Peter Cooper Jr. on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:55:19 -0600 (CST)

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

[s-d] Re: An oddity surfaces.

"Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> While working on an Excel Macro to automate Lit/Dark
> status of Rooms and periodic Calm penalties, I stumbled
> over this:
> A Lit Torch and a Kirchoff's Radiation Dampener have
> effects (abilities) which are opposite. Rule 2-2 doesn't
> seem to have a specific bullet defining which of these
> Talismans would have precedence should they both
> be used in the same room.

And that was the crux of the problem I was trying to describe when
putting together the current version of rule 2-2. Without timestamping
or ordering abilities in some way, there's no way to describe which
has precedence.

And the lit-ness of a room is kind of odd, as some things try setting
it for a duration, and some things try to just change it.

> The Lit Torch has Static Effects, and the Kirchoffs' are
> Activated.
> The second bullet does have permit vs. prohibit form,
> and Rule 10-1 says a Room is Lit if not otherwise defined.
> I guess one could argue that the default state is Lit by
> 10-1.

I'm not really seeing that argument offhand... I don't think that
default state is prohibiting or permitting anything.

> But then flipping a switch in the Basement comes in. By
> 'definition' the effects of that action reverse the Lit/Dark
> state of a Room.

Well, they just set the state of a room, rather than setting it for a
particular duration.

> Opinions?

Well, modifying the rules and/or abilities to deal with it more
gracefully is probably a good idea. I'm thinking that we may want to
order light/dark effects, and possibly all activated effects.

Another possibility is that nothing is broken at all, and a room can
be both lit and dark at the same time. We'd just need the "or" in the
last bullet of r10-1 to be an inclusive or instead of the
more-common-in-English exclusive or. I'm not sure if there's any game
precedent on that. But, I don't think it'd break much if we
interpreted it like that. (Or at least, it may be less broken. But I
may be wrong on that as well.)

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list