Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Peter submits p280

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Lepage wrote:

> > Please provide feedback on what you like and don't like about this
> > proposal. In particular, I'm not sure exactly how the precedence stuff
> > should work. (But I'm not sure how it currently works with non-rule
> > objects affecting the game, so I suspect that this attempt to define
> > it will be an improvement.)
>
> I think the historical precedent is that in the case of a conflict 
> involving non-rule documents, the non-rule documents are treated as 
> though they had the same precedence as the sentence in the rules 
> specifying what they do. Conflicts between non-rules are usually settled 
> in a "general defers to specific" manner unless some document provides a 
> better method. Seeing that standardized would be nice.

I second that (see my previous email)


> > Each Object has a name.
>
> This doesn't require uniqueness, but does require me to name each of my 
> Genechips. So I could name each of my Genechips "A Tweak", and by r0-0 
> every one would be a Motion.

isn't the name already "Genechip" ?

> > === Outsiders ===
> >
> > An External Force is anything which exists independently of the
> > game. That is, it would still exist if the game stopped existing, and
> > would still exist if the game never started existing.
>
> I think that should be "would still exist if the game *had* never 
> started existing". As it stands, it implies that "never starting to 
> exist" is something the game might still do.
>
> Which actually might be possible, who knows?

"An External Force is anything which exists independently of the game."
is probably enough, no need to go metaphysical about it :-)


> > ==== Activated Abilities ====
> >
> > Activated abilities are in the format "{cost}: {effect}". An object
> > allowed to play an activated ability does so as a Game Action by
> > paying {cost} to cause {effect} to happen. A {cost} may include one or
> > more Objects, and paying the cost means that those Objects are
> > destroyed unless otherwise stated. A {cost} could be 0, in which case
> > there is no cost to perform the action.
>
> It'd be better to say "may do so" instead of "does so" on the second 
> line of this paragraph; otherwise, a room holding a Talisman will 
> constantly activate its abilities.
>
> > An object which holds an object with an activated ability is allowed
> > to play that ability.

um, I'm not sure about this one, Daniel is right, but probably the "An
object which holds an object with an activated ability is allowed to
play that ability." should be removed or at least revised, we don't want
that to be automatic. Only players should be able to activate abilities
indiscriminatly, nonsentient objects should only activate what we decide
they can.


> >  * If neither of the abilities is on a Rule, then the object created
> >    later has precedence over the other.
>
> And if both were created at once?

This also is hard to track, every object should get a timestamp, and 
someone has to keep a reference of objects and timestamps...


> What would be *really* cool would be an integrated system for storing 
> Objects and their abilities in a database, automatically linking titles 
> of objects to description pages, and stuff like that. That'd be pretty 
> awesome. Then Clock Keys, for example, could just be a type of object, 
> not defined explicitly by the rules, though the rules would determine 
> how they get distributed amongst the players, and it'd be easy to read 
> because the rule would automatically link to the definition of a Clock Key.
>
> This also makes me think of something Glotmorf suggested years ago, 
> where the game is set in a city and each rule exists somewhere in the 
> city; in order to change a rule, you have to hunt it down, possibly 
> fighting your way through guards and/or other players to get it. We 
> dismissed it as a good idea, but one that didn't fit with the way B 
> Nomic was working... but maybe with this we could actually do it...

that would be uber-cool

--

	Antonio
    http://gelo.dolcetta.net

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