Re: [spoon-discuss] Wonko's little world(s)

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 10:40  AM, Glotmorf wrote:

> Okay, I misrepresented Wonko's prop in an email recently.  Let me 
> rephrase...
>
> Wonko is attempting to create an "environment" rule, which establishes 
> a general class of containers of "locations".  He's also trying to 
> create a "locations" rule, which establishes a general class of places 
> where objects can be put within an environment.  Neither rule tries to 
> impose any sort of structure on environments, though locations must be 
> uniquely identified within environments so that one presumably can say 
> an object in an environment is at a particular location.

Or multiple locations. I'm thinking large buildings.

> But the exact relationship of locations to each other is not defined, 
> except inasmuch as it is said that movement between locations is 
> generally possible.  So that relationship would most likely be defined 
> through whatever method for uniquely identifying locations is used 
> within an environment.  For grid-style arrangement of locations, two 
> integers can be attached to each location, with movement involving 
> calculating the integers identifying an adjacent location.  For 
> Monopoly-style movement, locations would probably be identified by a 
> single integer, with the highest-value location connecting to the 
> lowest-value one.

Technically, nothing even requires that there be more than one 
Location. Or even the one location, though then the environment's not a 
lot of fun.

Also note that nothing technically forbids an Environment to go in a 
Location of another Environment. Or even of itself.... you could make a 
Grid object that happens to contain the entire Grid... Maybe it could 
be the foot of the Statue of Dave ("The Game is aFoot!")

> As far as that goes, we could have The Relationship Game, where each 
> location gets two names attached to it, so one could traverse from 
> (Barney, Wilma) to (Fred, Wilma) to (Fred, Ethel) to (Lucy, Ethel).
>
> All this, in a general sense, is a Good Thing(tm).  One of the 
> problems with mining the grid was that three-dimensionality wasn't 
> cleanly spelled out.  "Location" was used interchangably with "square" 
> until "square" got defined (though not everywhere) as a stack of 
> locations.  If we anchor down a definition of locations, we could then 
> presumably do whatever we wanted with dimensions and coordinates and 
> all.  We could add a third or even a fourth coordinate, use attributes 
> like how MUSHes link rooms, use formulaic teleportation between 
> locations, whatever.

That was the point. Theoretically, if a player/group of players went 
ahead and wrote a MUD/MUSH, they could make it *be* an environment 
(perhaps a little personalized environment owned by a society or 
something)

> I like it.
>
> I just think the creation of The Grid should wait until The [other] 
> Grid is deactivated or finally destroyed.

I seem to recall the the reason my prop got vetoed last time was that 
people wanted to see the new Grid before they destroyed the old one. 
Picky, picky.

> Well, that, and I'd like to see player-created Environments with 
> charters like Societies, but I can propose that myself.

That's actually why I wanted societies to be able to compel players. 
That way, it's possible to have in the charter that any player who 
enters the "pernicious poem place" *must* give points to the society 
every time they make a nonpoetic message. (though of course, I wasn't 
thinking about separately run Environments; I was thinking about 
building a city on the old Grid)

--
Wonko

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