Jake Eakle on Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:05:21 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] attributes redux

The problem with removing scope is that now attributes have to be explicitly
given to things, whereas before they were automatically created when a new
object in the scope came into existence. I suppose each attribute could
specify (in it's value? I'm a little unclear on the distinction between an
attribute's value and the rules for determining its value in your version)
that it gets applied to new objects, but that's annoying - much nicer to
just say "All X's have attribute Y" and have a rule take care of keeping
that true. Also, why not have formal names for the various aspects of an
attribute? Of course it's not strictly necessary, but it makes them easier
to talk about, and standardizes their formats for the purposes fo possible
meta-rules that refer to them.

I do like changing it so that any object can have attributes. I would just
add that to the other version.


On 12/5/06, Chuck Adams <cja987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> How's this look for another treatment of Attributes?  The only major
> change is that any object can have attributes, not just Players, which
> was really the main reason.  That and wanting to head off any need for
> formalisms such as types or ranges, because Rules themselves already
> serve for constraints and interpretation on anything and everything.
> (Admin: not a proposal yet, just a discussion)
> {{
> Any Game Object may possess a non-negative, finite number of
> Attributes.  No Attribute may be created, assigned to an object, or
> removed from an object except as expressly permitted by the Rules.
> An Attribute is defined as a Game Object that contain the following
> values:
>         * A name.
>         * A value.
> An attribute's name shall consist only of alphanumeric characters.
> An attribute's value may potentially represent whatever its definition
> specifies.  The actual interpretation of an Attribute's value is
> specified by the rule that creates the Attribute or allows for its
> creation.
> [[Explanation: an attribute may be defined by anything such as "the
> integer 876", "the string ''foobar''", or "the essence of three
> turnings of Vanatu's aura".  The interpretation of what these values
> "mean" are up to the creator, then ultimately to the judges.
> Hopefully no one would vote for the creation of something as bizarre
> as the third unless they're up for some "interesting" RFJs]].
> No Attribute may be created that lacks either a name or a value.
> No Attribute may be given to a Game Object if the Game Object already
> possesses an attribute with an identical name.
> The Rules may specify constraints on an Attribute's value, such as
> what is considered a valid value, what Game Objects it may be applied
> to.  No change of an Attribute's value is permitted if it would would
> violate these constraints.
> [[ Technically this clause is redundant, because if you write a rule
> constraining the value, it already has a self-enforcing effect. ]]
> No element of a Game Object shall be interpreted as an Attribute
> unless specifically referred to as an Attribute by the Rules.
> [[ Thus, player names aren't Attributes because nothing says it's an
> Attribute, nor are Properties attributes.  ]]
> }}
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
spoon-discuss mailing list