Re: [s-d] RFC: Rule Tag

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

Thanks for all the suggestions and support, folks.  Apparently my
weird frame of reference has found some like minds.  I honestly
thought that only I would like the idea of using the actual ruleset as
a gameboard...

>>>>
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.
<<<<

I'll leave that as a further enhancement I think.  But I certainly
like the idea.


>>>>
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.
<<<<

Inevetably that is exactly what will happen.  I'll post it in this
upcoming game week.  Along with a few other weird bits - one of which
I guarantee is too weird for anyone to vote FOR on...


>>>>
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.
}}
<<<<

I'm not sure how I feel about passing a rule that has no effect on the
ruleset, only on ruletag.  But I can't see an easy way of stopping it
- or a reason to.


>>>>
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they'd lose if the rule they're on is repealed?
<<<<

I really do think that each subgame should be optional.  But paying
points to move to null sounds like a really good idea.


>>>>
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think my rule is going to get repealed, I'll just withdraw from the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.
<<<<

That's a very good point that needs fixing.
Maybe just paying points to move to null would do that.


> 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.

I've said that the Admin gets the final say; and while not 100%
objective I don't think that it's a difficult call.  For example, 1-5
defines "administrator".  Other rules grant the admin power, but none
of them define what the admin actually IS.


> 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.

Maybe there will be a list of definitions that are invalid for
path-walking in the initial rule.


> 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.

So long as blue frogs have "nothing" to do with ruletag, then it's
okay to use them to navigate....  :)

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