geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
6
15 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
The Great Dalmuti » Forums » Reviews
The Great Dalmuti – A quick review
I've played this game for years, so it's about time I review it.

The Great Dalmuti is a very simple card game for a minimum of 4 players, but it can handle up to 7. The deck consists of cards numbered 1 to 12 (the 'value') and there are as many cards as the number printed on them (so there's one 1, two 2's, three 3's, all the way up to twelve 12's.) and a couple of jokers. At the start of the game all the cards are dealt to all players. Then the player who leads lays a set of any value cards they wish (for example 4 twelves) the following player then lays an equal number of cards of a lower value (eg 4 elevens) it has to be a lower value, not equal. Players may choose to pass if they wish. The round continues until every player passes and whoever laid the last set of cards takes the lead. Jokers are have a value equal to cards they are played with, or 13 if played by themselves. As soon as one player has run out of cards the become the 'Great Dalmuti' the next player becomes the 'Lower Dalmuti'. The penultimate player to go out in the round becomes the 'Lower Peasant' and the player left with cards at the end is the 'Greater Peasant'. Anyone in between becomes a Merchant.
The cards are then dealt out again, however the Greater Peasant must hand to the Great Dalmuti the two lowest value cards from their hand, in return the Dalmuti must give the Peasant any two cards they wish. The Lowers do the same, but with one card. Merchants may swap any number of cards they wish, as long as its the same amount. Then the seating is rearranged with the lower Dalmuti sitting to the left of the Greater and the Greater peasant sitting last with the Lower peasant on his right. As you can tell, this is totally unfair, and therein lies the game.
You can play as many rounds as you like. This is normally dictated by the Greater Peasant getting fed up!

An awesomely simple and fun game, not to be taken seriously. Can be made more stupid with the introduction of silly hats and much ribbing of the Greater Peasant. I pretty much always want to play this game.

John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, come on.
Not only was this "review" accepted by GeekMod (I voted to decline it, for obvious reasons), but somebody is giving it a thumbs-up??!

This is NOT A REVIEW.
It is just that simple.
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Re: The Great Dalmuti  A quick review
It's my first one. So, what don't you like about it?
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
True - it is your first review. It's not like you are a longtime reviewer who deliberately put out an insufficient review, but it still should not have been accepted by the (increasingly dysfunctional) GeekMod system.

Reviews should contain more than just a run-down of the gameplay. There are many elements to a successful review, as collected by people much more helpful and informative than me. Let me look for their suggestions.

Ah... found some guidelines for ya.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1495295
secondarily... http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/987732

Read through the first one , at least, and try to add some valuable content to this Great Dalmuti review, and earn the GeekGold that you were (IMO) undeservedly awarded (no offense).
The GeekMod system may have failed here, but your attempts to become an informaed reviewer may fix the oversight, and return value to the community (especially fellow Dalmuti fans).
Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Re: The Great Dalmuti  A quick review
Taken on board. I don't have time to update it now, but I'll take another stab tommorrow.
I was kinda shocked by the Thumbs up meself!
Matt & Laurel
United Kingdom
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
patron07
mb
reapersaurus wrote:
Oh, come on.
Not only was this "review" accepted by GeekMod (I voted to decline it, for obvious reasons), but somebody is giving it a thumbs-up??!

This is NOT A REVIEW.
It is just that simple.


What's your problem? Greendan called it like it is: "a quick review". He explained the gameplay and gave an opinion; that sounds like a review to me. I notice that you didn't provide any constructive criticism, just criticised. Also, you should appreciate that some people look for different things in a review and just because you didn't like Greendan's review, doesn't mean others won't.
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yankeezulu wrote:
reapersaurus wrote:
Oh, come on.
Not only was this "review" accepted by GeekMod (I voted to decline it, for obvious reasons), but somebody is giving it a thumbs-up??!

This is NOT A REVIEW.
It is just that simple.


What's your problem? Greendan called it like it is: "a quick review". He explained the gameplay and gave an opinion; that sounds like a review to me.
My guess is, you didn't read the discussion. Because you may see that greendan (the gentleman and apparently cool guy that he is that wants to make his reviews better and more valuable to the community) tipped my 1 GG (a not small sum) for the links I posted to him.

But for your information, what you described is not a review. I think someone should let you know that. A review is supposed to be more significant than a play walk-thru. It mentions such in the Reviewing Guidelines, IIRC.

