Re: [s-d] RFC: Rule Tag

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> Actually, I don't think I like letting players move to null. If the
> rules change and you get trapped, then you'd better find a way to
> make a new rule for you to travel to before somebody repeals your
> prison.

::LOL:: And +I+ thought it was cruel enough to have them "fall off the
game" if someone repealled the rule they were standing on...!  I love
your idea, but they have to be able to get out of the game if it got
too weird for them, which is the other reason for a move to null.  And
from there they have to be able to start the game again... so I think
we're stuck with the "off the board and on again" thing if we're to
keep the ruleset simple.


> I'm also a bit worried that we'll have ambiguity regarding which rule
> "defines" a word. What if the full definition of a term is spread
> across multiple rules? I can't think of an example offhand of how
> this would happen, but I'm not willing to accept it as impossible
> either.

If more than one rule defines a word then all are fair game to move
to.  You were right in your original response; the trick will be to
make sure that there aren't too many dead ends, rather than trying to
make it maze-like enough.


> Both problems could be solved by adding an extra field to each rule
> that lists the objects defined by that rule and the objects mentioned
> by the rule.

Well, yes, but it's only a short step from there to proposing a change
that changes the fields but not the actual rule; and there you've lost
the connection between the ruleset and the gameboard again...


> This would also make it easy to "turn off" certain words
> if we felt they were overly connective (for example, "player",
> "nweek", and "Game Object" will all connect to a vast majority of the
> rules).

I quite like the idea that some rule-paths should be easy to walk and
some more difficult.   Hiding in a backwater and occasionally sneaking
out to ambush someone is a valid tactic; but so is running around like
crazy - somewhat like a corridor game, come to think of it.


> A subcommittee/minister to keep those up-to-date would be helpful.

I would say vital.  I'm not proposing this until we've got one.  I'm
trying to draft something, but it's tricky for a newbie like me.


> Heh... I can see all sorts of random rules being made just to make
> tag pathways.

Yes!  My thoughts exactly!  "Is he proposing that change because he
thinks it's a bad rule?  Or is it a ploy?  ...Or is he trying to
maroon me?!"


> Also, a rule could influence the players on it:
> {{
> __Springboard__
> Any player who occupies this rule at the beginning of an nweek may
> make three moves instead of one this nweek.
>
> This rule mentions blue frogs.
> }}

We'd need to define a ruletag-specific section at the end of every
rule that had no effect on the rule nor on ruletag navigation; then we
could do what we wanted.  I had vague notions of playing
capture-the-flag, actually.  ...but I think that we're getting ahead
of ourselves.


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