Re: [spoon-discuss] Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a gnome out of my hat!

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> my little idea. Talk amongst yourselves. Oh, and I apologize for the
>> name of the society... I'm not going to change it, but I apologize
>> anyway.
>
>If you're not going to change it, why bother to apologize?  
>It's no worse than my Sex and the Nomic series...

-I'm into honesty this week. I'm apologizing for the strained acronym, mostly.-
>
<snip>

>The biggest gripe I have with this (aside from lack of 
>immediate utility) is that it's tied to a Society.  That's a 
>twofold gripe:

-As far as immediate utility - last time I did anything with Gnomes, I had planned out the whole "tech tree" up to PGGBs from the beginning. This time, I have no clue where this might go. Hence, partially, my not really proposing it. I want to see if people want to run with it, or if I should build another tech tree and milk it for points.-
>
>(1) Rules and societies exist in different ways.  BDSM could 
>go away in a heartbeat (literally) if something (God forbid) 
>should happen to the Baron when e's the only member.  Aside 
>from the obvious hardship from eir death (I'll think of 
>something eventually), we'd then have a rule with no 
>functionality, and possibly more legacy objects.  Note also 
>that the rule regulates the purchase of gnomes, which means 
>gnomes could not then be purchased any other way, including 
>from other players.

-Well, I'd love to make the items built into the Society Charter, but then BDSM would be making some very expensive chocolate eclairs. As far as the purchase from other players, when can you ever do that? If you want to buy a Gnome from me, either make an offer or give gifts with coincidentally equal values. Now, this isn't to say that the rule couldn't be changed to allow players to purchase from each other, but I'm not sure what would need to be changed and to what.-
>
>(2) Before we get back into rule-mandated sole-source vendor 
>societies, I'd still like to see some mechanism for "owning" a 
>"technology"...something that can be transferred between 
>entities, or even somehow stolen or forcibly acquired.  This 
>would de-necessitate (decessitate?) BDSM from being explicitly 
>referenced in the rules.

-And before we have that, we should probably have a few such technologies ready to be owned, and before we have those, we should probably have a Grid again, and no, I /don't/ mean that titchy little 11x11 thing. You're right, but a few steps ahead of things, I think.-
>
>> Add a section to Rule 21:
>> {{
>> A.3. Production Points
>> Production points may only be owned by Societies. Production Points
>> can be traded between Societies but may not be owned by players.
>> Production Points may only be created or destroyed as described in the
>> rules.
>> 
>> At the end of each nweek, all Production Points in play are destroyed.
>> At the beginning of each nweek, each Society recieves a number of
>> Production Points equal to that 10 times the number of players who are
>> members of that society.
>> 
>> If players can purchase goods from a Society, that Society must
>> destroy a positive nonzero number of Production Points to create those
>> goods. The number of Production Points destroyed is set in the rule
>> which defines that good. This number is the Production Cost of that
>> good. If a purchase would cause a Society to have a negative number of
>> Production Points, that purchase fails. }} }}
>
>Interesting.  This might put WBE back in business.

-Oh?-
>
[[BvS]]
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss