DocReason's page

DocReason wrote:

Mike, I am curious here. Has anyone from Paizo tried any of my designs? Just curious here. I happened to do more extensive playtesting of my designs. I have like half the designs in the library, so I am curious.

I've read everything. So has Josh, I expect. We haven't been running very many playtests of anyone else's games because we're so focused on the ones we're producing. We played the ones we put in the promo book, and will be trying more as the opportunities present themselves.

On the subject of Crossing Stonehenge in particular, I really don't understand what's going on in that game. Part of it may be the terminology, and the way you describe setup. If you're getting good results with that one, maybe you could try rewriting the rules so that it's a bit more accessible.

Mike

Crossing Stonehenge, like most abstract strategy games, is a fairly simple game. All pieces move forward or laterally, and the object is to either capture your opponent's druid or get the druid into the win spot. Pieces can do freeze trap captures, or checker jumps. A problem with trying to do the rules for it, is that there is a need for diagrams to show the legal moves, but the PDF generator doesn't allow this, unless it is all text.

Here is the Boardgame Geek entry for Crossing Stonehenge:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/31622

And here is the link to the Zillion's page for it:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/3890?do=s how;id=1461

I picked up my copy at a local hobby store. Pretty much as described, bits for two new colors (black and orange), and 4 new rules.

I am not sure what I personally will be doing with it. I am real busy with a lot of other things, that I don't have any time more Stonehenge designs, particularly if I don't get any feedback on what I do.

Mike, I am curious here. Has anyone from Paizo tried any of my designs? Just curious here. I happened to do more extensive playtesting of my designs. I have like half the designs in the library, so I am curious.

Ok, I understand. Can people at Paizo at least take a look at Crossing Stonehenge? I ported it to Zillions and it is playable in Zillions now against the AI. Also Raiding Stonehenge I think is better. Anyhow, I hope it goes well here.

One thing I am working on is the IAGO World Tour. I would be interested in some of my abstract strategy games for Stonehenge becoming one of the events on the 2008 schedule, but I would need to know Paizo is interested in this.

Aww, I am disappointed. I have nearly half the games in the library here, and you didn't even go with a single one of my games?

You guys must hate me or something :-P

I heard Rolling Rocks made the Essen Stonehenge promo book. Anyone have a list of what other games made the book?

DocReason wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

DocReason wrote:

Some retailer said September/October, instead of September. Is there a set release date for the Stonehenge expansion?

We won't set an exact date until we get a confirmed delivery date from our printer. (We don't have one yet.)

Any word yet regarding its release date?

We have a new street date of November 21, 2007.

That is good news.

I'm curious as to which variants are folks' favorites? Are there any that you have played over and over again?

I'm still working my way through the five packaged in the box and then am interested to try a few more from the library and I'd love some recommendations.

Well, I am partial to my own games :-). I do think the bulk of the abstracts are good (plain Contiguity tend to be drawish, however). And Raiding Stonehenge is a good guessing game. There is also Stackhenge, which people have suggested as a drinking game (not I). I would play most of my abstracts for Stonehenge over and over. Oh yes, there is also Celtic Whist (a trick-taking game I did) which I like to. In the case of Crossing Stonehenge, I adapted it to a program called Zillions.

As for what I could recommend, it depends on what you like. My abstracts are derived from classic abstract strategy games, so that would depend on which of those you like.

DocReason wrote:

Some retailer said September/October, instead of September. Is there a set release date for the Stonehenge expansion?

We won't set an exact date until we get a confirmed delivery date from our printer. (We don't have one yet.)

Any word yet regarding its release date?

Spardo wrote:

Yes, I've started my own discussion thread.

My primary question here is based on the fact that I've categorized Artifakes as a "humor" game, and that I'm not sure that's the proper categorization. The game does involve some strategy, and is built around a pretty humorous premise. But does categorizing it as a "humor" game deter Stonehenge gamers from trying a game out at all, or should it have been a strategy game that just happens to be funny?

