Although I consider the original discussion pretty much exhausted (we can agree to disagree), and I've accepted what seems to be a decision of the majority, I'll happily keep on talking and discussing for the sake of it :)
On 11/12/07, Frank Smith <smithfrankf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IMO, whatever progress further discussion might make would be better served if you would STOP trying to erect this particular strawman.
Why? To me it shows how pointless it is to say that a game doesn't really need 2 sets. Why a game that can be played with 1 set mixing colors is out but a game that can be played with 1 set because some of the pieces don't need to be pyramids is in? It's illogical. Furthermore, as this is about selling sets: No individual game is going to drive people to buy a second set. What drives people to buy more sets is a variety of games that are better played with more pyramids. If a game is better played with two sets then it is a 2HOUSE set. In fact I think this is the very reason pyramids have not been a success as individual games until the arrival of TreeHouse, which is very cheap and easily upgradable.
Has _anyone_ (other than, perhaps, you) actually suggested that the ability to play a pyramid game with things other than pyramids should be a factor?
At least one. Here's a quote from Bryan:
There are no games that *absolutely* require a second Icehouse set.
All games could be played with, say, sets of playing cards with one
corner marked for pointing, or something equally ridiculous. This is
where I disagree with you; there are no absolutes here, and so I think
that we should allow games with are *best* played with 2 Treehouse
sets, not *absolutely required* to play with 2 treehouse sets.
So even though we may be a minority, it's not only me :)
How many pyramid games actually require ANY pyramids at all? I have not done an exhaustive survey, nor do I intend to do so, but a quick mental run-through leaves few contenders.
Most of the games you say no, would be quite difficult to replicate without pyramids. As an example, Martian Chess is a game that I'd consider very easy to play without pyramids, but games like TreeHouse, Icehouse, Zendo, and many others, would need to be modified to fit other pieces. This is not what I'm talking about.
If a game only uses pyramids as pawns with numbers (Martian Chess), or pawns with direction, they're very easy to replace without disturbing gameplay. A game that uses stacking becomes more difficult to play without pyramids, and the more special characteristics a game uses, the more pyramids are needed. But this all connects whith what I said above: We didn't buy pyramids to play any one game. We bought them because that's how you can play all those games in the most confortable and easiest way.