We're basically in agreement; just fiddling with words now a bit (and one important correction!). :) > From: kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx > But how set-in-stone are the requirements for any game. That is definitely a "plastic" thing--some games set the number of players in stone (Martian Mud Wrestling), some are scalable (Martian Chess), and some have ideal numbers but playable variations (Icehouse). 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! Hence the reason I say that requiring five transparent stacks qualifies, because it's not "identical in play" to use an opaque stack instead of a transparent--presuming, of course, that nesting occurs in the game; if the pieces never nest, they don't really need to be transparent, and so one would have to require at least six stacks to qualify. > Summary, I would be liberal and let pretty much ANY game > that could reasonably be played with the requisite number > of Treehouse sets into the competition. I think that's a bit vague. "Reasonably be played" means what, exactly? It's reasonable to play Zendo with two matching TH sets, it just limits the number of koans that can be left assembled. Would Zendo qualify for 2HOUSE? I suppose... but it's definitely hamstringing the game to wedge it into the 2HOUSE model (refer to Ikkozendo for how 1HOUSE Zendo must be played--it's much tougher on the Students, when they have few koans). > If a game that is REALLY fun with four players and four > Treehouse sets is entered in the 2HOUSE competition, > its ranking will likely suffer AND disqualify the game > from being entered into future competitions. Correction: Only First Place winners are precluded from re-submission in later competitions. The "check and balance" against spamming submissions are (a) design restrictions and (b) eventual judge weariness of seeing the game again, which inevitably costs the game in rankings. > Is 2HOUSE Icecaster "the same game" as 4HOUSE Icecaster? > I'd say yes, unless there are MAJOR changes other than > the number of Treehouse sets required. Well, in play, it would be VERY different--far from "identical in play"--because of alliance forming and backstabbing, neither of which is possible in the two-player game. Even if the rule text is written such that it needs no changes--making it "formally" the same game--its actual play would change so much that it's not "finally" the same game at all. Hmmm... I really think I'm going to push hard for a thematic restriction, whenever we go with restrictions again (prolly NOT in Summer 2008, to accommodate those folks who voted "no" to restrictions this time around). It's pretty much unequivocal if a game uses/mentions two of four evocative terms (ex: Stone, Waterfall, Orbit, Monkey); and it places far more of the "control" in the judges hands: often in such themed contests (indie RPGs, lately), judges are explicitly advised to consider how well the chosen themes are evoked. Judges are expected to penalize a game which just tacks a theme term onto itself (ex: changing Wormholes to "Orbitals" doesn't evoke "Orbit" at all, as the gameplay has nothing to do with things orbiting or orbitable). Fun conversation... hopefully it's of some use to others; David