Re: piecepackplus (long)

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

David

Thanks for all the points raised, which I feel help clarify some of 
the issues.  I must admit, that I am still not sure at all why, what 
I thought of was a fairly trivial, but reasonably positive, 
suggestion for a variant should cause such a response.  

First off, a comment about criticism.  Perhaps I was a little strong 
on response, but I do feel that in a "small circle" like this remarks 
can be kept polite and to-the-point.  More importantly, in order for 
a design community to thrive, suggestions should consist of positive 
and constructive criticism - we do all have egos (especially those 
with some pretensions to 'design') and ideas that are submitted 
should, I think, be treated the way we would treat people.

You say:

> From my own observation, other proposals to enhancing the original 
> piecepack specification have, for a very large part, not resulted 
in 
> much controversy. [snip]
> Perhaps the pp+ proponents are being a tad defensive towards honest 
feedback.

First off, I am "new here", and so am unaware of how other proposals 
have been treated.  The original poster made remarks such as "I think 
the PP+ page best serves the piecepack community as a signpost, 
warning us not to go there." which seemed to me quite harsh & 
different from the nature and spirt of remarks made by yourself and 
(elsewhere) by Iain.   That was the reason for my defensiveness - if 
you don't like the ideas, that's fine, but try and communicate that 
in a less judgemental way.

> I believe the criticism of the pp+ proposal originates from the 
fact 
> that the proposal offers to substitute the established suits rather 
> than expanding them. Again, please consult the JCD piecepack and 
> piecepack expanded specs (piecepack expanded may not be at this 
> group). You'll find that these specs already include the suits of 
> club, spades, hearts and diamonds in addition to the original group 
> of four. Therefore, this entire debate is likely more moot than one 
> may care to admit, because the expanded specs already can be used 
to 
> form the five proposed pp+ suits (use suns as stars)."
  and 
> Expanding on my point about pp+ replacing rather than expanding 
> the suits

Well, maybe this is your perception about the nature of the 
criticism, but this was not the point made by the original poster:  
in fact, the only idea around pp+ that he *did* support was that of 
using standard suits!   

I'll say it again - Ron Hale-Evans raised the issues of the suit 
symbols in his article (and emailed me about it).  As a result, I was 
careful to modify my ideas and clarify that using standard suits is 
*not* the main, but an ancillary, idea around pp+.  It was a 
*suggestion" made (in all innocence!) so that people can use standard 
playing cards with pp or pp+.  Maybe I should have written this up as 
two distinct (albeit related) ideas. 

*My* concept of piecepack is "a restricted set of gaming pieces, of 
given shape and type, with which you can play a multitude of games" - 
I realize now that many people would also say "bearing those unique 
set of symbols that clearly identify them".  I apologize if I have 
offended anyone that thinks this way - I'll say it again - pp is 
great and innovative idea for inspiring a new set of games.  My 
suggestions were made as an attempt to enhance that idea (not replace 
or ignore it). 

> Expanding on my point about pp+ replacing rather than expanding 
> the suits [snip]
> This point may seem trivial, but if you really want to promote this 
> system to a wider audience, it becomes important.

Gosh, this was never my intention.  I like generating ideas and was 
not necessarily thinking about promoting them - if they do serve to 
inspire, that's great.  Again; this comment only applies to the 
symbols and these are not the real issue/intent of the design (see 
previous comments)

> The pp+ proposal of using four suits around the tile is pretty 
> clever and does suggest ideas for tile placement designs. There 
are, 
> however, two very real concerns: (1) how can you add one or more 
> additional suits to this spec without breaking the system, 

Ah - positive criticism!  OK, well, I was designing my variant to fit 
in as close as possible with the existing pp notion of a 4 suit 
set.   I had not come across the idea that someone would want to add 
4 completely new ones!  I might equally argue that "adding additional 
suits" is *also* breaking the spec  (which, after all, calls for 4 
specific suits).  So, adding new suits to pp+ *would* break that 
design (this may or may not be an issue).

> (2) if you do decide on this idea, it is imperative that to specify 
which 
> combination of suits go with which specific tiles.

Well, this is not an issue if one stays within the 5 suits proposed.

> One third lesser 
> critique, but one which must be addressed, is that the proposed 
spec 
> requires an indication of tile facing to be compatible with 
existing 
> rulesets. This is currently not indicated.

I do not understand this - if a game does not require tile facing, 
then any notion of which tile faces where is irrelevant - it's like 
the pointer symbol on the pp counters; you would not need to use it 
in a checker type of game... how else might the markings be a problem?

> As for the discussion about the evolution of game systems and 
> change being a part of the evolution process, I'd like to point out 
> my own humble opinion that changes to any game system will 
> always follow games being designed for the change. While evolution 
> in a game system can be a healthy thing, a Tower of Babel scenario 
> where each game designer goes off the piecepack spec in a separate 
> direction will most assuredly lead to the collapse of the system. I 
> don't think that anyone wants this, and that is the reason a 
> thorough debate of any proposed change is necessary.

Well, there are two sides to this.  Game systems do evolve in 
response to games for them, that is true.  On the other, sometimes 
new/different game systems are designed that cause a whole welter of 
ideas to be generated *from the design*.  Renier Knizia'a "New Games 
in Old Rome" was one such system for me.  I don't think he 
necessarily designed it for new games to be created; but I found 
inspiration there anyway.  Similarly, sometimes even a single tweak 
to something can spark off new ideas and options.  So, no, evolution 
does not (as in real life) proceed in small incremental changes, but 
often makes discontinuous jumps from one state to the next.  I 
strongly believe that if each game designer goes wants to go off from 
the piecepack spec in a separate direction then that is his/her 
right.  How many of those designs will inspire new creations is, of 
course, another story.  I doubt this is a serious likelihood however -
 more people seem interested in designing games than in "designing 
designs" (which is a good thing!) I also believe communities evolve 
better when ideas are free to be shared and discussed and NOT by 
dictating 'a priori' what ideas are/are not acceptable.   Good debate 
is only possible if this culture exists, otherwise its a case of 'you 
can only debate those ideas I think are OK to debate'.

Thanks
Derek

PS "consider piecepack ... to be like sex " gets my nomination as 
the 'gaming statement' of the century!  If this doesn't sell the 
game, then nothing will!!