Re: [s-d] RFC: Rule Tag

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 29, 2006, at 3:20 PM, 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.

I disagree with "they have to be able to get out of the game if it  
got too weird for them". I think if you commit to playing a subgame,  
then you're in it until something happens. Maybe you could give  
people the option of backing out by paying points equal to what  
they'd lose if the rule they're on is repealed?

Also, the ability to withdraw will be used to avoid penalties - if I  
think my rule is going to get repealed, I'll just withdraw from the  
game for a moment, dodging the penalty and getting a free teleport in  
the process.

>> Both problems could be solved by adding an extra field to each rule
>> that lists the objects defined by that rule and the objects mentioned
>> by the rule.
>
> Well, yes, but it's only a short step from there to proposing a change
> that changes the fields but not the actual rule; and there you've lost
> the connection between the ruleset and the gameboard again...

True, but I still think we'll have problems deciding what counts as a  
"definition" if we don't explicitly label which rules define which  
objects.

Also, there's not much difference between your suggestion of  
proposing random objects (e.g. "blue frogs") to create connections  
and simply proposing connections directly. At least this way we also  
get a clear indication of what connects to what.

There's no reason why we couldn't add other connections between the  
game and the rules. For example, you might have a weapon that only  
works from within a rule with lots of "e"s in the text. Or maybe a  
tool powered by references to Blue Frogs.

>> This would also make it easy to "turn off" certain words
>> if we felt they were overly connective (for example, "player",
>> "nweek", and "Game Object" will all connect to a vast majority of the
>> rules).
>
> I quite like the idea that some rule-paths should be easy to walk and
> some more difficult.   Hiding in a backwater and occasionally sneaking
> out to ambush someone is a valid tactic; but so is running around like
> crazy - somewhat like a corridor game, come to think of it.

I agree that there should be different levels of difficulty on the  
paths. But having a rule that links to virtually all rules takes some  
of the fun out of it by trivializing the topology.

>> 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.

I don't see why it shouldn't affect the navigation. As you remarked  
earlier, it's a lot cooler if we're just using the normal rules. Blue  
Frogs could be objects involved in some process completely unrelated  
to rule tag.

-- 
Wonko


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