The abstract strategy category is getting quite crowded, I'd stick with Humor because the premise is quite humorous, and the fact that it was in Humor was the primary reason I read your rule set (I like funny games).

I happened to flood the abstract strategy category with variations on classic games done for Stonehenge, which is why it is crowded. I do agree to leave it in the humor category.

I think that makes everything clear now. many thanks.

Thanks. Let me know how it goes. I have to be open to suggestions on rules clarification needed, so I can get them clear for people. I appreciate your input. Let me know how it goes. If you like it, you may get interested in a 2 player version of Raiding I have in the works and need to playtest. If you like abstracts, check out some of those I did.

1. The first thing I don't follow is in the Setup which states 5 piles of discs containing 10 disks of a different colour. How is this possible? Does each pile contain disks of the same colour, eg red; green etc. or does each pile contain disks of a variety of colours?

2. If non-black card players place their figure next to the pile of disks matching their colour, why bother to show cards for highest or lowest? The Yellow figure will go next to the pile of yellow disks and so on.

3. As far as setting aside disks is concerned, obviously this cannot happen until you have disks to set aside which will not be the case on the first turn. Is that correct?

If the above could be clarified, that would be great.

Ok, let me see if I can help:

1. There are 50 disks total, in 10 disks of 5 colors. You sort the piles by color. Apparently there was a typo in the rule, and it is fixed now.

2. The number is important to determine the order you take from a pile. Player who gets there first gets all their disks. In event of a shortage, knowing order is what matters.

3. In the first turn, you will NOT be returning any disks. You take what you can and put back what you can. If it is not possible to do that, then those are the breaks. The reason for the taking and setting aside are separate is to try to create shortages in the game, break the balance in the game. It is a muck with the other player element to the game. When I was working on it, I was thinking of maybe having the disks go into your pile before they have to get put back, but realized that wasn't harsh enough.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

I have read the rules to Raiding Stonehenge five or six times but still haven't a clue how the game is played. Any help will be appreciated

Please let me know what questions you have. Basic flow is:

1. Start player picks a card, then go clockwise.
2. Players then simultaneously play a card and go to their respective colors they picked.
3. Black card players then pick what color they are going to. Players place their figure next to the color they played.
4. From higher to lower number on card played, players take a number of pieces and put back a number, depending on how many are at the color. Players who played black cards pick afterwords. Players put pieces in front of them in one section, and pieces back in another, then then pieces that go back are placed back in their reflective colors.
5. After players take cards, and play, the layout of cards is replenished.

At start of game, players lay out a line of cards 5 wide and as many cards deep as there are players in the game.

Please let me know if this makes sense.

DocReason wrote:

I am just curious here about my Stonehenge Design Group Yahoo group, and a concern someone else I know raised. I started the Stonehenge Design Group on Yahoo as a way for people to discuss and find playtesters for their designs, to get feedback, before they appear on the Paizo site. Is there any problems with this? I know in my case, I leave designs I do with the publish checkmark box unchecked until they have been playtested and I feel they work now.

Thank you for your time...

This is a site that requires a log-in, right? That'd certainly be okay, since it's not broadcast like the Library.

The rules for the Library exist to make sure that serious problems (plagiarism, use of other people's copyrights, slander) don't get associated with Stonehenge games and their publishers. So that's why the Library is supposed to be the first site of publication. As long as you're observing the spirit of that, I don't see a problem.

Mike

Thanks for the feedback. I have had people on Boardgame Geek whining about the license, considering it overly restrictive and whatnot. Not sure how this can be concerned.

Here:
Combining piecepack with Stonehenge is good to go! (Page 2)

I am just curious here about my Stonehenge Design Group Yahoo group, and a concern someone else I know raised. I started the Stonehenge Design Group on Yahoo as a way for people to discuss and find playtesters for their designs, to get feedback, before they appear on the Paizo site. Is there any problems with this? I know in my case, I leave designs I do with the publish checkmark box unchecked until they have been playtested and I feel they work now.

