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

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A piecemeal response to Glotmorf

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

I agree, I'll fix it. :)

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

Yes, I know.  Still a work in progress :)

> 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.

No.  I know it wasn't clear, but that one proposal is actually several new 
rules, put into one prop.  It keeps splitting itself off in my mind; there 
is one for Object defintion and defintion of Properties that apply to all 
Objects, then there are seperate rules for Object types (One for players, 
one for entities, one for admin(s), one for Gremlins... one for defining the 
rules, lots for creating various objects, etc... several of those were in 
the post, and more are already my latest version).

What I meant by unification was more like you said, a dictionary.  The 
actual gameplay changes are minute.  Also, many of the rules that get 
modified get smaller.  If you saw the entire ruleset if the finalized 
proposal would make it, I bet you would think "Boy, that's so much simpler, 
smoother, clearar, and smaller than the previous rulest".  The beginning 
stuff is just scary cause it's the new framework.


> 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.

Not applicable; there is no big one, as I said.  My bad on not being clear.

> Unlikely to pass because Big Change is generally feared.

Thought about that, and I regretted sending off the unfinished thing because 
it's so fear-inspiring.  Hopefully you all won't close your minds to this.

> 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.

Well, there's aready many loophole due to "object" "Entity" and "Player" 
being used pretty much interchangeably in the text now.  And I'm doing my 
darndest to smooth out loopholes.  I could be a Wonko, but what's the fun in 
that?

> 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.

Can't.  The basic framework (the definition of Object, Properties, and so 
forth) is comepletely incompatable with the current ruleset.  That's why I 
have to repeal some that are replaced, and modify a lot to conform to the 
wording.

Orc In A Spacesuit
Status: Not yet playing, and wondering what e has unleashed.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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