Roger Hicks on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:27:49 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] A couple quick thoughts

On Feb 10, 2008 11:01 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Billy Pilgrim wrote:
> > I should be working right now,
> Weekend jobs bad.
> > - 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
> > change)
> Instinct says "gets easier".  Some corner of the ruleset receives too
> little attention, someone twists it, and maybe if you're lucky some
> other corner of the ruleset will turn out to block it by accident.
> > - 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...
> It might work if you contained it within a new Field Match or something
> like that.  Let it cascade out to the points/mackerel/Devices/HP tangle
> and it'd quickly become a huge mess.  (Note that you could still have
> e.g. a mackerel fee for performing an action within the FM, provided
> that the same amount is paid in all quantum states under consideration.)

Hmm....A field match where there was a random percentage that any
action could not be determined with finality, thus generating a pair
of quantum states. Players could then target specific quantum states
for actions, and or target specific states for destruction. Victory is
achieved by destroying all the quantum states except the ones where
you have won.

spoon-discuss mailing list