Thank you for your time...

Hello.

I like how the formatting looks professional with Stonehenge. However, I have run into a bit of problems with some of my rules. I had someone tell me my Celtic Whist game had hard to follow rules, partly because the variants were in the middle, and they felt they would be best at the end. On this note, can I ask for a way to be able to insert my own black section bars for different sections unique to the game? Like, after win conditions have one labeled "Variants"? Maybe have something like: [section]Variants[/section] And Variants would end up look like the GAMES RULES, GETTING STARTED, and PLAYING THE GAME sections.

Just an idea. I also would like a way to stick diagrams in the PDFs but that is very likely pushing it. Adding auction or bidding as a category would also be useful, but that is secondary.

Thank you for your time...

I've given this some thought, and have asked a number of people whether they feel that granting an exception to the Stonehenge license for Icehouse makes sense. After listening to everyone, I've come to the conclusion that for this one game, I'm inclined to grant an exception to the license. Icehouse has been placed in the public sphere for some time, and I think it's a sister game to Stonehenge in some ways. So go ahead and combine the two if you like. For the purposes of this agreement, Icehouse pieces are deemed "generic and common," even though they most assuredly aren't in any other way.

This is not meant to suggest that I want there to be other exceptions to the license. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope it helps.

Mike

Thanks for the update. I am sure Andy will be happy to hear this.

The game is now listed on Boardgame Geek:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/31622

A Zillions adaptation of Crossing Stonehenge is up on the Zillions site. It is here:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/13215?do= show;id=1461

Zillions is an AI program that plays abstract strategy games.

DocReason wrote:

Some retailer said September/October, instead of September. Is there a set release date for the Stonehenge expansion?

We won't set an exact date until we get a confirmed delivery date from our printer. (We don't have one yet.)

Ok, thanks.

Some retailer said September/October, instead of September. Is there a set release date for the Stonehenge expansion?

Auction Blocks is a bidding game in the Stonehenge box. I was curious where the bidding or auction category is for games created for the library. Can bidding or auction be added as a category for Stonehenge library games?

Thanks...

DocReason wrote:

Would this last possibility be a work around?

It's an intriguing possibility, but I want more time to think about it and discuss it with Andy at Gen Con next week. I'm glad you guys are bringing this up, because it's something that I wish I'd thought about before we set up the license. But the license is the way it is for some very good reasons (some of which Vic described), and I don't want to be cavalier about granting exceptions to it. So, some patience on this, please.

Mike

Gotcha. I am patient. I am working just with Stonehenge now and not adding anything else. I am just rooting for Stonehenge's success and hoping nothing gets in the way.

Is it ok if I uploaded an image of the box onto Boardgame Geek?

I happened to get it off here, and then decided to upload it on Geek, because I didn't see it uploaded yet.

I see Mike got it up on there. Good to go here.

Go to your account page and you can select an avatar from the list provided. There are no Custom avatars at Paizo, and it helps keep the boards clean, and help you remember who people are, because the avatar changes less often.

Ok. I didn't happen to see where to do that. All I see is none.

I am curious. I wanted to get an avatar pic of myself on here. I was curious how I could do that.

Is it ok if I uploaded an image of the box onto Boardgame Geek?

I happened to get it off here, and then decided to upload it on Geek, because I didn't see it uploaded yet.

DocReason wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

It's like a Stonehenge box cut in half.

Well, I hope I will have room for the new pieces :-)

The Stonehenge box itself has a lot of space that isn't being used - I could quite easily fit the expansion pieces in the same box.

After it comes out, I might see about designing a template to fit the box to keep the parts separate.

