[Icehouse] What is 2HOUSE?

[Brian Campbell]

I agree with most of what you say, with one major difference of  
opinion and some caveats. This is a long post; sorry for making a long  
discussion longer, but I just want to make sure you understand where  
I'm coming from.

On Nov 12, 2007, at 10:45 AM, David Artman wrote:

> "So the only games I'd reject are those which are mechanically
> indistinguishable, identical-in-play games when converted to 1HOUSE;  
> but
> conversely, if they can scale up well (ex: Icecaster, Martian Chess)
> then I say so much the better for sales promotion!"
> ...and...
> ""Will this game absolutely require a new Icehouse System adopter
> with one set to buy his or her second set?" If the answer is no,
> then the game doesn't qualify."

There are no games that *absolutely* require a second Icehouse set.  
All games could be played with, say, sets of playing cards with one  
corner marked for pointing, or something equally ridiculous. This is  
where I disagree with you; there are no absolutes here, and so I think  
that we should allow games with are *best* played with 2 Treehouse  
sets, not *absolutely required* to play with 2 treehouse sets.

> The (repeated) reasons are also summarized:
> "But relaxing to "1 or 2 sets": no, not now. The whole point is to
> encourage new Icehouse System players to buy a second set in order to
> gain the capability of playing several new games.

I agree wholeheartedly. We should not relax the requirement to a "1 or  
2 set" restriction.

> "While that may be true in some cases, in other cases it may lead to
> games
> that are  "almost 1HOUSE"  and that may even work better removing  
> those
> artificial elements... but you're right: now it's not the time to  
> change
> the
> rules... Let's hope that people do games that really need 2 sets, else
> newcomers to the system that bought a second set to play more games  
> may
> feel
> a bit cheated :)"

Yep, I agree with you here. We'll hope that everyone on this list acts  
cool and makes a good faith effort to really work with the  
restriction. And if that doesn't happen, well, then the judges can  
rank those games that don't fit lower, and so people looking at the  
winners or top 3 games won't have to worry about those other games.

> ...and...
> "What you fail to mention is that you would have invested time and
> effort
> into reading a game that you would, in turn, then rate very lowly
> because it basically spurned the requirement or tried to circumvent it
> in a trivial manner.
> Now recall how much trouble we had getting complete ranking from every
> judge--why should we exacerbate that problem by admitting games which
> spurn the requirement just to "get seen" or whatever (as we presume
> winning would be neigh impossible)."

I don't believe that reading the rules to a game are a very big  
burden. I believe that part of what prevents people from voting on  
many games is that they don't have the time to *play* many games, not  
read them. If we make it absolutely clear that people may vote on a  
game that they have only read the rules of as long as they're pretty  
confident in a rating based only on that criterion, then just  
encourage people to vote a game lower that doesn't fit the rules or  
they would never play or could never get their friends to play.

> To enumerate:
> 1) A game which doesn't promote sales of second sets to new adopters
> doesn't qualify. ("Must Sell Some Plastic")

Agreed.

> 2) New adopters should not be put in the position where they might
> realize they didn't actually need a second set. ("No Bait and Switch")

The interpretation of this depends on what you consider to be  
"needing." If you need that set to have the best experience playing  
the game, then I agree. If you only need that set in some absolute,  
metaphysical sense, where you could not possibly substitute it for  
another, then I think the rule is too strong. For instance, that rule  
would rule out Treehouse as a game meeting the 1HOUSE design  
criterion. Treehouse can be played perfectly well with a 6-sided die  
and a monochrome stash, so technically no on "needed" to get a  
Treehouse set if they already had at least one monochrome stash and a  
6 sided die.

> 3) Several judges' time to read and reject is worth more than one
> designer's time or submission. ("The Needs of the Many...")

I don't think this is significant. I like reading the rules of games;  
the time taken reading the rules is not that important. The amount of  
time to play games is significant. If people really don't like voting  
on games that they haven't played, then we'll have to do something  
about the number of games, because we do want a lot of them to be  
voted on and if playing the games is a barrier, we do need to limit  
the number of games.

Actually, I just had an idea for how to fix this (make sure there are  
few enough games that the judges can really concentrate on them); I  
think it's too late for this competition, but it might be something to  
try for the next. Instead of having people submit their own games,  
have people nominate games. We select an ideal number of games, say 5,  
or maybe 7, such that everyone thinks they can play all or most of the  
games. Everyone sends secret nominations into you. They can nominate  
as many games as they want. Nominations can be based on having played  
the game or just having read the rules and thought "yeah, that sounds  
interesting, and that fits the design criteria." Once the nomination  
period is over, you count up the nominations, and picke the top 5. Ask  
each of the designers if they accept the nomination (they may have  
just created a game and don't want to be part of the contest), and if  
they don't, then pick the next one on the nomination. Then have a  
voting period as normal on those 5 (or 7, or whatever) games.

Anyhow, this is just a though, and completely tangential to the topic  
at hand. Back to your everyday muddy philosophical discussion!

> 4) The judges should be focussed on what game is "best" without having
> to adjust that due to an orthogonal element of judging: conformity to
> the restriction. ("No Men in the Mrs. America Contest")

Sure, no Men in the Mrs. America Contest. But I wouldn't want the  
organizer of the contest to measure hip-to-waist ratio and disqualify  
people who didn't match some ideal ratio perfectly; let the judges  
decide that.

> 5) It has already been announced. ("Don't Change Horses in Midstream")

I agree. We should not change the rules as announced. I'm discussion  
how to interpret the restriction, and when and who should apply it,  
not what it should be.

> As Coordinator--or should I say, if I am to remain the Coordinator--I
> would be the "first gateway" for submission acceptance. If (*if*) I
> reject a game because it's trivially 1HOUSE, then the designer may
> appeal to the list and, if he or she gains a consensus in favor of
> letting it be judged, I will list it among the games.

