Piecepack Design FAQ Draft [WAS: 5th piecepack competition + more questions]

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

--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, "vg_reality_anchor" <VG_Reality_Anchor@y...> 
wrote:

> 2. Are there any guidelines about the size of the dice (in relation 
> to 1/4 of a tile)?

Currently, the size of dice is not specified.  In my own piecepack, you could fit all four 
dice 2x2 within a single space (2" tiles and 1/2" dice), but offhand I would suggest 
merely that the face of a die be no larger than a space.

> 4. What was the design process you went through when designing the 
> piecepack concept

Below is a whack at the most common questions I have been asked about what kinds 
of things I pondered while designing the piecepack.  Of course you will disagree with 
some of my reasons, but part of the charm is that you can make your piecepack any 
way you like!  Also, I fully expect the basic design to evolve over time, as playing 
cards have.  So, the FAQ below is not intended to convince anyone one way or 
another... just gives a bit of insight into the process I underwent for those that are 
curious.

This is a draft (or beta, if you like) so if you have other questions, or if you find 
something in error, or if I have been unclear, please email me:
jdroscha at att dot net

Cheers,
James


----------

PIECEPACK DESIGN FAQ 0.1b
by James Kyle (jdroscha@...)
18 September 2003


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE PIECEPACK

Q: Who created the piecepack and when?
A: James Kyle designed the original piecepack guidelines and released them into 
public domain in October of 2000.

Q: What were the design goals while creating the piecepack?
A: 1) Flexibility (including genericy, adaptability, and variety)
    2) Availability (including affordability and portability)
    3) Completeness (including autonomy)

Q: Did you have any games in mind when designing the piecepack?
A: No.  I purposefully avoided consideration of specific mechanics, and instead 
focused on general utility.  At first, the quest for flexibility seemed to lead down the 
path of complication, but after building a few prototype sets covered with distracting 
markings, I decided that a feature should only be included if it felt likely to be useful 
in a third or more rulesets.  (In retrospect, the only final feature that has been utilized 
less than expected is the directional pips on coins.)  I have become convinced that 
less is more.

Q: Since you admit the inspiration for the piecepack is playing cards, why are the 
piecepack suits different from those of playing cards?
A: I felt it important to avoid the possible perception that the piecepack is an 
accessory for playing cards (like, for example, poker chips).  Also, when considering 
the playing card suits for use in the piecepack, the urge for analogous value ranges (1 
to 13, or at least 1 to 10) was too strong for me to resist, which would have broken 
the goal of portability.

Q: Why do the pawns not indicate facing or direction?
A: Not requiring directional pawns allows manufacturers to use inexpensive, 
standard, off-the-shelf pawns.  Adding directionality to the pawns, however, would 
not break compatibility with the original design and would be handier than coins 
(which do exhibit orientation) for some rulesets.  Whether or not to require directional 
pawns was the only point on which I was not completely certain when I released the 
original piecepack guidelines.

Q: Why are there only four suits when many modern boardgames accommodate five 
or more players?
Although it seems fairly natural for boardgames, I did not intend suits to necessarily 
be associated one for one with players, as they rarely are in card games.  The 
combination of 6 values and 4 suits is attractive, since 24 divides evenly by 2, 3, 4, 6, 
8, and 12.  Further, an even number of suits more readily fits into compact 
packaging.  I did strongly consider 6 suits, but adding half-again to the volume of the 
piecepack stretched the bounds of portability.  I also figured manufacturers could add 
extra suits at their discretion.

Q: Why are the backs of the tiles not checkered?
A: In testing, I found that unless you took the time to rotate all tiles to the same 
orientation, checkered backs were extremely obnoxious and distracting.

Q: Why is the color black used for both the suit of Moons and the value markings on 
coins?
A: The fewer colors used, the cheaper manufacturing becomes, and the easier to find 
a set of colors amicable to the color blind.

Q: Did you consider other ranges for the values?
A: Yes, powers of two were strongly considered: 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16.  But it produced 
linearly distributed subset sums, rather than the more natural-feeling curve, and 
subset products became cumbersome even to the arithmetically inclined.  The range 
1 to 6 was nearly chosen, since it would have allowed manufacturers to use standard, 
off-the-shelf dice, but the utility of having two special values (null and ace) 
outweighed manufacturing convenience in this case.

Q: Did you consider other shapes for the tiles?
A: Yes, hexagons were a strong contender.  But square tiles are much less expensive 
and easier to fit into compact packaging.

Q: Did you consider adding one extra (special) tile to allow for a 5 tile by 5 tile square 
grid?
A: Yes, along with a special die (with null, wild, suns, moons, crowns, and arms sides) 
and an extra coin.  These were rejected for three reasons.  First, they made the 
piecepack less likely to fit into compact packaging.  Second, I thought the "hole" in a 
5 tile by 5 tile board might be inspiring.  Third, the extra pieces did not fit my "likely 
to be used in 1/3 or more of the rulesets" guideline.

Q: Why is the piecepack public domain?
A: I placed the piecepack into public domain because playing cards are public domain 
(although particular graphics on any given deck are copyrighted) and playing cards 
were the inspiration for the piecepack.  I feel this contributes greatly (though not 
exclusively) to the availability, and consequently the ubiquity, of playing cards.  I did 
not make the piecepack public domain for ideological reasons.

Q: Why wasn't the piecepack design placed under some flavor of open license?
A: There was no need to do so, as public domain was simpler while adequately 
serving the goal of availability.

Q: How does the designer of the piecepack make money from it?
A: I don't.


	To learn more about the piecepack, please visit
http://www.piecepack.org

	We also welcome you to join us for discussion of all things piecepack at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack

----------