Skip to Main Content
2012-05-03 09:36 pm (UTC)
"I think I know what you mean when you speak of the node count being useful, but it only works sometimes, correct?"
Must... resist... Ron... Burgundy quote...
What I have in mind works every time, and remains useful from the very beginning right up until the 'S' is found (at which point its usefulness is redundant). It affects every node located up until then. I could give it away with a single six-letter word. But that's enough hints. I'm not spelling it out unless I'm paid to do so (for example, by putting it in a book - something I'd love to do, by the way, complete with illustrations of Zotanna, basic puzzles without paths, a little plotline running through the whole thing, and so on... but I digress).
"Well, it's not so much that determining whether the S can go in a space or not is hard as that it's an annoying hiccup to deal with."
Annoying? Really? If I may continue my metaphor, you'd prefer
Murder, She Wrote
if it were just, well,
? Or are you simply in the camp that says no matter how good the mystery solver is, you still don't want to have anything to do with em because someone WILL get killed whenever e visits? XD Perhaps something in-between? We may have to simply agree to disagree on this one. Either that, or I need to leave the room when TV Land is on.
I've been known to get complaints for "backwards"
puzzles, actually - they're found disappointing. I see the logic in that, but feel even those are necessary at times to mix things up or prove a point. Heck,
The One Ring
is possibly the biggest puzzlesmith's toolbox out there, and I'm planning on making it bigger, but I think it a mistake to use every tool with every puzzle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a vanilla
- perhaps more than any other "classic" type, there's no need for rules variation to make it feel FAR from plain.
I see both sides of this argument, but the simple facts are that I
playing around with these sorts of exceptions, and there are far fewer constructors who do than those that don't, so I'm happy - within reasonable moderation - to continue to cater to the former camp. Of course, with that said, there's a very good chance I'll be making a variation of
that does away with the snake thing entirely, since I think it can stand on its own without it. I'm actually sort of surprised no one else has already. [I know I could simply define decks without hearts and still be following the same rules, but I'm not sure I like the
of that. ...Hmmm, what just came to mind may be a fascinating alternative... a very colorful and pointy alternative....]
"And my apologies for the slight spoiler."
Accepted. Grant didn't even
es gaffe, so I appreciate this. There was just too many other interesting points to delete your comment! - ZM
Reply to this
Thread from start
Post a comment in response:
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address.
Sign in using OpenID
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Log in with OpenID?
Forget your password?
Site and Journal Search
Buy Dreamwidth Services
Gift a Random User
Site and Account