Re: [s-d] MathNauts?

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Charles Schaefer
<chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I was looking forward to this. If anyone still wants to play:
> 1. We could vote contracts back and play via contract (yes, I know, I keep
> arguing for contracts)
> 2. We could vote subgames back (it was a shame they didn't get much use. I
> agree with ehird's sentiment about lack of gameplay being a large factor in
> the fourth-era collapse.)
> 3. We could try to do it on the Grid (I've read the Grid rule, but haven't
> taken the time to fully comprehend it yet. The potential problem I see is
> this: Players can only be bound to one set of Laws at a time. We couldn't
> play MathNauts and, say, Werewolves at the same time.)


I'd like to do mathnauts, yes. That said, I'd like to take a little time
first to get my bearings on the grid (I also haven't read all the new b mail
yet, so who knows if we're in yet another (4th for 152-1) emergency)...

I'm not sure about this, but I think that we could potentially be bound by
more than one "contract" (colour) on the grid at once, where the contracts
are things that we have some sort of interest in "winning" rather than ones
that simply restrict our rights/powers. e.g. say a certain number of players
standing on orange squares start a game, and I am one of them. I later,
during the game, move out of orange squares to go mess with the yellow folk.
I *think* (and need to reread) that the game on orange, if it is properly
set up, can very well continue to track me and my actions as part of its
internal gamestate without requiring me to be present and without imposing
any requirements or restrictions on me. And, if need be for that game, I
should very well make sure I get myself back onto an orange square every
once-a-jiffy.

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