On Mar 3, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Craig Blumer wrote:
I think there is a basic conflict in the Piecepack system. The system is interesting to gamer-types, especially because it provides an easy tool to create your own games. That was certainly my experience, I immediately re-configured other games into Piecepack games and invented some of my own. But, because the games are relatively simple, they attract little attention from the world of gamers.
How would you "complexify" a game for the piecepack to make it more interesting to the world of gamers? What is missing? Is it a game component or piece? Or is it more the game(s) design(s)? What would be an ideal game to you?
But then again, there are the legal issues surrounding the ownership and distribution of the intellectual property (games) developed for piecepack...so maybe that's what is keeping the big companies away.But it seems a lot of the rule sets are under the GNU Free Document License, I understand it allows for commercial use. Anyway, it would be dabatable if including a "free" cd with a piecepack set is a commercial use... in fact I believe this is what MG are doing, and some of the games in the big list explicitly state they can be freely distributed but not for profit.
The legal issue of "intellectual property" is annoying. Most game designs have an email address of the designer, so drop them a note telling them your plan to compile some games into a booklet, commercial or not, and what locality you might be distributing it in. I suspect most of them would be happy to be included in expanding the exposure of the piecepack.