permission?
[/list:u]
Then, after the week has passed:

[*]"IGC judgement", a thread for the chairman to post the reviews and the final judgement. General comments about the judgement from others, surely, but kept to minimum. Again, doesn't really belong anywhere as long as the chairman doesn't Actually Play the games ;)
[*]Any other threads people feel like starting, all in accordamce to Forge etiquette. The Lessons thread is a good one, as are further development threads for the games, but these need not be decided on by anyone but the interested posters.
[/list:u]

That's what has been proposed so far. I don't support a general audience thread - the audience really could IMO comment more freely in the main thread, it doesn't bother the cooking. I like the slightly chaotic and fervently lively mood of the main thread, which could only be hurt by classing people any more than necessary. That mood is IMO the main point of the competition. Just refer to anything competitionwise in the submission thread.

One could probably collate the submissions thread and the judging, which would put all "formal" functions in one place. All comments on either thing could be directed to the main thread, so this one would be almost excessively formal and clear to follow. I find this juxtaposition of chaos and order an inspiring way of organizing the threads, myself. It would also give clear and user friendly choices for people finding the competition after a year or two, and a clear thread to link to outside the forums (like the index is for this year).

I don't see this as excessively against what Ron has indicated about the competition. I find it hard to believe he'd want to deny the competition two inappropriate threads once in a while, when the positive energy created is so enormous.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Just so people can stop guessing, I think Eero's got the right idea.

Best,
Ron

[quozl]

I'd consider if the competition was more enjoyable if the old iron chefs weren't judged in it.

I just wanted to pipe in here and say I disagree.  I want to see what the champions do next.  I want to see master cooking, not just amateurs.  And I really want to see Ron jump in on one of these sometime just to see what he comes up with.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I'd consider if the competition was more enjoyable if the old iron chefs weren't judged in it.

I just wanted to pipe in here and say I disagree.  I want to see what the champions do next.  I want to see master cooking, not just amateurs.  And I really want to see Ron jump in on one of these sometime just to see what he comes up with.

Well, yeah, of course I want to see them too. But is it really going to stop someove from participating that he's only going to get the crowd's accolades and not the first prize?

In other words, I meant that of course they can participate, and I expect them to, but I don't see a reason to actually evaluate them for prizes. A review, yes, but no placement. Just my opinion, based on the aesthetic notion that any one chef will explode if you try to pin him with two iron cheffinessess. Makes it more dynamic, too, when you're running this for the nth time.

[Mike Holmes]

Part of the aesthetic of Iron Chef is the idea that you're being tested against the masters. I mean, if I had my way, the competition would be held weekly with a single challenger selecting an Iron Chef to compete against. But that's not going to happen, so I'll settle for them appearing in the contests as a challenge to all participants. The more chefs we have, the more likely it is that they'll be able to participate in future events.

That said, I think it's unlikely with the number of submissions that I'm seeing now that any Iron Chef will repeat (though not impossible). In any case, if they do get two titles, more power to them as far as I'm concerned.

Eventually, I want to cycle back through the genres. I don't want to create an infinite number of genres, just a stable few - say five. When a particular genre comes back up again, the current Iron Game Chef will have to defend that title or have it transfered to the new winner. That'll allow a chef to wear the title for quite a while, but it will mean that he'll be directly challenged eventually.

Does that all make sense?

Eero, great plan for the threads. I'm very much looking forward to the next installment. It may have to be a little early to make up for the long delay in getting to this one.

I'm also thinking that the panel idea might be really a good idea. We might be able to split up some of the judging somehow. Reviewing 36 games is a daunting task, and if any more show up on the next one I'm going to definitely need help, or have to find some way to limit participation (perhaps to the first 30 entrants or something).

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

As a moderator yardstick, I suggest that we put the minimum time between Iron Chef competitions at five months, and if six go by, we all start bugging Mike to get on with it.

