SkArcher on 10 Jul 2003 11:45:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Grid II Prop

10/07/2003 12:27:13, "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On 7/10/03 at 10:53 AM SkArcher wrote:

>>I was kind of hoping to avoid using players as their own pieces in games.
>>It leads to uncertainty
>>and odd things happening. Remember the Improbable having the ability to
>>destroy anything that was
>>'not required by the ruleset to exist'? - which technically included
>I try to forget that, actually. :)  But that wasn't what I meant.  Wonko is 
trying to build a general class of objects that could include the Grid, so 
that there can be more than one of these objects and the Grid can be one of 
them.  My suggestion might not be incompatible with this...I'm suggesting each 
player can have one of those objects for free for eir very own, that e can 
design rules for.  The player isn't (necessarily) an object in a Location; a 
Location is an object belonging to a player.
>But perhaps you're right, that there should be a rule that says a player per 
se can't be an object in a Location...though a player can, under the right set 
of circumstances, claim ownership of a piece in a Location that represents the 
>Then we throw in bridges between locations, created by the mutual agreement 
of whatever body of players collectively controls both ends of the bridge...
Mutual-consent interdimensional bridges...?

This game now takes a turn for farscape i see :)

I'm putting together a game atm (which keeps getting delayed as I have good 
ideas :P) which defines the game pieces as the property of the players, just 
for safetys sake :)


spoon-discuss mailing list