Re: Genesis, Cloning, Possibilities

[jdroscha@...]

--- In piecepack@y..., Doug Orleans <dougo@c...> wrote:
> 
> Interesting.  Do you have a list of the particular elements 
> you had in mind when you designed it?

   Only from memory:
a) parts with capable of fully hidden information
b) parts with capable of partially hidden information
c) randomizers
d) modular board
e) tokens capable of showing orientation
f) all parts other than those making up a board should fit into 
spaces making up board
g) suits and values
   Incidentally, there are reasons the range of values on tiles and 
coins is from 0-5 instead of 1-6:
a) having both null and ace gives 2 easily identifiable/memorable 
values that designers can assign "special" meaning to
b) rolling n-d6 leaves the bottom end of the resultant range intact 
while the results still fall along the familiar bell curve
c) 0+1+2+3+4+5 = 15 = top end of resultant range for 3d6

[regarding Hanging Gardens:]
> I think it shares a family resemblance to Torres (3-d tile 
laying).  I 
> can believe that it was an independent creation (perhaps even
> pre-dating Torres) but I think many people are going to think it was
> inspired by Torres.

   That's a good point; I hadn't thought of Torres.  Torres did come 
first, though I have not played it.  I guess it didn't come to mind 
because I think of Hanging Gardens as "creating variety while 
maintaining symmetry within line-of-sight in a 3-dimensional 
environment", rather than the fact that both games involve stacked 
terrace shapes.  My understanding of Torres from reviews that I have 
read is that the gameplay is completely different from Hanging 
Gardens.  Has anyone played both that might be able to comment 
further?

> Icehouse, which has no resemblance to anything at all, really.  But
> like I said before, I doubt that the actual Icehouse game is the
> primary driver of sales of Icehouse sets these days.

   I think you're right about that.  When I bought my Icehouse set, 
it didn't even include the rule to Icehouse in the box!  It is 
available for download, of course.

> Clearly you need to combine all of the above, plus Cosmic 
> Encounter and all of its expansion sets...  :)

   Heh heh.  Ohmigod.

   Anyway, one more thing that might be of relevance to this 
discussion.  Another reason I developed the piecepack was to provide 
myself an outlet for all of the game designs I come up with that are 
not what I consider to be fairly original.  Basically, when I 
conceptualize a new game these days, I wonder to myself if it could 
work as a piecepack game.  If so, I test it a few times and if I like 
it, I write it up.  If the design is considerably different, then I 
try to check around to see if anyone else has already done it.  If 
so, I move along to the next design.  If not, then I consider it for 
publication as a commercial game.
   So, I would be reluctant to say that something strikingly original 
could never be designed for piecepack, but I can certainly state that 
it was not designed specifically to encourage ingenuity.

   It seems like the greatest strength of the piecepack might lie in 
the creation of abstract games.  I wonder if we will need to get some 
good abstract designers to write rule sets before we see the 
piecepack come into its own?  Any 8x8 Design Contest competitors out 
there?

Game On,
James