Baron von Skippy on 8 Oct 2003 01:24:24 -0000

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

• To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: [spoon-discuss] Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a gnome out of my hat!
• From: "Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:24:20 -0500

```>>>>> 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.
>>
>> -And I'm saying don't create cyclic recipies. You can make bread out
>> of flour, water, and yeast. Can you then combine two loaves to get the
>> ingredients back? No. Similarly, you shouldn't be able to merge Gnomes
>> backwards. If you'd like me to write that into the rule, I'd be happy
>> to. I just figured it was more or less common sense.-
>
>Common sense? Since when has that had any force?
>
>I'd prefer a rule that won't break when somebody tries something out of
>the ordinary; at the very least, say that in the event of such
>feedback, all gnomes are treated like stage 1 gnomes, or something;
>otherwise, when somebody makes a loop by accident, you'll go out of
>business, since the Production cost of all gnomes will be infinite. (or
>perhaps simply not a number; either way you can't sell them without
>curious nonquantities of Production points)

-Well, in the draft I sent, the four initial types were all set under the header "Stage 0 Gnomes." If you'd like a more explicit definition, I can declare them all to be Stage 0 Gnomes in their definitions and organize the rule such that the aforementioned silly plan would be out-precedentized by that definition. Ditto for all stages. So when you made your merger, yes, they'd be stage n+2 Gnomes according to the formula, but since the rule clearly says they're not, they aren't. And then, just for a change, we could /not/ make formulas that fuck up the game.-
>
>And it's worth noting that the old system had cyclic recipes, albeit
>less obvious ones: "Three Basic Gnomes makes a Gnome of a random type."
>[[r441/13, from nweek 40]] That combo alone destroys the stage system,
>since three Basic Gnomes could make another Basic Gnome, so Basic
>Gnomes must be one stage higher than themselves.

-Well, no one said that would be a formula now... 'course, no one said they couldn't. How about this: change that formula. "Three Basic Gnomes makes a Gnome of a random type. The resulting Gnome's Stage is equal to the Stage for its type." Yay circumvention.-
>
>Since every new gnome type will have to be proposed anyway, why not
>just let the proponent decide what it's stage is, using the merging
>rule as a guideline?
>
-That could be done too, provided the stage was accurate... I'd rather not see Stage 50 Gnomes cropping up because people felt like proposing them.-

[[BvS]]
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

```