Re: [spoon-discuss] Societies

[Dan Waldron <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> What about,
> 
> A Society may have internal rules that are binding upon its Members.
> 
> I would interpret that as saying that the for the members of the society,
> the internal rules *are* rules of the game.
> 
> Besides, the default case doesn't forbid societies from changing the
> Gamestate. It forbids *players* from changing the gamestate. Unless you want
> societies to count as players, but that would be... ugh.

My ruleset split will clear all this up for good.  Because it is
explicitly prohibited by physical law for non-beings to change the
gamestate, except as allowed to by _physical_ law.  Societies are never
mentioned in physical law, so they can't.

This is also why gnomes and such have to be done in physical law.  Because
they need to be able to change the gamestate.

Likewise, the most a society charter can do is to compel member players to
take certain kinds of actions.  It doesn't make those actions legal, which
can only be done by the mutable rules.

Perhaps we could clear this up by describing rules in terms of permissive
and restrictive function.  Society charters should only have restrictive
function.

Dan




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