Re: [s-d] RFC: Rule Tag

[all players <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Actually, I don't think I like letting players move to null. If the
>> rules change and you get trapped, then you'd better find a way to
>> make a new rule for you to travel to before somebody repeals your
>> prison.
> 
> ::LOL:: And +I+ thought it was cruel enough to have them "fall off the
> game" if someone repealled the rule they were standing on...!  I love
> your idea, but they have to be able to get out of the game if it got
> too weird for them, which is the other reason for a move to null.  And
> from there they have to be able to start the game again... so I think
> we're stuck with the "off the board and on again" thing if we're to
> keep the ruleset simple.

Who says there needs to be an escape route? :)

Start everyone off on random rules, let there be no escape.

>> I'm also a bit worried that we'll have ambiguity regarding which rule
>> "defines" a word. What if the full definition of a term is spread
>> across multiple rules? I can't think of an example offhand of how
>> this would happen, but I'm not willing to accept it as impossible
>> either.
> 
> If more than one rule defines a word then all are fair game to move
> to.  You were right in your original response; the trick will be to
> make sure that there aren't too many dead ends, rather than trying to
> make it maze-like enough.

Rather than define, how about any rule which refers to a given entity?
Some kind of 'bomb' attaching to game objects might be interesting, to 
prevent people from crossing very popular terms (eg, nweek, rule, etc) - 
that is, if Player X uses a bomb on 'rules', then any player using 
'rule' to cross between rules will destroy the bomb and lose, say, 30 
pts to the bombing player.

>> A subcommittee/minister to keep those up-to-date would be helpful.
> 
> I would say vital.  I'm not proposing this until we've got one.  I'm
> trying to draft something, but it's tricky for a newbie like me.

Don't worry too much about writing it properly - if you're really 
concerned about making it sound 'right', just make it as stuffy-sounding 
as possible and post it to s-d for discussion.

>> Heh... I can see all sorts of random rules being made just to make
>> tag pathways.
> 
> Yes!  My thoughts exactly!  "Is he proposing that change because he
> thinks it's a bad rule?  Or is it a ploy?  ...Or is he trying to
> maroon me?!"
> 
> 
>> Also, a rule could influence the players on it:
>> {{
>> __Springboard__
>> Any player who occupies this rule at the beginning of an nweek may
>> make three moves instead of one this nweek.
>>
>> This rule mentions blue frogs.
>> }}
> 
> We'd need to define a ruletag-specific section at the end of every
> rule that had no effect on the rule nor on ruletag navigation; then we
> could do what we wanted.  I had vague notions of playing
> capture-the-flag, actually.  ...but I think that we're getting ahead
> of ourselves.

Why have a separate section? It could be something like:
{{
__Springboard__

Any player who occupies this rule at the beginning of an nweek may make 
three moves instead of one this nweek, gaining two blue frogs in the 
process.
}}
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss