[Icehouse] IGDC Winter 2008 is ready for announcement tomorrow!

[Brian Campbell]

On Nov 9, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Bob Winans wrote:

> The thing we (as a group) should strive to avoid is a game that SAYS  
> it requires two sets, but could EASILY be played with one set.  (See  
> the blue vs. blue & green example below)
>
> This is what I believe David is trying to communicate to you.

And I believe that what Jorge is trying to communicate is that while  
you could claim that you can play, say, Pikemen with a Rainbow and  
Xeno stash, and everyone remembers which colors are theirs, it really  
would fit a requirement that it use two monochrome stashes. Likewise,  
even if you could, technically, play a game with a single Treehouse  
stash, if the game really plays more easily and as intended with two  
Treehouse stashes, then it should fit the restriction. Now, I haven't  
actually looked at the rules of whatever the game in question are (is  
there an actual game, or is this all hypthetical? I haven't been  
following the discussion closely enough to have picked that up), but I  
really think that if a game makes good use of two Treehouse stashes,  
it should be allowed.

I have played a 9x9 game of Go with chess pieces and dice, on a  
chessboard. Just because I could play it that way doesn't mean that Go  
wouldn't fit a design restriction of requiring a goban and Go stones.

This is why I think it's a bad idea for the moderator to be the  
gatekeeper of what games can be entered in the competition. I mean,  
sure, disqualify games that obviously don't fit, like Treehouse  
itself, or Philosopher's Phutball, but if there is any disagreement at  
all (and there's certainly disagreement here), just leave it up to the  
judges to decide. Otherwise, it ceases being the Icehouse Game Design  
Contest, and starts being the Dave Artman Game Design Contest (Maybe  
With A Little Input From The Icehouse Community).

I understand your concern that there may be too many entries, and that  
the judges won't have time to play them all. I think that one solution  
to this is to allow, and specifically request, that judges rank games  
even that they didn't play. Part of the measure of how good a game is  
is whether you can get enough people interested in playing it. If just  
reading the rules you think "meh, I can't see how that game would be  
any good", well, that game probably needs some work. Of course, judges  
should always have at least read the rules of any game they rank, but  
I don't think that playing a game should be a requirement for ranking  
it.