Add topic
From Looney Pyramid Games Wiki

Templates[edit source]

This is a wiki code template that folks can use here in Talk, to suggest spells.

; [spell] : ''[pieces]'' [effect]

Resulting Output:

[pieces] [effect]


LLLL(L) Does heap big damage to target.

Refer to the game page's piece encoding for further details about how to designate piece size and color.

Open Discussion[edit source]

Hmmm... This game has the potential to be incredibly complicated. You got different colors (which should have different effects: Eg. Red for damage, Green for healing, etc.) Different Sizes, different positions... So far it's a very nifty idea though.. How about these ideas:

  • Weird Pieces: How about these being counter magics (cancels out opposing pyramids of the same color ((or size)))?

Is this the idea for spells? :

  • Magic Bolt: little energy bolt that causes a little damage. Targets: 1 / Damage: 1 Lg Pyramid / Configuration: 2 stacked small Reds.

Here's my counter magic idea..

  • Minor counter: Minor counter magic. Removes a matching piece from a hostile spell. targets: 1 Spell / Damage: None / Configuration: 1 weird piece of any color/size.

Lemme know what you think of these.. --GameBrain42 19:30, 19 Apr 2007 (GMT)

  • You got the basic idea right, but see below for follow-up (stacking is likely to be out). --David Artman 14:07, 20 Apr 2007 (GMT)

I would like to see the use of the classic elements. Red=Fire; Blue=Water; Green=Earth; Yellow=Wind. Black=Negative Energy? Of course, then Xeno sets would be Orange=Fire; Cyan=Water; Purple=Earth; Clear=Wind. And then White=Positive Energy. It might be fun to give Black pyramids damaging effects and White pieces healing effects--then you could choose your alignment. If you had a Xeno vs Rainbow, it'd be like Good vs Evil. Rainbow vs Rainbow would be a struggle for power, and Xeno vs Xeno could be a friendly competition or a competition for control of a mage's cabal.

I'm really excited about this game. The basic mechanics sound like a lot of fun; I hope the specifics are implemented well.--Archangel James 08:58, 20 Apr 2007 (GMT)

  • We're gonna do our best; see below for current thinking about handling/memorability. --David Artman 14:07, 20 Apr 2007 (GMT)

Real Time versus (Semi-)Turn-Based[edit source]

I was working on a port of Waving Hands, but I didn't consider making it real time. I was trying to make it simultaneous turns where you revealed each turn. I actually switched to using an IcePack (Icehouse + piecepack). This was pre-Treehouse. I like the idea of using a Treehouse set. I also like the idea of the pieces remaining = life points. I'm not sure I like the idea of making it real time, yet. I still like my idea of using Piecepack coins to indicate what you are adding to the spell. I'll be happy to see what I can do to help. -JEEP 13:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Good to see you; thanks. We are currently very favorable of real time; though a screen (like in RAMbots) might work, there's more of a wizardly feel to real time. (Yes, piecepaks would work--but the whole point is single-stash.) My current thinking, though, is that it might play more reasonably if it's semi-turn-based: once a player casts, he or she can't cast again until the other player casts; though he or she MAY adjust pieces and (thereby, maybe) set up defense(s) against the incoming spell. The fastest fingers will still win hands down (no pun intended)--because he or she will set up attacks and defenses so fast that the other can't respond effectively--but it won't degenerate into a machine-gun-like barrage of damage only going one way, while the other player merely struggles to keep up with losses and shifting elements. --David Artman 09:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of doing this real time (for the very reasons you give for possibly doing semi-turn-based). I definitely prefer simultaneous turns. That requires screens or other ways to hide information, though. Pretty tough to do if you are only doing single stash. Actually, this is one Treehouse per person, right? So it's not really single stash anyway. ... The proposed "semi-turn-based" option seems bad to me. Part of the fun of WH is setting up the nice sequence that allows you more efficient use of your movements. ---JEEP 14:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Placement and Removal Sequence[edit source]

From the rules, it doesn't look like the order you put things down matter, just the order they end up in. That will require significant testing of the "koans" used to make the spells. This will not be a game that comes to being anytime soon. It will be fun to playtest, though. Also, will using a spell require that the components used in the spell be returned to the stash? I think that is good, but it weakens the larger, more complex spells significantly. They already have a real risk since you are using life to make them. So that would mean that you need to make them more powerful, I guess. ---JEEP 14:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Structures[edit source]

I don't see the use of structures mentioned anywhere. I think structures are a large part of the potential fun in this game. ---JEEP 14:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Spells and Color[edit source]

As should be apparent, there will be two levels of complexity: one in which color doesn't matter, and one in which it does matter.

