Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

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

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 05 Nov 2007 13:28:33 -0700
> From: kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx
> > long as you assign each die color to a player color.
> Two things:
> 1. Doesn't the requirement for two TreeHouse dice make this
>    a 2HOUSE game by the slimmest of margins?
> 2. Be careful about requiring identifiable TreeHouse dice.

I never said "Treehouse die" (in fact, it's two six-sided dice).

> I would automatically give one demerit to any game that
> requires two different TreeHouse dice.

But if it requires two Treehouse dice with no particular preference as
to color of the dice--each player controls his or her die when it's
rolled, to ensure which goes with what side; or the game uses two TH die
results per turn (pick one, do both)--then it is most definitely 2HOUSE.

As for your condition of *absolutely, positively requiring* two
different color TH dice (I can't imagine how that would happen or what
mechanic could necessitate that, frankly) then, yep, it's going to hurt
the game because, as with *any* and *all* equipment requirements (say it
along with me, kids!), equipment requirements make a barrier to entry
for any game, IGDC or not. It's self-correcting, thus I do not regulate
it in IGDC rules (nor have they ever, unless it was perhaps a past
design requirement of "pyramids only; no other equipment").

> IF you need less than six colors and
> at most one of each size of each color and
> at most one TreeHouse die, then 
> I would consider that a 1HOUSE game,

Seems an exhaustive definition of 1HOUSE, until...

> EVEN IF specific colors are specified.

OK, true, if one can merely color substitute and then be able to play it
(ex: Homeworlds with Xeno). But....

> I cannot think of a way to use, say, one color each
> from Xeno and Rainbow the actually requires specific colors.

No, false, if the game (as I said) actually depends upon the additive
color results of colors from two different sets. A quick and dirty

Find The Green Mid!
* "Challenger" puts a yellow large over a cyan medium and puts a clear
large over a green medium.
* Challenger places the two stacks at least 20 feet away from the
* Guesser gets one chance to state whether the left or right stack has
the green mid.

Cheap? Yeah. Dumb and way too easy? Yeah. "Requires two TH sets?"
Yep--it qualifies (and is doomed to last place, I imagine).

> The only exception I can think of would be if you needed
> two different opaque colors.  THEN I could see that as a
> requirement for a mixed 2HOUSE set.

Absolutely... but the opaqueness must have mechanical relevance (e.g.
hiding smaller mids), not just be arbitrarily designated as "black v
white" (which is what the game that I mentioned at first did, when I
first realized this wiggle of the requirement).

> I think that situation is a perfect illustration of why
> the level to which any given game qualifies as 2HOUSE
> should be left to the judges' discretion instead of the
> contest administrator's.  Trust the judges to use some
> judgment... that's what they/we are here for.  As a judge,
> I wouldn't be irritated at seeing an entry that requires
> yellow and cyan (and no other colors of pieces and only
> one die). I would just rank it quite low indeed because
> I don't consider it truly 2HOUSE in nature.

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 am with Don and Jorge on this one:
> From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx>
> I, for one, don't think it's unreasonable for the contest's sponsor to
> immediately disqualify games which *obviously* do not meet the
> requested criteria.  Yes, there will be a lot of gray space for the
> judges to, y'know, judge, but something totally out of line shouldn't
> even be included.
> They can submit in the next competition.


> From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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 :)

Finally, in closing:
> From: "Avri Klemer" <avri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> If a game *can't* be played with 2 sets, it's not 2HOUSE and
> should not be eligible for the next IGDC . . .

I assume you mean "If a game can't be played *without* 2 sets, it's not

In general, Don's "math" holds true:

1 set < requirement to be able to play the game <= 2 sets

I am just adding the clarification that "forcing" a game into 2HOUSE by
assigning Xeno v Rainbow colors to arbitrary color assignments isn't a
valid 2HOUSE game, until the number of requisite transparent color
stacks exceeds four... or five, if you agree with Ryan's assessment that
an opaque can serve as a transparent--that's one "gray space" where I'd
*would* let such a game enter, if the only way to "1HOUSEify" it is to
deal in a kludgey manner with an opaque stack which one would rather be

My 2¢;

Current Thread