Re: piecepackplus

["boardgamesbook" <boardgamesbook@...>]

If I can "pipe up" here.  As my name is attached to the pp+ design, I 
thought I might be able to make some comments; more in explanation 
than defense!  

First some background: I did not know about the mailing list at the 
time I wrote pp+, or I would probably would have sent it in for 
comment and suggestion.  As I was careful to explain, it's just a set 
of ideas for use "as and when" and *not* (must I repeat that?  NOT) 
a "challenge" or "replacement" for the original. 

It seems to me that, in the world of game designs, there is a 
distinct tendency to treat the original version as the "wholey 
grail".  A recent suggestion on the IceHouse mailing list for a 
pyramid modification nearly caused the sky to fall down.  I have seen 
this approach too, for commercial board games - no matter what 
the "state" of the original (from nearly perfect to nearly playable), 
the approach from the gaming community can be broken into two 
responses:  "Don't touch it; it was designed that way and so you play 
it that way", and "Well, that's fun, but wouldn't it be cool to try 
this..."

Well, I am a tinkerer or, maybe more accurately, a frustrated game 
designer.  I do not see games in the same light as books - done once 
and never to be changed.  They are more like works-in-progress... a 
commercial case-in-point is Avalon Hill's "Third Reich" which went 
through any number of versions, plus two major "issues" (and I think 
there is a third?) - and that was just from the designer!!  So, no, 
games are not perfect (except, perhaps, Go) and so are open to 
reinterpretation.  All of this does not mean the original is not 
fun/playable etc etc.  

And so to piecepack - a great and simple design ... well, some 
IceHouse purists tend not to think so (but lets ignore that view 
here).  Can they be modified - yes.  Should they be modified - ah, 
well, we're back to the "wholey grail".  Piecepack is "sufficient and 
good" to accommodate any number of game designs without adding 
anything to it.  What happens if you *do* add something to it - well, 
there are probably other designs one can then create.  Is 
one "better" than the other... no, I think not.  

As for the specific "objections" to pp+.  I believe most of them are 
only relevant if you view piecepack as the "wholey grail".  But I 
will try and answer the ones that made sense, as best I can.

1. "PP+ is fine, if it stands alone. But the very name begs 
comparison, and invites confusion. "

The name, well, its fairly irrelevant what its called - its NOT 
a "version 2.0" or any such thing like it.  I picked "plus" because I 
thought it made a nice alliteration, and it succinctly described the 
fact that I was *adding on* to the original.  If you would be less 
confused if it was called something like "Against The Grain", well, 
OK?!  The comparison would still be made, however.  

2. "It sounds like it's 'more piecepack' but it breaks
the prexisting spec."  
  and
"Does it (the change) in any way remove any existing function? If so,
don't make the change. This one's binary. Don't break it."

I am not sure what you mean here by 'spec'?  If you mean "any 
suggestion that chnages any part of the design, based on a full and 
completely legalistic reading of the web page" then, sure, 
it 'breaks' that.  What it does *not* do is break the piecepack 
concept or functionality.  It's simply adding some options to the 
original, and so any games designed for pp can be played with pp+  
(and I did actually point this out on the website).  For myself,I 
thought the additions were relatively minor.

3. "Unlike the PP+ plans for adding counting tokens, the hexgrid 
tilefaces aren't neatly 
obviated by the presence of note paper."

Well, I think the presence of notepaper says that something is 
missing and, no, I don't think notepaper is a "neat" solution at all 
(assuming that we are even talking about the same problem).  There 
are not a few boardgames that use money, or some form of counting, 
and I would say its a valid area that cannot easily be simulated in 
pp as it stands.  But, of course, this is missing the real point.  
Numbers are just symbols, after all, and such tokens can be used for 
any number of other purposes.  Not to mention that the chip 
themselves are open to all kinds of uses.  The chips design is 
certainly an area where I would have welcomed some suggestions as to 
what are "good" numbers are to have on them, or how many altogether 
are sufficient, and so on. 

