Re: [s-d] RFC: The Grid

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> I think it looks like a lot of fun, however I'm worried that mobility
> will be hard. You allow players to move from rX to rY if and only if
> rY defines a term that is used in rX; this creates a directed graph
> on which the players can move. Glancing over the current rules, it
> seems to me that everyone will eventually end up trapped in R1

It's not as bad as that.  You can move from rX to rY if rX defines a
term in rY +or+ rY defines a term in rX.  So all paths go both ways.
And in any case you always have the option of dropping out of the game
(moving to null) and then choosing a new starting RTL.

> I don't know how hard it would be implement this, but what about
> connecting the rules in an undirected graph where rX connects to rY
> if they have at least three words of five or more letters in common?

I think that would be too easy.  And not nearly as elegant: having
navigation  depend on the spelling rather than the actual rules.

> Or perhaps we could bring back Keywords, where each rule has a list
> of keywords telling what it relates to (for example, r2 might have
> the keywords "Proposals", "Voting", "Players"), and you can move to
> rules that share keywords with your current rule.

I thought of that, and it's doable.  We could have other ruletag-only
sections for each rule, too.  "this rule deals with
judgements....there is a blue frog here".  But I think we should leave
that as an add-on.  I'd rather get the basics working without it.
Besides, I like the 1-1 correspondance between the ruleset and the
gameboard; the idea that to change the gameboard, you actually have to
change the ruleset - at least for navigation....

> Also, it seems like in general this game will make you lose more
> points than you gain, because of changing rules, so there doesn't
> seem to be a strong incentive to play the game.

Well, that's easily fixed.  I really haven't worked through the numbers yet.

> We could set up an even weirder system... For example, maybe when
> somebody's score tops 100, the player with the *second highest* score
> wins.

Eurgh.  what would the winning strategy be?  A little too random for my tastes.


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