Re: [piecepack] Tim Marches On

["Tim Schutz" <hexchex@...>]

  I like the idea four suits, of three or four sizes, of six pyramids numbered from Null to 6. . And if I did do it for the piecepack it would have to be four sizes because of the  reasons stated. What scares me is the number of pyramids involved. 96 pyramids is a lot of cutting and pasting. Not that I haven't already done that many or more to date. I think I could possibly fit the whole thing on 4 sheets of paper like the paper piecepack. And being that big it almost becomes it's own game system and that's not what I want. I really wanted to make a simple expansion kit.  What I like about the different sizes is you can do things like give a single pyramid a power or a movement direction and as smaller pyramids are stacked on, it's powers or movement directions grow. This can also be done with the single size but it would be done with the value of the pyramid getting larger. The stack of pyramids is just easier to see this happen to. I like the single size because the value is not easy to see. So, for example, you wanted to use a mechanic similar to stratego's hidden value it would be easier. In my new game the sorcerers start with a stack of 4 pyramids (smaller on top) and as your sorcerer gets zapped you lose a pyramid. This can still be accomplished with either set. On the same size set you would just stack the null through #3 pyramids on top of each other (#3 on top) and as you get hit  the numbers would just count down 3,2,ace,null. It's just easier to see with the different size set. All and all I am beginning to think the same size set is more versatile though.
Tim Schutz

PS  Both sets are currently in the file section of the piecepack @ yahoo group.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Hale-Evans 
  To: piecepack@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [piecepack] Tim Marches On


  Tim marches on indeed!

  On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 06:52:30PM -0500, Thorn wrote:
  > Tim Schutz wrote:
  > > I made some minor changes to the piecepack pyramids. I added two > >
  more sizes so there is a total of 6 sizes with values assigned to them
  in the 4 suits. This was inspired by
  >
  > > 1) 4 suits in six sizes numbered in a fashion that the largest is the null and the smallest is the 5. This way the null pyramid can hide the pyramids with values if need be. This is the one I went with at this time.
  > > 
  > > 2) 4 suits in six sizes numbered in a fashion that the smallest is the null and the largest is the 5. This just seems like the proper way to number weights but I prefer this first way.
  > > 
  > > 3) All the pyramids are the same size. This way you can't tell the value of a pyramid just by looking at it. But it loses some of the stacking possibilities of the different size pyramids.
  > 
  > Option 3, I would say.  The loss of the sizes aspect is mitigated by the
  > fact they're all numbered, anyway.  And all one size, they still stack,
  > and still hide their values when stacked.  They DO, don't they?
  > 
  > But why stress?  Publish a type one, and a type three, and people can
  > print what they like.

  Yeah, what Thorn said. Standards will out.

  I have yet another suggestion.  I would prefer four suits, of three or
  four sizes, of six pyramids numbered from Null to 6.  That way a suit
  of pyramids (a "stash" in Icehouse terminology) would be either 18 (3
  x 6) or 24 (4 x 6) pyramids.  By comparison, an Icehouse stash
  (colour) has three sizes of five identical pyramids, for a total of
  15.

  There are pros and cons for both three and four sizes.  Three sizes
  makes it more compatible with Icehouse.  However, four sizes of six
  values makes 24 per suit, a nice piecepackish number, as all the 12s
  and 24s in the "Time Marches On" contest should demonstrate.  I really
  like how well the numbers and values of piecepack components mesh, so
  I would recommend a suit of 24.  When we played Sorceror's Chamber on
  Saturday with four sizes, though, I had trouble distinguishing between
  the two smallest sizes -- something to think about from a usability
  point of view.

  The advantage to this scheme is that you get to keep the sizes, you
  get to keep the values, and you can hide *both* suits *and* values by
  turning the pyramids on their sides.

  BTW, folks, yes, Tim and I are members of the same gaming group,
  Seattle Cosmic.  I'm lucky enough to get to playtest not only his
  piecepack games but also his other games, including the ones he writes
  for his Alpha Playing Cards game system.  I will be posting the latest
  session report tonight or tomorrow, complete with photos of Sorceror's
  Chamber and one incarnation of Tim's pyramids in action.  I will post
  a link to the list when the session report goes up.

  Ron

  -- 
           Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... & rwhe@...
             Center for Ludic Synergy, Seattle Cosmic Game Night, 
  Kennexions Glass Bead Game &  Positive Revolution FAQ: http://www.ludism.org/
  Home page & Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  piecepack-unsubscribe@egroups.com



  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.