David Artman wrote:
<big snips>
(Using your "Stash = 15 pieces made up of 5 full nests/trees)"
* Single random stash (SRS) - May be played with one stash of any
combination of five transparent or opaque stacks and common objects.
* Single transparent stash (STS) - Can be played with one transparent
stash and common objects; seeing through all of the pieces is critical.
* Single opaque stash (SOS) - Can be played with one opaque stash and
common objects; *not* seeing through any of the pieces is critical.
* Single Treehouse stash (STHS) - Can be played with one stash of four
different colored stacks, an opaque stack, and common objects.
* Martian Coasters (MCs) - Requires a set of Martian Coasters and common
objects.
This would mean that the "Single random
stash" is, in effect, a "parent" of the others--if you can play with a
SRS, then you can play with an STS, SOS, or STHS, and you should list
them all. His point about good user design of what is, in effect, a
database query is very valid. Probably the best point made in the whole
discussion.
I think you've just about nailed the stash classification. It's not
exhaustive, but probably does not need to be.
For classifying games based on the kind of stash needed, you might want
to rephrase "May be played with" as "Needs". I think it fits better with
your observation about SRS as parent or superset of the others. If a
game only _needs_ a SRS, it can be played with any of the stashes. If a
game _needs_ a SOS stash, it can't be played with an arbitrary SRS.
Probably shouldn't need to tag the game with all of the child types.
IMO, might not want to -- it makes it harder to extend the
classification if there is ever a desire to do that.
SO... Take That! and Tic Tac Doh! are STS games because they need
transparency (knowing what's a nest matters) BUT, they could be played
with STHS, if one is willing to lose three moves OR if the players are
advised to avoid making nests with the opaque pieces until they are the
only ones left.
FWIW, when my daughter and I were playing a bunch of Tic Tac Doh (it was
a fine thing to do while waiting for dinner to arrive at the local
Family Friendly Restaurant) we noticed the problem with opaques and
played a simple variant based on the principle "if you can't see it, it
doesn't exist" in which a nest is considered indistinguishable from a
single pyramid of the outermost size. Seemed to work, anyway.
Woah... head spinning a bit... I sure hope we can change/add Categories,
or that was all a BIG LONG digression.
But fun, regardless :-)
Frank
:)
David