next »

[PavelCurtis]

Welcome Pavel!  I must admit I'm a big fan of your puzzle blogs, to my knowledge your website is the only one offering such unique insights into the puzzle world.  Perhaps you'd like to start one here on the forum when you find the time

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say.  Ever since I started designing puzzles, I've felt compelled to examine, and talk about, the process I went through to create each one.  I wish more designers would do so!

I have a bunch of general articles planned, not specific to any particular design, about my process, about the many dimensions of puzzle difficulty, and about the materials and manufacturing technologies available to those without the means, inclination, and/or talent for hand-crafting.  Lord only knows, though, when I'll get around to writing them.

For now, I expect I'll post those articles on my own blog, as additional ways to entice web searchers to visit (perchance to buy, or at least to bookmark).  That's all part of the "entrepreneurship" path I'm exploring, of course.  Per the discussion over in the "Ethics" thread, I'm also picking my way along the line between art and business: I really want my puzzles to give pleasure to lots of people, but I also really want the process to make sense from a business point of view.  (I'm fortunate, of course, that I have no need to support myself this way, but still I care about the balance sheet.)

Anyhow (sorry to ramble), I'll try to remember to post notes here whenever I put up something new on the website, for those who are interested.

[PavelCurtis]

Pavel, I am intrigued by your devil's half dozen.  You have some nice designs.

Thanks, Robert!  Frankly, I don't know how successful to judge the Doven puzzle.  I find that I personally most value those designs that are most widely accessible without being trivial.  The Devil's Half Doven, however, is a fairly difficult puzzle that's only really accessible to those who are willing and able to spend the time to understand the deeper structure underlying its "puzzle space" (e.g., to figure out the parity contraints it operates under) and thereby to reduce the search space to something more feasible.  For many hardcore puzzlers, of course, that kind of analysis is the meat and potatoes of their enjoyment.  For most casual players, though, having that kind of barrier between them and the solution completely robs the puzzle of value.

Does this make sense?  Does it strike a chord with anyone else's design experience?

[Canuck]

Ever since I started designing puzzles, I've felt compelled to examine, and talk about, the process I went through to create each one.  I wish more designers would do so!

Yes this is exactly what I'd like to see more of as well, for me it makes the puzzle much more personal, a sort of journey into the process, great stuff!  I look forward to reading more of your blogs, thanks Pavel!

[Robert Yarger]

Pavel, with puzzles, I think the more complex the better, but complex puzzles have to meet certain guidelines.  For me, thier solution has to have some element of logic to it (e.g.  a person has to be able to figure it out as opposed to dicovering a solution by random chance.  Also, a complex puzzle has to have several tiers to it so that you feel like you are making some progress along the way, otherwise you get bored and frusterated. 

You should check out our section "what makes a good puzzle" on the forum, because there are as many opinions about puzzles as there are people.

[Eric Fuller]

Pavel, got any tips on how to handle the disappointment that comes with thinking you have a design worked out in your head, only to have to completely redesign it three times once you put it down on paper?  'cause that's what I've been doing pretty much all week! 

[PavelCurtis]

Pavel, got any tips on how to handle the disappointment that comes with thinking you have a design worked out in your head, only to have to completely redesign it three times once you put it down on paper?

In my experience, when designing both mechanical and pencil-and-paper puzzles, this is the rule, never the exception.  The first thing in my process is the "story" of the solving experience: what the solver sees/notices first, what they learn along the way, etc.  After putting together a good story, the hard work begins, of searching for or trying to construct an actual puzzle that exhibits that story.  Many a great puzzle story of mine has turned out to be unachievable.  Sometimes, the story can be changed (sadly, often weakened in the process) into one that that can be realized, sometimes not.

My only approach to this seemingly fundamental problem is (a) to have a lot of story ideas, and (b) to try not to get too attached to any story.  I'm having much better luck with (a) than with (b)... :-)

Sorry, but that's probably not very useful.  Boy, how we designers do suffer for our art, eh?  :-)

[Eric Fuller]

Actually that's incredibly useful!  I never thought of it that way, but you're exactly right and that's how I do my designing as well.  Sometimes I'll see an interesting looking conventional box and think it lends itself to a type of movement or device...so I'll design the device in my head and rework the box around it to create a generally unrecognizable derivative.  The IRMO box for instance was inspired by Kamei's gift box (the square one with the bottom opening). The design I'm working on right now was inspired by a bathroom scale of all things (big hint for those who buy the box...I'll probably delete that part in a week or two).

