Re: [spoon-discuss] Too quiet, bd?

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/7/02 at 8:35 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>WARNING:  IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME SORTING A BIG
>CONFUSING
>THING OUT, STOP NOW AND WAIT UNTIL I POST AGAIN A REVISED VERSION.
>
>bd has stated that it is too quite here.  Although it is very far from
>complete, I guess I shall drop the bombshell of the rough draft my grand
>proposal now.  Note that imcomplete matters on it include:
>*Removal and Revisement of the (MANY) rules that are incompatable with the
>ones presented in this proposal
>*A redefinition of Objects, including the Players, Administrator, and Game
>State (which includes things like The Clock).
>*A definition of Events
>*All the possible Values, Properties, and Restricted Actions.
>
>Well, here goes, and remember, you have bd to blame for sending this
>incomplete mess to you...

Object-oriented Nomic?  Not sure we're ready for this. :)

>Wins             P-Integer   0

I dunno...the idea of negative wins is oddly intriguing...:)

>BNS              P-Integer   500
>Charm            Integer     1
>Activity         Integer     1
>Respect          Integer     0
>Style            Integer     0
>Style Attributes String List
>Entropy          Real        0
>BAC              Integer     0
>Mischiviousness  Integer     0
>Titles           String List Newbie
>Nobility         Integer     1
>Diety            String

Think you left out a few things, like Debt, Force and Possessions.

>}}

Are you trying to do the Forth thang, and rewrite the entire ruleset as one big rule?  Interesting, but impractical, unlikely to pass and unnecessary.

Impractical because unless you're gonna come up with rule-adding mechanisms that force new rule text to be part of The Big One, the grand unification will become ununified every nweek.

Unlikely to pass because Big Change is generally feared.  A person looks at a nine-page prop, picks his jaw up off the floor, and, after the third pass, wonders what there is in it that he's missing...what hidden loophole is embedded in it that gives its proponent an insta-win.

Unnecessary because, okay, you've got everything in one big rule, identified by subsections, with nested scope.  How is that fundamentally different from bunches of smaller rules, identified by numbers, with nested precedence?

Not to discourage you.  I was toying with the idea of a game dictionary today myself.  It's got promise.  But I think you'll have more luck (and, for that matter, get more points) by making a fairly empty framework first, then moving things into the framework on a piecemeal basis.

Something I wondered about once before...If the entire ruleset winds up in a single rule object, how can it be stored in a database?  Or can it?

						Glotmorf


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