I modified the plastic that came with my copy of Stonehenge so I could fit Piecepack and Icehouse stuff in there and other bits. Not sure I will be using the other box for anything, except maybe to put another game in :-)

Ok, thanks for the clarification regarding Icehouse. A reason why I was thinking Icehouse here is that people who want to do designs for Icehouse, would want to figure out a way to integrate them into Stonehenge. So, a major target audience early on is people who have Icehouse. I know people do piecepack pyramids, so that is a possible way.

In other words, people who have an interest in Stonehenge, likely also have Icehouse pieces.

Maybe there can be a Stonehenge partner agreement so third party people who make stuff, can be considered official partners and allowed to have their games used with Stonehenge. Maybe the library can be divided between games that need extra equipment and are complete. The extra equipment could be from chess sets or whatever, or stuff like Icehouse.

Just an idea here. I do understand the concerns. I do hope this works out for the best here. Having all three together would make people happy.

Another possibility would to allow people to make reference to Stonehenge pieces when they work on a game for Icehouse, with Stonehenge viewed as an add-on to games, rather than other games being brought into Stonehenge. Would this be a possible way out? In the rules, people would make mention they needed to use Stonehenge figure, disks, bars, the board or the dice. In other words, a game would be an Icehouse game first, with Stonehenge equipment used.

Would this last possibility be a work around?

DocReason wrote:

Nice. Love the Artwork. So, is anyone going to upload the image up on Boardgame Geek? I could if need be.

I'm sure Mike will get around to it, but feel free to preempt him.

DocReason wrote:

By the way, how big is the box going to be?

It's like a Stonehenge box cut in half.

Well, I hope I will have room for the new pieces :-)

If you have a game from Andrew Looney - will there be any discussions or agreements about icehouse/treehouse pieces (also Looney Labs) to allow crossover between the games?

Hello there. I tried to kick this into overdrive actually. I contacted Andy and posted here. Someone else brought to Andy's attention here the thread on here. I believe he wants to have icehouse in Stonehenge, it is just there needs to be a communication between Paizo and him, and see if it can be done. Stonehenge would benefit from Icehouse and piecepack fans getting involved designing games.

I also know people have had some concern over the Stonehenge license. There is fear they will lose credit for their designs or be restricted somehow. This thread on Geek goes into it:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/191437

Anyhow, I do hope that things can be ironed out. I know Andy wants Icehouse everywhere, and Stonehenge would be a spot for it.

Nice. Love the Artwork. So, is anyone going to upload the image up on Boardgame Geek? I could if need be.

By the way, how big is the box going to be?

All right, I'm changing my tune. We don't want Stonehenge games to use things other people can't get easily, or have to pay money for. Piecepack doesn't fit either of those concerns, so go ahead and use it. Just make sure you never use anything that people need to buy, other than official products for Stonehenge.

Similarly, you can't require people to use Scrabble tiles. You can have them write 100 letters on scraps of paper (that's common), or include a template elsewhere (that's generic), but you can't use the Scrabble distribution (which is bizarre anyway). If, after they play, they want to use something more substantial, they can borrow from wherever they want. But your game can't say it uses pieces from a copyrighted source.

Knucklebones is our partner for Stonehenge Rocks. Anytime you see a game in a magazine, it'll be with one of our partners. Again, if a Stonehenge game is not published here, it's by us and our partners. The open-source rules only apply to the Library.

Mike

Thanks. This should get piecepack designers interested in Stonehenge more.

Ok, thanks. I just wanted to make sure on this, because you aren't just doing the rules, you are replicating the game equipment for Stonehenge when you do a game, which was a bit different. Ok, the word is yes then. I would assume the same would be going for interactive tutorials of games, right? I mean also of the original 5 games in the box?

I was wondering if there were any plans to have or allow for play over the web version of games in Stonehenge or designed for Stonehenge. Is Paizo going to work on it or allow others to do it?

I have put several abstract strategy games into the Library and might be interested in doing them up in Zillions of games: http://www.zillionsofgames.com . I was wondering if I could get a go ahead with it. I would do it to help promote Stonehenge.

Thanks...

