Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Devices, hey!

["Mike McGann" <nomic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/13/07, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmmm I believe the way the artisan rules read right now, blueprints created
> by the artisan are only enacted 2 ndays after the proposal is made. the
> artisan may create a blueprint without 2 objections within 2 ndays, in other
> words we have to wait 2 ndays to see if there are any objections before the
> blueprint is formed.

Yes. But with a proposal, it could take a full nweek to become a rule.
To become a rule, it requires action--people have to vote and there
has to be a majority. If nobody votes, it doesn't become a rule. With
a blueprint, if it becomes an additional method for "creating" rules,
it can be done in only 2 ndays and requires people to take action, by
2 objections, to prevent it from happening. Default action for a
blueprint is for it to be created. Default action for a proposal is to
fail. It could become an attack vector to try and slip something
through hoping that everyone else is too busy with life in those two
ndays to notice.

> however there is still good reason to be paranoid about overpowered devices
> especially if they get to override the rules. that said, the devices can't
> be entirely subject to the rules either, as that severely limits their
> effects in my opinion.

Yes, paranoia is justified, and yes, devices that can't override in
some way are basically useless. The problem in creating game mechanics
like this is achieving a good balance and that is really hard to do. A
lot of games I have played couldn't get everything right and had flaws
that required correction. Anything from MOO2 with the Stellar
Converter, to Warcraft 2 and the 7 Grunt Attack, to Romance of the
Three Kingdoms and the "Dream Team" strategy, to Super Mario Bros. and
the infinite 1UP trick, to Javy Lopez's HR prowess in MLB 2004.

In Magic the Gathering, there is an infamous card called the "Chaos
Orb". Basically, when you activate it, you flip the card in the air
like a coin, and any cards in play that it lands on are destroyed (and
the Orb is destroyed as well). I'm not sure if this is true or urban
legend, but the story goes that a guy in a tournament, when he
activated it, shredded the card into a gazillion pieces, flipped all
those pieces, and annihilated his opponent's play field as their cards
got buried under the blizzard of Orb fragments. You can never
underestimate the creativity of people.

Card text on an M:TG card always overrides the defined rules and that
is required or the game would not be fun (and generally not really
work). The key difference is that they can't permanently mutate the
rule set. That game is also played as a series of separate and
discrete games. Any discrepancies that arise in play can be resolved
out-of-band, but in nomic, resolving is a part of the game itself that
can have its rules changed.

> one way around this might be to extend the delay for objections when the
> artisan proposes something (especially if the distinction between unique and
> non-unique devices is indeed removed, in which case everything doesn't need
> to run on such a tight schedule to allow the auction to take place before
> the end of the nweek).

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe something along the lines of
working at the same speed as proposals. Blueprints can be announced up
to Ballotday, with objections allowed up to the end of the nweek, and
having blueprints spawned as the last action in the "Tallying the
votes" sequence. Auctions, if still around after amendment, could be
the following nweek. Also, I think anyone should be able to propose
blueprints and not be limited to the Artisan. In my opinion, the
Ministry positions should just be for handling the administrivial
details of the game. If devices happen to become popular, it could
create a competitive grabbing of that Ministry to use the crafting
ability.

> another way might be to have a specific rules section saying devices may
> override all rules except those in this section. and then have things like
> no changes to the rulebook, no elimination of players, etc. if we can agree
> on things like that.

Yeah, something along those lines would be needed. I'll have to think
a little more on that.

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