Re: Suits Colors and Identification

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

--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, "Electronicwaffle" 
<electronicwaffle@y...> wrote:
> As Mike mentioned, I simply meant to *refer* to only one or the 
> other (suits or colors) in the ruleset. I agree whole hartedly(Sp?) 
> that both should stay as is. (Multi colored squares or dots on 
coins 
> and tiles would get boring fast, and lose *some* identity, not only 
> of the concept it conveys, but of what a piecepack is) We should 
> only refer to one or the other for the entire ruleset. (This can be 
> different for each ruleset, as long as each ruleset itself is 
> constant)

Yes, I agree that this is a good idea from the standpoint of 
consistency and clarity.  I will attempt to remember this as I write 
and revise my rulesets.  And if a ruleset doesn't lean one way or the 
other, I personally would choose to always refer to suit over color, 
since color is an attribute of suit.

> With this in mind, I offered my 6 
> formats of ID in its own right, not "hindered" in the translation 
> (as it where) from English to Piecepack. 

I use S, M, C, or A for the suit and 5, 4, 3, 2, a, or n for the 
value.  Examples:
Aa tile = ace of Arms tile
Mn coin = null of Moons coin (which I like to call "new moon")

If appropriate suit symbols are available (font or clipart) I 
substitute the symbol for the suit and/or value.

By the by, S... M... C... A is the natural ranking of suits, with 
suns at highest rank.  This is easy to remember as reversed 
alphabetical order.  You can also remember the order by size of 
actual objects... the sun is bigger than the moon, which is bigger 
than a crown, which is bigger than the 2-dimensional coat of arms 
emblem on a jacket or plaque.  (Or, if you prefer the rougher sense 
of arms, say, a 9mm, although maybe with a silencer that might be 
longer than the diameter of a crown.)

> Taking what I just said even further, Do other Authors have 
> a "Definitons" section in their rulesets? I find that this section 
> in more complex games is a must, and is best placed right around 
the 
> listings of Materials, or Setup.  Does this hinder the game in any 
> way, or should the definitons work their way in when called for, 
and 
> not "stick out" in its own section?

I don't remember ever including a definitions section, but that might 
be because I don't write complex rulesets (as I generally find the 
piecepack ill suited [not intended, but demonstrative of one of your 
points] to complex games).  I do assume familiarity with the 
piecepack glossary (a version of which exists in the Reference folder 
of the Files section of this group).  I also tend to parenthetically 
associate the various bits or suits or whatnot in the summary.

As an example of what I mean, here's the intro from Ley Lines:
   Each player is the head of an ancient druidic order, building 
geographic conduits, called ley lines (dominoes), through which 
mystic energy can be channeled from the sources of such energy, 
called cairns (coins), to the order's sacred druidic stronghold, a 
tor (pawn). Each suit represents a different druidic order:
worshippers of the sun (suns), 
worshippers of the moon (moons), 
worshippers of mankind (crowns), and
worshippers of nature (arms).

Cheers,
James