But as a challenge/request, read the 3 other reviews and see if this one adds anything to the reviews for this game.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1254008#1254008
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/591587#591587
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/19575#19575
Kent Landis
United States
FPO
AP
flag msg tools
mbmb
Re: The Great Dalmuti – A quick review
The geek is a great site, but this is the exact reason I won't post reviews. The first reply to the original poster was snooty, mean, and just plain unhelpful. I thought your review was fine.
Art Silverio

Des Moines
Iowa
msg tools
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Kent. Absolutely no reason for that tone. You could have been helpful without being a snob. Not everyone is motivated by Geek Gold!

BTW - I agree the "Quick Review" was fine.
Last edited on 2007-06-14 21:04:55 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Randy Dreger
Australia
Ballarat
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron09
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: The Great Dalmuti – A quick review
I agree wholeheartedly with John W. And I applaud Green Dan's response and I put my money where my mouth is.

In it's current standing, this is *not* a quick review. This is a rules summary with a one line opinion added on (which is more befitting to a personal comment one puts with their rating.)

I understand John's initial response at the breakdown of GeekMod (although it may seem a bit strong, Dan took it gently, John expounded and through tutilege BGG will become a better site due to John's willingness to speak up).

I think that John and Dan have the matter firmly under control and don't require comments from PC Nazis. If Dan doesn't take offence, why should anyone else?

Cheers Dan, I'm also a big Dalmuti fan and I look forward to you enhancing your review of your experience.
Was George Orwell an optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
0506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree wholeheartedly with Kent and Art. There is ample room for diversity in approach on a board like this. The fact your review *was* approved indicates that there are different opinions as to what is proper. Be yourself, and write what you feel, Green Dan.
Matt & Laurel
United Kingdom
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
patron07
mb
reapersaurus wrote:
My guess is, you didn't read the discussion. Because you may see that greendan (the gentleman and apparently cool guy that he is that wants to make his reviews better and more valuable to the community) tipped my 1 GG (a not small sum) for the links I posted to him.


Yes, I did manage to read the discussion before posting my comment. That was the reason I posted it.

Quote:
But for your information, what you described is not a review. I think someone should let you know that. A review is supposed to be more significant than a play walk-thru. It mentions such in the Reviewing Guidelines, IIRC.


Well that's your opinion and you're quite welcome to it, and even though Greendan's review may not have strictly adhered to the Reviewing Guidelines you mention, they are only guidelines and not requirements. I for one am extremely happy that Greendan has taken your comments as gracefully as he has and hasn't been put off making further contributions.

Quote:
But as a challenge/request, read the 3 other reviews and see if this one adds anything to the reviews for this game.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1254008#1254008
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/591587#591587
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/19575#19575


The thing is that BGG is supposed to be a hobby site, not some sort of academic endeavour striving for truth or meaning. Greendan's review may not have given us any great new insight into The Great Dalmuti, or pushed back the boundaries of reviewing technique, but so what? I wasn't offended by his review - in fact I thought it succinctly and effectively explained the game and his feelings about it. Are the other reviews 'better'? Well yes, in my opinion some of them are, but that's a value judgement and does not diminish or disqualify Greendan's contribution. If his review had been "I hate The Great Dalmuti, it sucks", then I would have had a different attitude to it, but it didn't. And, as I stated in my last post, other BGG-ers may actually find the review to be just what they're looking for, written in a style that they find to be straightforward and accessible. It really all depends on the individual.

If we all sat here trying to write 'knock-out' reviews every time, then BGG would be a lot emptier than it currently is and a lot poorer for it.

And finally, I haven't written a review, so I can't really criticise someone else for having the guts to have a go.

Cheers,

Matt

Green Dan
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Well, I'm glad it got a reaction whether good or bad. A few differant opinions here!
This is what I've decided: For now I'm gonna leave this as it stands (at the very least it means the thread still makes sense!) As stated it is my first review, so it represents the beginning of a learning curve. I've already said I've taken on board the helpful criticism and will be applying it to my next review, which I'll be working on this weekend.

So once again I thank you all, the positive and the negative!
Matt & Laurel
United Kingdom
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
patron07
mb
I look forward to your next review. Good luck!

Cheers,

Matt
Simon K
Netherlands
Zaanstad
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow some heated discussion here.. not sure anyone is willing to hear a n00b's opinions on this but who cares?

I think its a good thing when people point out mistakes, and local (bgg) ettiquette.. but come on...why so harsh?? There was no need for that. you could've said the same thing in a much nicer way. Well off i go.
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.