> From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > I think it makes sense, although relaxing the requirement to 1 or 2 sets > wouldn't change things that much and would stop designers artificially > modifying their rules for the 2HOUSE requirement... I'd say "art*fully* modifying," because I like to think that rules additions that begin as artificial (i.e. "forced") additions often lead to interesting complexities of gameplay. 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 think a "1 or 2 set" requirement would lead to more 1-set games--not a *bad* thing, per se, but we already have about thirty-six 1-set games (not counting those languishing in development) but only nine 2-set games, most of which are limited variations or only support a limited number of players in a 2-set setup. Andy made it pretty clear that "2HOUSE" games would serve Looney Labs best, once one accepts that thirty-six-plus 1-set games is "enough" to motivate first-set purchases. In fact, if the next IGDC is design-restricted, we might want to consider "4HOUSE," as there's only four games that use 4 sets (all of which are player-number-limited at 4 sets). If you look at this page: http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=What_Can_I_Play%3F#One_Set ...you can see that 5 sets pretty much caps the System: you can play all but twenty-eight games (and variations), out of over 200 games, with 5 sets. Thus, after (if) we do 4HOUSE, any further design-restrictions will have to be based on specific products (MCs, CCs, Looney card games) or on "theme" or mechanics... and I'm not likely to favor mechanical restrictions, as I suspect that would lead to VERY similar games being submitted. Anyway, just re-explaining our decision process vis a vis filling in "holes" to encourage continual acquisition of sets by new players until they have a full spectrum of ten (eleven) stashes. Thanks for asking; David