DocReason wrote:

I asked about Icehouse, because I know Andrew Looney is working on a game for Stonehenge, and wasn't sure he minded. As far as Piecepack goes, it is an open source, public domain game system I believe. Maybe Andrew can chime in. If he gives his thumbs up, then would Icehouse be appropriate for rules in the library?

Secondarily, does the definition of the library include ALL games made for Stonehenge, or just the ones uploaded here?

The rules on the Library include the words "common" and "generic," and neither of those systems fit that description.

Chess pawns and Go pieces are okay, as they're definitely generic. Piecepack is generic, but I don't think it qualifies as common. Andy hasn't released the Icehouse system into open-source. That's his system, to do with what he wants. I'm a huge Icehouse fan, but the only way I can do a game for Icehouse pieces is if Andy asks me to.

All games made for Stonehenge come from two sources: those uploaded to the Library, and those published by Paizo and its partners. So the Library rules apply to any Stonehenge game we don't publish, as they must be first published here.

Hope that helps.

Mike

I got email from the creator of piecepack and he put it in the public domain, where people can create their own pieces if they like and use what is there. I had an interest in this happening because if mixing was allowed, Stonehenge would have a greater appeal to designers out there, and reach a broader development audience.

I can understand possible issues with Icehouse, but still unsure about piecepack.

I am also curious about the extent of "common" and "generic" because another game I am kicking around is doing a word game for Stonehenge, which would would likely use tiles, which need to be added to the game. Where would these come from? Not allowed to gut a Scrabble game for it, right? And if I make my own, those wouldn't qualify as common, would it?

Last point, can you please let me know what Stonehenge Rocks qualifies under? It isn't here and was done for Knucklebones magazine. Would Knucklebones be considered a partner?

So, no to Icehouse; yes to go, chess, and checkers. Piecepack, which I hadn't heard of before, looks like it falls into a grey area in our terms, because it appears to meet the "not owned by a third party" part of the rule, but the "generic" and "common" parts are questionable.

I contacted the person responsible for the Piecepack project, who runs piecepack.org. He sent me the following reply:

From: "Piecepack Admin"
To: "Richard Hutnik"
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Are there any problems with Piecepack being combined with Stonehenge by Paizo?

It is ok as far as I am concerned, meaning that Piecepack is in the public
domain and you are allowed to do anything you want with it.

I think the question boils down to if they will allow it or not, and that is
not my call.

It's not owned by a third party. I think you could make a case for generic,
but not so much for common (though the audience does grow every year).

So ultimately it's their call, but there is nothing in terms of ownership
that would prevent it.
-----------------------------

So Vic, does this sound like a go for using Piecepack with Stonehenge?
Piecepack was released as a public domain product. The person who came up with it, doesn't even produce the equipment and allows anyone to manufacture the equipment for profit. I believe even Paizo could do a run on it.

I asked about Icehouse, because I know Andrew Looney is working on a game for Stonehenge, and wasn't sure he minded. As far as Piecepack goes, it is an open source, public domain game system I believe.

Maybe Andrew can chime in. If he gives his thumbs up, then would Icehouse be appropriate for rules in the library?

Secondarily, does the definition of the library include ALL games made for Stonehenge, or just the ones uploaded here?

Hello. Can someone at Paizo comment on this?

I was curious what the groundrules are for this. For example, if someone came up with a game that used Icehouse pieces or stuff from Piecepack, would they be able to put these rules in the Stonehenge Library here? Same would be going with adding Go pieces or chess or checker pieces.

Thanks....

