Jamie Dallaire on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:33:13 -0700 (MST)

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

[s-d] A couple quick thoughts

I should be working right now, but let's just put these out there:

- What do you think is, generally, the incidence of a ruleset increasing in
size on the ease with which it can be twisted/manipulated into a
dictatorship style situation for one player? (gets easier, gets harder, no

- Back when there was much discussion about quantum states and such, I
thought of an amusing name for a potential proposal: "Schrodinger's Catnip
vs. Opium for the Masses". But I haven't been able to think of an actual
proposal to go with that name, so I'm throwing it out there in case it gives
anyone an idea. What I had been thinking would be that it could be
conceivable to have some rule that dictates that players with a certain
temperament (if that RFC had been implemented) subscribe to the more
schrodinger's catnip interpretation of the game and so can exist/act in
multiple quantum states at a time (this would require the game officially
recognizing such quantum states somehow... multiverse-nomic?). Players with
another type of temperament exist/act more along the lines of opium for the
masses (religious conviction to a single interpretation) and can only
exist/act in a single quantum state at a time (is it picked for them? do
they get to choose whenever there is a split? dunno). Now, what the gameplay
implications of such a move would be (what happens when the gamestates
collapse?) and how it could NOT be a giant headache beyond me. But if that
stirs up anyone's creativity...

spoon-discuss mailing list