The sad part is that when I was doing this as a hobby I found the design phase mostly fun.  Now that I'm doing it as a living, every hour I'm at the kitchen table is an hour I'm not actually making anything, so I have to build the design time into the price of the box which makes it end up costing more (something I'm never a fan of).  It's frustrating to think you have it all in your head and you'll be making sawdust in a day only to find it turn into a week.

[Robert Yarger]

Pavel,

That sounds a lot like my, "let the puzzle design itself out of necessity" approach.  But for me, most every time I let loose of my desires and let the puzzle create itself, I have ended up with a better puzzle concept than I originally envisioned.

[Eric Fuller]

Someday I'm gonna try your technique and see what happens Robert.  Right now I'm tired of graph paper and too lazy to take a month off to learn solidworks.

[Johan Heyns]

Eric, I've found that you can either invest or spend your time.  Two days investment in Solidworks / Inventor or similar will pay you back handsomely in time.  Remember that you are modelling a solid and in your design you can see whether it fits or not.  (By the way, I'm a mechanical engineer by training and I almost never make a puzzle without a drawing etc.) In fact since it is a solid, it is in virtual reality the real thing.  To generate drawings after building the model is two ticks and a buck.....

You can manipulate the parts, slide them and really check it out.  I've been using Autocad since 1985 (Version 2.18 on an 8086 with two 5,25" floppy drives., No hard disk 640 KB RAM) so I know it and also Inventor fairly well.

[Presto]

Hello all!  I got my first puzzle (that I remember) at Disney World when I was little.  It was the horseshoes and ring, and I've been hooked ever since.  My designs and construction experience has so far been standard 6 piece burrs, but I'm looking to branch out.

I'm also making good progress on a puzzle solver (yes, another one) that will be community oriented.  The goal is to have all puzzle types and analyses be modules that can be written, dropped in, and shared.  Let me know if you're interested in playing with test releases.

-Aaron

[RKB]

I'm also making good progress on a puzzle solver (yes, another one) that will be community oriented.  The goal is to have all puzzle types and analyses be modules that can be written, dropped in, and shared.  Let me know if you're interested in playing with test releases.

I'm a (the?) beta tester (and provider of ideasto become impemented or improved on the ergonomics)of BurrTools by Andreas R?ver and I could give your program a try ass well... However beware, as I do such testing from a designer's viewpoint. That way I'm pretty good in detecting bugs that 'regular' users probably never find.

But why don't you join forces with Andreas? That could result in a program that is twice as good with about half the work. As BurrTools is subject to a complete makeover for the moment, this may well be the time to step in.

[Eric Fuller]

Hi Aaron...wlecome to the forum!  Sounds like you're hooked like the rest of us.  Tell us more about your software...sounds interesting.

[sylvainbrugnot]

Hi everyone!

I'm French, living in Cambridge (UK) and working in London as a software developer for Sony's Playstation 3. A few years ago I picked up one of the Karakuri Small Boxes at a game shop in Paris, and it's all been downhill since then :-)

I mostly collect puzzle boxes but I enjoy all sorts of puzzles, although maybe not dexterity ones which I tend to find quite infuriating. I think what appeals to me is the feeling of "enlightenment" when you finally understand how to solve a puzzle, rather than the physical challenge of actually doing it. I was in Izumiya a few years ago, and the owner (albeit a very nice man) kept showing me how to open all the boxes I was interested in!

I'd like to design & make my own puzzles, but woodworking is currently out of the question as I live in an apartment. Because I'm a 3D/computer kind of guy I've been wondering whether using 3D printing techniques (stereolithography, etc) is a viable alternative, at least for a prototype.

Anyway, nice meeting you all.

Sylvain

PS: Aaron, your puzzle solver sounds interesting - could I give it a go?

[Canuck]

I'm French, living in Cambridge (UK)

Welcome Sylvain, that sounds like quite the challenge