Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:02:34 -0600 (CST)

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

[s-d] Re: [auto] Antonio amends p343

"Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Then I expect that we should be CAREFUL in doing so,
> such that we integrate these ancillary issues that our
> changes impact.

Yeah. Every change to the game can affect a lot of things. And
especially now it's even harder, as there are talismans and rooms that
affect the game significantly, in addition to the rules.

> While it always seems to me that Peter's proposals are
> sweeping in nature,

I'm kind of taking after Wonko's tendency to rewrite the ruleset every
few nweeks for him while he's been busy at school. :)

> e generally covers the bases by considering all of the existing
> rules that will be impacted by a change or group of changes that e
> is proposing.  Rashness is to be discouraged, as it can lead to many
> unforeseen results.

Well, I don't always see everything (such as that time I rewrote how
props worked to use pens, but neglected to give anybody any until the
next nweek). And there have been other times too, I'm sure. But that's
why it's important to double-check other players' props, as it gives
me valuable feedback to know that my latest changing-how-props-work
prop didn't deal with Pen Packs right, for instance. (And I'll be
amending that accordingly shortly.)

It's also good to remember to take into account props that may pass
before yours. I think one nweek we had a rule get amended a few times,
and then rewritten completely, all in one nweek's prop resolution. But
the rewrite that happened last ended up completely negating the
effects of the previous props. We didn't even really realize that
until I implemented the changes for the nweek.

> If all 3 rules regarding stats (10-2, 10-4 and 10-7) are
> changed by a change in an initial value, they should all
> be covered with the change (since they all indirectly 
> set the values for Joining Players by stating an initial
> value). This goes to being careful what you propose;
> it might come back and bite you on the anterior.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list