Sure. I agree that you should be able to gateway for the most obvious  
violations of the rule. I would prefer that you err on the side of  
leniency, but this sounds reasonable.

> If that doesn't make my position clear, let me add to it one thing:  
> I am
> running this competition for Looney Labs' benefit and for the  
> expansion
> of the Icehouse System market, NOT for the community on this list and
> NOT for the designers to gain recognition. Should the latter two
> benefits accrue, so much the better, but I will not place them at a
> higher priority than promotion of sales and the System.

There is no way for Looney Labs to benefit if the community does not  
benefit. We want the best games you can play with two stashes.  
Enforcing restrictions that the game must *absolutely* require two  
Treehouse stashes may filter out the best game of the lot, that is  
best played with two stashes and so would encourage people to buy a  
second stash just to play such an awesome game.

> Those of you who simply *must* make a 1HOUSE game--or make a game  
> which
> is aesthetically more pleasing as 2HOUSE but which anyone could see  
> can
> easily be played with 1 set--are encouraged to do so and seek
> playtesters. But I won't let such a game "pad" the list of  
> submission or
> "water down" the requirement which other, conforming designers  
> struggle
> to meet.

You know, maybe I'm talking about something somewhat different than  
you. You seem to be talking about a 1HOUSE game that is dressed in  
2HOUSE clothes, and I'm talking about a 2HOUSE game that can be forced  
into a 1HOUSE mould if you kind of tilt your head sideways and squint.  
I'm fine with you eliminating something that is clearly a 1HOUSE game  
that someone's trying to pass off as 2HOUSE. I just don't want you to  
squint sideways at a game, say "well, as long as you keep track of how  
many pieces each person has captured so you can give the pieces back  
to the player and they can re-introduce them in the next phase," and  
deem that it can be played with a single treehouse set plus 5 extra  
checkers.

> If anyone has a logical argument to make which conforms to the above
> enumerated priorities and justifications but reaches a different
> conclusion than I have, feel free to present it and I will respond. If
> someone has an opinion that "it's too arbitrary," then I welcome  
> them to
> further detail precise aspects of the requirement to remove the
> (alleged) subjectivity and make it objective, NOT to remove the
> requirement completely (we were doing a fine job of detailing such
> nuances until the noise kicked in).

Well, I think I've made my opinion as clear as I can. Now, I want to  
make sure you understand; this is my opinion, and being offered as a  
suggestion for how to make the contest better, not a set of demands  
that I will refuse to take any part in the contest without. So, I  
leave it up to you to decide how to run the competition. I pretty much  
agree on most of the points, it's the matter of degree that I disagree  
on. All I really want is that you acknowledge our points, even if you  
continue to disagree with them.

So, run this contest as you see fit. If, after that, I really feel  
like I would like future contests to go differently, I will offer to  
run the next contest with a design restriction, the way I would like  
to. It will only be an offer, not a demand, but that will give you the  
choice of whether you want to deal with this sort of thing in the  
future.

> God > Country > Looneys > Customers (Judges) > folks on a listserv >  
> me.

Please recall that the people on the listserv are generally the  
judges, and are some of the core customers, who evangelize the  
product. Without everyone on this listserv, the Looneys would not have  
sold 1/10th the stashes they do. Without the designers on here, there  
wouldn't be 1/10th the games to play. The Looneys simply would not be  
making Icehouse pieces if it were not for all of the people on this  
list, or who at least have been on this list. So try to keep it polite  
and cordial with everyone, and don't drive people away.

Also, when you say things like this, you make it sound like everyone  
else is only fighting for themselves, and you are taking the high  
ground by considering other people over you, while really everyone  
here loves the Looney and is trying to help them succeed, is trying to  
pick the best games they can, and would love to promote Icehouse as  
far and wide as possible. In fact, I have never designed a single  
Icehouse game; my interest is only in picking out the best games to  
play, the ones that will get everyone playing Icehouse, the gamed that  
will make Icehouse stashes as common an item in convenience stores and  
checkout isles as playing cards. And there are plenty of other people  
on the list who are in it for the same or similar reasons; maybe they  
would like some recognition for their game, or would like other people  
to play it as well, but getting other people to play it also helps  
them get criticism, become better designers, and thus design better  
games that will bring more people into the fold.

I will sum this up to say that my philosophy is that of the original  
Icehouse game. Keep it Cool. There were lots of things that weren't  
explicitly forbidden in Icehouse, but were just considered un-Cool.  
Sure, you could do it, but then someone might say "hey, that wasn't  
very Cool" to let you know that you should do that. So submitting a  
game that's better played with 1HOUSe or other components than 2HOUSE?  
Un-Cool. Submitting a game that doesn't use the extra pieces at all?  
Against the rules. Submitting a game that uses all of the pieces in a  
2HOUSE set, both dice, and all of the lovely attributes of the pieces  
(stacking, pointing, orientations, color, pip count)? Cooler than Ice.  
So maybe tell people "hey, that's not very Cool. You might want to  
hold off until next time", but if they really want to submit there  
game, well, sure, why not. Keep it Cool, in the discussions, the  
games, the contest, and everything, and it'll be a lot easier for  
everyone to get along.

P.S. Whew, this post is getting longer than I intended. Sorry about  
that; that's not very Cool, but in the words of someone famous, I did  
not have the time to make it shorter.
P.P.S. And I'll admit that I've been un-Cool. It wasn't very Cool of  
me to try and use a rhetorical point that could easily be interpreted  
as an ad-hominem. I'll try and watch that in the future.
P.P.P.S. OK, you can stop reading now, I'm really out of things to sau.