Re: To change the subject; My response to the IVxVI puzzle/Game Theory

["James K Droscha" <jdroscha@...>]

--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, "Electronicwaffle" 
<electronicwaffle@y...> wrote:

> I know that many here do not like me.

I doubt that; none of us actually know you, so how could we dislike 
you?  Some us just might be abraded by the way you present yourself 
sometimes.  In an attempt to be constructive, let me please suggest 
that when you write in an aggravated tone, you are likely self-
defeating.  You make some good points, but folks will tend to 
overlook them when delivered in such a manner.  Even when someone 
does something or says something you strongly disagree with, try to 
express that in friendlier terms and you will find people will 
welcome your suggestions take your questions seriously (like the ones 
in this message).

>  In your game design, which comes first, the math or the fun? 

This is a legitimate question, but sounds incomplete to me, because 
it seems to offer only two choices.  It precludes the possibility (or 
probability) that for some gamers, Math = Fun.

That aside, when designing a game, I most often start with the theme 
(which I feel is evident when you look at the list of piecepack games 
I have designed).  But I certainly rely on mathematics during the 
design process.  First, it allows me to obviate a great deal of 
playtesting, because if an underlying system is sound, it will 
generally generate fewer unexpected exceptions during play.  Second, 
I often rely on math to make arbitrary decisions for me, because part 
of my nature is loathe to make such choices without some kind of 
crutch.  So, if I need to set how much certain pieces should score, I 
might give some thought about whether I want the distribution of 
those values to fall on a bell curve, a weighted curve, or remain 
flat.

After all is said and done, though, if a game is not fun, I don't 
play it.  Just remember that different things are fun for different 
people.

Cheers,
James