At this time, I do not intend for stacking to matter, though that could change. Basically, stacking makes for a huge number of potential combinations and could become far too fiddly.

Without color (or stacking), there is the following possible number of spells:
final casting orientations * maximum number of pieces in a spell * 3 sizes =
2 (at self or at other) * 4 (arbitrary) * 3 =

With color, the above rough estimate can be multiplied by 4! (factorial, 24):
24 * 24 =
576 (!)

Needless to say, there's plenty of possibility using only final orientation, number of pieces, and size (Neonate). In fact, seeing those numbers, I'm inclined to drop the Max Num in a Spell to 3 or even 2, which makes the Neonate spell list max out at 18 or 12--quite a bit easier to memorize. Keep in mind the inspiration game only has ~25 spells (including "summon," which Dave C and I have resolved is too problematic in a turnless game). And don't even get me started on how it explodes if piece order matters (it would multiply by Max Num Piece factorial). So, really, we have a lot more flexibility, using pyramids... and that could be enough rope to hang us (i.e. make the spell lists way too hard to memorize).

It, thus, strikes me that the use of orientation and size (and color, for Magi) should be very symbolic or "logical" or "intuitive." In short, it should (somehow) "make sense" that a given spell uses a given configuration. This is where the rubber will meet the road.

--David Artman 14:07, 20 Apr 2007 (GMT)

In reading about the number of possibilities per move, it slightly reminded me of CCG's. It's been a long time since I've been into one, but I can't imagine that even tournament level players really know EVERY SINGLE CARD.... not that this is a CCG, or aim to be one, it just brought to mind, you learn the rules, you learn the mechanics, if something new is thrown at you, you read the card, interpret, and keep going with the game....

Now, I would like to play this game, but I can't imagine not playing without a reference sheet, even with just 24 spells. So if there was a longer reference sheet.... more could work. I haven't read the rules to the game that inspired this one, so I'm not sure if memory is the only way to know what's going on. Now I'm babbling. --Tuxhedoh 18:32, 20 Apr 2007 (GMT)

I agree.. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the spell effects be more generalized. Instead of having an actual spell list of pre-determined configurations. Example: Let's say that a red piece must be used for the spell to do damage to a target, and that the amount of damage is based on the number/size of the red pieces in question. That way, there is no need to memorize a spell list, and the spells become more intutitive like was mentioned above.. Maybe like this:

  • Red Pieces Cause damage to other players/ Sm red = 1 Sm dmg, etc.
  • Blue Pieces Counter Red Pieces
  • Green Pieces are used for healing damage done to a player.
  • Etc...

Then maybe some rules regarding the posistion of pieces:

  • Grounded pieces indicate spell effects that will effect the caster.
  • Weird pieces are counter magics and cancel out matching pieces in a hostile spell.
  • Stacked or ungrounded pieces could effect another target in addition to the primary target(area of effect)
  • etc...

With a ruleset like this, players would not have to memorize a spell list but could construct their own spells of the top of their heads that would have customized effects. What do you guys think? --GameBrain42 19:44, 20 Apr 2007 (GMT)

Okay guys, here is a game I have been working on for a bit that utilizes the ideas I mentioned above.Avatar War Let me know what you guys think on the discussion page there.. Thanks! GameBrain42 21:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Related Games[edit source]

Hey Guys, check out Avatar War. It's got a different theme, but some of the concepts that you are talking about have been put to use there. Lemme know what ya'll think. GameBrain42 18:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)