Re: spoon-discuss: Dimensional Property

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/24/02 at 1:42 AM Dan wrote:

>> Oh gawd...Nomopoly.
>>
>> Wait...I won that one...
>>
>> Sorry.  Narcissistic spasm.  Seriously, this gets into another "the
>> poor get poorer" thang.  Getting past certain regions around the
>> center would/could be a hellatiously uphill battle, since, if one
>> didn't get enough points/style/charm/whatever to get past that region,
>> one would slide backward toward the origin again.  Or at least the
>> indices.
>>
>> 						Glotmorf
>
>I think that could be overcome.  By protecting a larger area from
>ownership.  We could, for example specify a free corridor at
>{(0,100)(-1,1)(-1,1)(-1,1)}.
>
>The main difference between this and the grid is that movement on the grid
>is, so far as I can see, entirely unrelated to anything outside of the
>grid.  Although my proposal is about property areas and a monopoly-like
>game of rent paying and control of areas, it could easily be changed into
>a grid-like hunt-the-treasure game.  Or the two could be combined.
>
>I'll see if a way can be made to combine this with the Grid proposal, and
>I'll also try to make it a little less dangerous for new people.
>
>Dan

Another thing is that players have very little control over dimensions, except inasmuch as they can give various points to each other.  Aside from that, dimensions are manipulated by game events; deliberate dimensional travel would be difficult.

Something I'd thought of earlier, though, but wasn't sure how to implement, was dimension-specific rules...one goes from one "plane" to another, and the rules change.  Perhaps this could be combined with your private-property idea, to have "house rules" in owned territories.

						Glotmorf