> From: "Carlton Noles" <carlton.noles@xxxxxxxxx>
> Well, then I suppose I will go forward with my current idea for a game and
> hope it gets in. And if not I have an appeal process. Seems
> reasonable.Weshall see.
IIRC from your last post, the game uses two matched stacks per player,
with setups for two to four (even five?) players, ya?
I'd certainly list it, in keeping with what Ryan and I discussed
earlier: one can not assume a default number of players in a scalable
game. Sure, one mode of play (possibly not even the "best" or "default"
one) can be done with 1HOUSE and two colors per player; but the game is
designed with three and four player modes, which immediately
necessitates another set.
The inverse of that, though, is a "gray space" I've elected to admit
rather than have several list votes: games that scale in player numbers
(2 to whatever) but which are only 2HOUSE in a two-player game:
admissible, because that gray space is a push. Some judges (like me)
might rank such a game higher, as it encourages sales of more sets:
scalability as sales promotion ("Like it with two players? Add another
set for three or four!"). Other judges might rank such a game lower, as
it doesn't tightly adhere to the theme: the "best" or "intended"
multiplayer mode of play isn't 2HOUSE.
It is still my hope, however, that conformity to the requirement will
not be an aspect of judging, with the list vetting borderline cases for
me--the point is which game is "best overall" not which game best fits
the theme. The theme has a different "functional agenda" of promoting
sales and inspiring lateral thinking; that's the main reason I don't
want judges to be distracted by considering it as it applies to the
games (i.e. it should be moot at that point, it's function of bolstering
the 2HOUSE category, and thereby encouraging gradual sales, already
served by the creation of new games).
HTH;
David