Re: [s-d] RFC: The Grid

[all players <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I think it looks like a lot of fun, however I'm worried that mobility
>> will be hard. You allow players to move from rX to rY if and only if
>> rY defines a term that is used in rX; this creates a directed graph
>> on which the players can move. Glancing over the current rules, it
>> seems to me that everyone will eventually end up trapped in R1
> 
> It's not as bad as that.  You can move from rX to rY if rX defines a
> term in rY +or+ rY defines a term in rX.  So all paths go both ways.
> And in any case you always have the option of dropping out of the game
> (moving to null) and then choosing a new starting RTL.
> 
>> I don't know how hard it would be implement this, but what about
>> connecting the rules in an undirected graph where rX connects to rY
>> if they have at least three words of five or more letters in common?
> 
> I think that would be too easy.  And not nearly as elegant: having
> navigation  depend on the spelling rather than the actual rules.
> 
>> Or perhaps we could bring back Keywords, where each rule has a list
>> of keywords telling what it relates to (for example, r2 might have
>> the keywords "Proposals", "Voting", "Players"), and you can move to
>> rules that share keywords with your current rule.
> 
> I thought of that, and it's doable.  We could have other ruletag-only
> sections for each rule, too.  "this rule deals with
> judgements....there is a blue frog here".  But I think we should leave
> that as an add-on.  I'd rather get the basics working without it.
> Besides, I like the 1-1 correspondance between the ruleset and the
> gameboard; the idea that to change the gameboard, you actually have to
> change the ruleset - at least for navigation....
> 
>> Also, it seems like in general this game will make you lose more
>> points than you gain, because of changing rules, so there doesn't
>> seem to be a strong incentive to play the game.
> 
> Well, that's easily fixed.  I really haven't worked through the numbers yet.
> 
>> We could set up an even weirder system... For example, maybe when
>> somebody's score tops 100, the player with the *second highest* score
>> wins.
> 
> Eurgh.  what would the winning strategy be?  A little too random for my tastes.

Here at B Nomic, we pride ourself on our randomness. :)

I suspect the winning strategy would involve giving points to other 
players (there'd probably need to be some kind of clamp or delay to 
prevent people from trying to immediately give it back...)

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