Antonio Dolcetta on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:58:06 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] It Lives! or, a modern subgame (Draft)

Daniel Lepage wrote:

> Brightness -> Bodypart Type

actually, just Type

> Brightness -> Rarity

>> * randomly select a Rarity
> Shouldn't rare body parts be... rarer?
Yes, sorry, it was supposed to have a non-linear roll or something.
It now reads:
* Randomly select a Rarity using a non linear distribution, common is 2 
times as common as uncommon, and uncommon is 2 times as common as rare.
And anyway this selection method probably needs revision. It's probably 
better to just choose Rarity and roll for a Bodypart, no need to also 
select Type.

>> metal torso:
>> * description: it's disgusting ! but not very strong

> This has the same desc as the rotting torso

>> wheel:
>> * description: wheels! why has no one ever thought about that ?
>> * special: none
>> * rarity: uncommon
>> * Type: leg
>> * Speed: 10
> Maybe there should be a bonus for having two wheels? 
> Or a penalty because you can't climb stairs.

how about both +speed -brightness

> I'd prefer it if all the costs had to be explicit. Also, requirement - 
>  > requirements.


>> ==== Tinker  ====
>> Tinkering is a Move.
>> * cost: 1 Turn
>> * requirement: the Player must have at least a Bodypart.
>> * requirement: the player must clearly specify which is the replaced
>> Bodypart and which is the replacing Bodypart.
>> * effect: the Player may replace one of eir Creature's Bodyparts with
>> a Bodypart e possesses.
>> * effect: the replaced Bodypart is destroyed.
>> * effect: the Muscle, Brightness, Speed and Dreadfulness of the
>> replacing Bodypart are added to the Creature's Muscle, Brightness,
>> Speed and Dreadfulness respectively
>> * effect: the Player gains one Lit Torch
> Am I correct in thinking that this allows me to replace a pitiful  
> torso with a Strong Arm? Hey, I could make an entire monster out of  
> Slimy Tentacles!

As much as this amuses me, it was supposed to have:
* requirement: the player must clearly specify which is the replaced 
Bodypart and which is the replacing Bodypart. These two Bodyparts must 
have the same Type.

Maybe we can leave it the way it's written now, but in this case 
Attribute values for Bodyparts should be revised, I think. Also Types 
become useless and we can do without. Hmmm, a creature made only of 
Napoleon's Heads, LOL.

> Also, you add the attributes of the body parts but don't subtract the  
> attributes of the removed parts - if I got two Napolean's Heads, I  
> could put one on the monster, and then replace it with the other, to  
> give my Creature 40 points of intelligence. It might be clearer to  
> change the definition of a monster to say that its attributes are  
> always the sum of its components' attributes.

This is intended. Otherwhise you have to calculate damage to the 
individual Bodyparts and keep track of that. We could do that of course, 
if you think it's more fun. It surely is more realistic.

>> If the defending Player's Creature is dead, the Defending Player's
>> Gold is added to the Attacking Player's Gold Attribute,  the
>> defending Player's Lab is Destroyed and the Attack is terminated.
>> If the defending Players Creature is not dead the attacking Player's
>> Creature, and the defending Player's Creature enter Combat.
>> The Attack ends.
> No need for a comma in the 2nd to last sentence.


> What about creatures with the same speed?

Oops. Now uses an initiative roll when tied

>> ==== Blows ====
>> Whenever a Creature delivers a Blow to another Creature the following
>> actions are performed in succession:
>> If the delivering Creature's Brightness is greater than 9, choose the
>> lowest non 0 attribute of the target Creature.
>> If the delivering Creature's Brightness is not greater than 9, choose
>> a random non 0 attribute of the target Creature.
>> Subtract the delivering Creature's Muscle from the selected Attribute
>> of the receiving Creature.
> Does incapacitation factor into this? 
No, incapacitated creatures cannot attack, but it has reached your 
opponents lab, it might become incapacitated but will still manage to 
crawl back home somehow.

Also, how do you heal a
> monster? Just by replacing body parts?

Yes, plus the occasional thunderstorm.

> I wonder if updating this randomly every nday will be too much work.  
> I suppose most of this prop is meant to be automated?

Yes, it's supposed to be scripted. but I wanted to straighten out stuff 
before writing the code.

>> /* whew, finally finished */
> That looks pretty good. I have two worries
> 1) The amount of gold total throughout the game seems to be fixed at  
> 100 times the number of times players have joined; two players could  
> gain ridiculous numbers of points by alternately joining and giving  
> each other all eir gold, then each cashing in before quitting and  
> rejoining.

Hmmm, good point.
But note that you cannot give gold to other players just like that, you 
must pass through the Market
Still, it's easy to artificially inflate prices and generally wreck the 
economy, especially since the way it is currently worded people can use 
the market as storage, while they quit and join.
mayor oops
Any suggestions on how to handle this ?

> 2) In my experience, subgames tend to get old after a while, and many  
> of them keep lurching onwards anyway, with nobody wanting to propose  
> a new subgame until the current one is shut down, but nobody wanting  
> to be the one to shut down the current one either. A related problem  
> is that a few players could construct huge, invulnerable creatures by  
> pure luck and then proceed to wipe out other players as they tried to  
> rejoin, thus making the game inaccessible for new players. Both of  
> these problems would be solved if there were some fixed termination  
> condition - perhaps each player gains some sort of token whenever e  
> destroys another player's Lab, and when somebody gets 10 tokens e  
> gets a big heap of points and the game starts over?

Sure, there is no winning condition yet, but I was planning one, 
possibly a relatively easy one so to have many short "quick and dirty" 
rounds rather than one single interminable game.

spoon-discuss mailing list