The war category had stumped me a bit as to how to exactly do a wargame for Stonehenge. There have been abstractions of war done with Stonehenge. Well, thinking a bit. I am wondering if maybe some miniature rules could be done for Stonehenge, and the cards uses as a randomizer to resolve combat. You could use Stonehenge for the battlefield, with the trilithons, disks, and bars uses as terrain, complete with line of sight. As I see it, there are several possible initial scenarios that could be used to frame the combat (same base system):
1. You have a druidic wizard's battle. The figures represent wizards dueling it out, and can cast magic and so on. A bit like Wiz-war but freed of space constraints. Players cast spells and try to hit one another and so on.
2. First person shooter, complete with videogame themes. Think a Druid version of Unreal Tournament, complete with mods, such as capture the flag, and deathmatch.
3. Stonehenge paintball. Players try to nail each other with paintball.

Comments here? Anyone do work with miniature rules or want to?

Now it is over 20 games with my Contiguity game in there.
http://paizo.com/titanicGames/library/v5748btpy7zds

DocReason wrote:

Maybe Paizo can make a video of the games being demoed at Gencon, and get these up on the web somewhere.

Just an idea.

It's not a terrible idea...

Thanks. If you guys get real busy, maybe I or others could get together to do a demo of the rules for the games. Gencon may be the best place to do it. I won't be there, however.

Congrats everyone for adding content. If you consider Stonehenge Rocks also, the library is over 20 games. Way to go everyone! I have one game I will be getting up soon, once I get to playtest it with other humans.

Maybe Paizo can make a video of the games being demoed at Gencon, and get these up on the web somewhere.

Just an idea.

DocReason wrote:

Curufea wrote:

DocReason wrote:

Is this a Sports game? Just curious if that is the right category for it.

Hmm - adventure may be closer. There isn't much else that seems appropriate in the list, unfortunately.

I thought "sport" because it involves the mechanic of manoeuvring past druids in a similar fashion to football.

It is a single player game, right? Would puzzle fit that?

Nah, it's too random to be a puzzle game. Puzzle to me means some kind of logic and puzzle solving skills are a high priority. Would you regard Klondike or the card based solitaire games as puzzle games?

I do think that luck is a bigger factor than skill for this one.

Let's say someone does a Klondike game using the Stonehenge cards (I did Freecelt as Freecell ported over). What would it be classified as? It certainly isn't abstract strategy, because it has strategy. I believe if a game is consistently beatable single player, it is a puzzle game. Freecelt, while randomized, got put in the puzzle category for that reason.

DocReason wrote:

Is this a Sports game? Just curious if that is the right category for it.

Hmm - adventure may be closer. There isn't much else that seems appropriate in the list, unfortunately.

I thought "sport" because it involves the mechanic of manoeuvring past druids in a similar fashion to football.

Well at least you manage to add a game that hasn't had a category for it yet. Would puzzle fit? I believe, when in doubt, pick the category that has the least amount of games for it.

DocReason wrote:

Is this a Sports game? Just curious if that is the right category for it.

Hmm - adventure may be closer. There isn't much else that seems appropriate in the list, unfortunately.

I thought "sport" because it involves the mechanic of manoeuvring past druids in a similar fashion to football.

It is a single player game, right? Would puzzle fit that?

Hello there.

I am making this request because of some comments I have read. Some people aren't quite getting how to play the games out of the box. I was thinking if Paizo did a tutorial video for each of the games in the box, and put them up on YouTube, this would help people get how to play the games down. It would also serve a second purpose of getting exposure for Stonehenge. As of now, if you search for Stonehenge on YouTube, you don't find anything about the game.

Comments?

Is this a Sports game? Just curious if that is the right category for it.

I just had another point or two here:
1. The RPG system involving Stonehenge doesn't have to use all the stuff in the game. My game Stackhenge just uses the box lid (to prevent loss of pieces and the disks). My game Freecelt just uses the cards. The RPG system may not even use the board, but the cards, pieces and figures may be very important. Even the Trilithons could play a role in it.
2. I was thinking of taking The 6:30 System and allowing a seventh color for the game, and what it stands for would be world specific. It would be derived from one or more of the other skills in the game, and wouldn't be bound by the range of 1-30. This would allow a flexibility to the game worlds, and allow for a more flexible generic RPG system to handle multiworlds.