Best,
Ron

[Eero Tuovinen]

Eventually, I want to cycle back through the genres. I don't want to create an infinite number of genres, just a stable few - say five. When a particular genre comes back up again, the current Iron Game Chef will have to defend that title or have it transfered to the new winner. That'll allow a chef to wear the title for quite a while, but it will mean that he'll be directly challenged eventually.

I kind of assumed that that's the goal. I would never set them genres in stone or anything, but repetition is good for the soul in this case. And it makes the titles more dynamic and exciting, too.

As far as genre choices go (if we're allowed to speculate), I wouldn't mind an eventual return to the CAs. Not in a while yet, mind you, but I feel that the time may come when GNS is an institution enough to warrant basing cookery on it. Meanwhile literary genres are certainly good stuff, as might be some other things.

I'm also thinking that the panel idea might be really a good idea. We might be able to split up some of the judging somehow. Reviewing 36 games is a daunting task, and if any more show up on the next one I'm going to definitely need help, or have to find some way to limit participation (perhaps to the first 30 entrants or something).

I wouldn't like limits on participation, I'd rather see you trusting a part of the job to a board of judges. Let a board chosen in some interesting semiformal manner (composed by invitation from former iron chefs and Forge regulars, for example) make the initial choice and winnow the games for you. Limit yourself to for example ten games chosen in such a manner.

Or have four secondary judges who each concentrate on a particular combination of ingredients ;) The important thing is to take the competition (pretend) seriously, for it's always more interesting for that.

Does that all make sense?

Yeah, I'd say that everyone stands behind your vision in this case. Now, get back to reviewing, I wanna know what you think of my games!

[Walt Freitag]

Eventually, I want to cycle back through the genres. I don't want to create an infinite number of genres, just a stable few - say five. When a particular genre comes back up again, the current Iron Game Chef will have to defend that title or have it transfered to the new winner. That'll allow a chef to wear the title for quite a while, but it will mean that he'll be directly challenged eventually.

Ah, I was wondering about that. That's how I assumed it would work when it appeared the competitions would rotate through Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist: that each title would change hands every year or so except when a current Iron Game Chef successfully defended. (With five categories, make that two years or so.)

Eero's outlook makes a lot of sense if Iron Game Chefships were seen as permanent, with a continually (but very slowly) increasing number of them, like knighthoods or something. Each event would then be a competition for one new "membership" in that club. Generally, it's traditional in such situations for already-members to haze new candidates (e.g. act as judges), not compete against them directly.

Of course, as things look now, I will be Iron Game Chef Simulationist permanently! Tremble with fear! (I imagine that the cachet of that title will fade as the new system takes hold. Like being the MVP of the XFL or something. But perhaps an expiration date should be set instead.)  

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

I moved away from the whole CA idea, because the notion is problematic. Check out the AAR from the last contest to see people's well thought out objections. I don't think we'll be going back to that.

So, yes, the prior titles will probably be thought of eventually as belts from a different wrestling federation. :-)  I think you can keep them, but people will understand that they've expired in terms of competition.

I like the knighthood concept, but I think that having been a former iron chef will probably suffice to keep the club expanding. Like being a prior consul in Republic of Rome (for those who know what I'm talking about). :-)

Mike

[Eero Tuovinen]

I moved away from the whole CA idea, because the notion is problematic. Check out the AAR from the last contest to see people's well thought out objections. I don't think we'll be going back to that.

Acceptable notion, surely. I'm just pointing out that it could be counterproductive to make any definite list of titles or something like that. Better to keep the door open for new realizations, while all the same starting to cycle through the titles. And despite the counterarguments, there could come a day that we all will see the CAs relevant once more.

Anyway, this is nothing we have to worry about for a while. I'd expect that fantasy won't be coming around for a year or two yet for a second time, so there's plenty of time to form the rules of the institution.

If you are intending some never-to-be-changed, set-in-stone list of possible genres and titles, I want postmodernist deconstruction in it. And I wanna be the Iron Game Chef Postmodern, even if I have to fight clehrich and Jonathan for it!