Daniel Lepage on 7 Oct 2003 00:41:11 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a gnome out of my hat!

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:

So if you can mix two basic gnomes to get one yoyo gnome, and two yoyo
gnomes to get three basic gnomes, then if basic gnomes are stage n,
yoyo gnomes are stage n+1, and basic gnomes are stage n=n+2?

-If you did it the other way, basic gnomes would be stage n, yoyos stage 2n, and basics stage n=4n. Here's a thought: Don't make that combination. Besides, Basics will be defined to be stage n in the rule, so your evil plan is foiled again.-

Then the rule will contradict itself, saying Basic Gnomes are both n and n+2. I'm not speaking in favor of the other scheme either; I'm saying find a new scheme, preferably one that works.

I think I'd prefer hit points to be things a gnome starts out with;
then you can specify that squeezing/breeding reduces hit points. That
way we can define other things that also reduce hit points later.

-Well, you can add the other actions (throwing, for example) to the list of things that reduce their hit points... how many ways are you expecting to be able to hurt the little guys?-

I'd rather not have to put everything that might damage Gnomes in the same place. The way it's currently phrased, another rule could say, "when X happens, the gnome involved loses 1 hp", it wouldn't do anything, since for some reason the number is explicitly put in another rule. Also, what if we allow healing of gnomes and whatnot? A couple minor modifications to the system could make the rule obscenely ugly.


Version: 3.1
GU/O d-(++)(?) s+:+ a--->+++ C++>++++>$ UB+>++++ P--@ L+>+++ E>++ W++(+++) N+(++) o?>++++ K? w------- O? M++ V- PS@ PE-@ Y-- PGP- t+ 5 X R+ tv--@ b+++@ DI++++ D G++ e*>++++ !h r++ y?

spoon-discuss mailing list