Re: [s-d] Re: An oddity surfaces.

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
> "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.)


currently the way it's worded if a room is dark, and has a torch in it, 
it is lit, and if someone then darkens it via the basement room it 
becomes dark again, even if it still has a torch.
That makes no sense.
i's all my fault really.
I'll work on this.


I think that we need to make it so that the true state of the room is 
not changed, but lives on "underneath" the artifact's effects, artifacts 
then get ther effects applied in the order they were activated.

do you think that would work ?

--

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