4. "I think the PP+ page best serves the piecepack community as a 
signpost, warning us not to go there."

Ouch, that seems a little harsh, given the very arbitrary and limited 
criticisms that were actually raised.  If pp+ is a signpost - and it 
certainly wasn't intended as such! - it more a signpost saying; if 
you go down this side orad, you might find some interesting things to 
explore.  Of course, if you are not an explorer by nature, and prefer 
the comfort of the highway, then don't go down there.  But, please, 
don't scoff or mock the side roads just for being there.

I love participating in on-line communities ... but I am always wary 
of "prophets" who stand up and say to the community "look - heresy! - 
avoid him/her/that like the plague".

5. "One good thing about PP+: it uses the relatively standard symbols 
of playing card suits and a 'star', which as the author observes, 
spares a maker from scrounging for graphics."

Yes, since writing this page, IcePack games have taken this idea 
through to a commercially available version, saving the DIY-
challenged among us from even that effort. OTOH, there are others who 
believe that the pp symbols are an indivisible part of the "wholey 
grail" and so even this suggestion smacks of "heresy".  Each to his 
own, I would say.  Bear in mind that pp+ can be played with any set 
of symbols you desire, *including* the original ones (with, of 
course, a 5th suit of some sort).


All comments about pp+ aside, I do think that there is a bigger 
universe of "universal board game systems" which piecepack is 
inviting us to explore. It does seem though, unfortunately, that this 
forum is *not* the place to do it.  Which is a pity.

Derek


--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, Thorn <edt@d...> wrote:
> Ron Hale-Evans wrote:
> > 
> > I don't remember anyone else mentioning this.  It's interesting in
> > light of the other recent efforts to expand the piecepack:
> > 
> >   http://www.freewebz.com/gamesbook/ppp/ppp.htm
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> I found this site during my first 'search for everything piecepack'
> phase.
> 
> Then, I thought it seemed like too much, more of an answer to 'what
> _else_ can I paste on?' than to 'what else do I need?'.
> 
> Now...  <going back to read it again...>
> 
> I still think so.  Without rulesets or a source, the page reads to 
me
> like a list of kit for the ultimate drumset, including four kinds of
> sticks, a high hat, etc, that's standing gathering dust.
> 
> Meanwhile, the original piecepack spec inspires.  It may be just an 
old
> oatmeal tub, but we sure can dance to it.  :)
> 
> PP+ is fine, if it stands alone.  But the very name begs 
comparison, and
> invites confusion.  It sounds like it's 'more piecepack' but it 
breaks
> the prexisting spec.
> 
> I guess the questions we should ask ourselves before modifying 'the
> spec' (which I certainly don't feel _I_ have any right to do, 
anyway)
> are these:
> 
> Does it (the change) in any way remove any existing function?  If 
so,
> don't make the change.  This one's binary.  Don't break it.
> 
> Does it add something folk will use?  How often?  Could they manage
> elsewise?  How easily?  For instance the proposed hex grid on the
> numbered face of the tiles...  If it had been there, I would have 
used
> it when I wrote Wand of Odin.  I can see using individual tiles 
with the
> 'three-seater' hexgrid as 'vehicles', or 'islands'.  I can see 
laying
> out labyrinths for dungeon-like explorations.  And I _don't_ see any
> easy way a user could replace the hexgrid function on the fly.  (And
> also worth noting, they can't very easily recover from having the
> 'wrong' kind of piecepack; if they don't have hexes, and rules call 
for
> them, they're stuck.)  Unlike the PP+ plans for adding counting 
tokens,
> the hexgrid tilefaces aren't neatly obviated by the presence of note
> paper.
> 
> I think the PP+ page best serves the piecepack community as a 
signpost,
> warning us not to go there.
> 
> One good thing about PP+: it uses the relatively standard symbols of
> playing card suits and a 'star', which as the author observes, 
spares a
> maker from scrounging for graphics.