All review is subject to the Bias of the Individual who is reveiwing it, but that reviewer has to be able to think of the market or audience the product is trying to address and must be constructive in that consideration.
My Criteria/Biases/Values are for feedback and adapting to new information.
I dont think one is supposed to score 100% in the reviewer's Criteria, instead they have to score 100% in their Goals and their Model of their Target Audience/Market. The review has to try to objectively assess if it makes this call.
There will be definitey Stupid sounding questions as this progresses.
Again I'm biased in the use of a Collaborative Project Documenation Sheet. Where it is easy to put all supporting links and the specific ideas being discussed.
Biases or Criteria of the Reviewer
- Focuses on Limiting Scope of Learned TRPG Mechanics, or careful and calculated introduction of mechanics.
- Updated 4/18/2017 - more specifically how the Designers count the amount of mental load it asks of its Players and GM.
- Updated 4/19/2017 - the 20 rules of formulating knowledge is a great guideline in game design when there is an expectation of people following or learning the game system.
- Focus on how the system improves on GM-Player Collaboration. This means if the game system improves or aids in the sharing of narrative or creating a way for collaborative complicated escallation is resolved through collaboration (and the use of a Randomizer).
- Focus on methodology, how does the system or the game designer try to prepare a GM or player to get into TRPGs. What is the Designers’ methodology and what are their values? How do they allocate their competing constraints (utility/quality - cost - time) .
- 4/18/2017 Updated. The document will involve a growing definition of terms we can agree on.
- Looking for the self-aware nature of the Designer’s Products as compared to market trends and drawing from best practices from other disciplines.
- Looking for Feedback Mechanism - how does the Knowledge base react to and adapt to feedback?
- 4/18/2017 Updated. You may examine my methodlogy and criteria to see if it is in your best interests. Otherwise if it isn’t we can alter it.
Methodology of the Reviewer.
- Once a Week updates. (i’ll try)
- About 100-200 words of review.
- Typically in the form of clarifying questions.
- As I match Goals to Execution and Implementation,
- How the proponent handles competing constraints (utility/quality/value, cost, time) and my other criteria
- Answers are tracked and allocated to either:
- Clarification of Goals
- Tracking of Constraints, Methodology, and Issues.
- This all serves as a Project Documentation so that if anything happens anyone else can pick up where it left off.
- Updated 4/18/2017 Guiding Principles: Crocker’s Rules