Subject: Re: [DocNomic] Gamestate Abuse

From: "Tyrethali Ansrath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:34:33 -0400

I missed the bit of the rules that say if it's not part of the Gamestate, 
you can do whatever you want to it. Granted, stuff that IS part of the 
gamestate has been explicitly regulated to modification only by how the 
rules state so. But the opposite isn't necessarily automatically true.

If there are rules on how to change it, then it is part of the gamestate, if 
not Gamestate, surely. What else could it be? And even if it isn't a part of 
the Gamestate-with-a-'G', the fact that there are rules on how to change it 
assumes that that is the only way of changing it. Why bother with the rules 
in the first place, otherwise?

>Since Doctrine status is not specifically stated to be part of the 
>Gamestate
>(and never was), I hereby change all Players' Doctrines to...
>
>No, that would be dull.
>
>Sort it out, Doc. I still think we could use a catch-all "any data required 
>to
>be stored by the Rules is automatically considered to be Gamestate" rule, 
>you
>know.
>
>Kevan

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

---

From: Kevan Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:20:10 +0100

> you can do whatever you want to it.

>From Rule Zero: "Certain information reflecting the state of the
game is known as the Gamestate. The Ruleset and Gamestate may not be
altered except as specified in the Rules."

It's more that we're allowing other game-aspects to be altered by
external influences, I think. Which is arguably fair enough - if the
game started referring to "day of the week" or "hair colour of a player"
(both of which would 'reflect the state of the game'), we'd accept that
this data would exist and change by itself, rather than being restricted
by the Rules.

Random example from the current Ruleset:- "'Seniority' refers to the
amount of time since a Player most recently joined the game." It
reflects part of the state of the game, but isn't Gamestate because we
need it to be altered by the external universe, rather than only when
Rules allow it.

> in the first place, otherwise?

Oh, I agree entirely - if the Rules can change something, that should be
the only way it can change. It gets slightly tricky if we have something
that changes externally but can also be changed by the Rules (perhaps an
enforcable hair-dyeing rule), but we can just add a clause recognising the
additional influence of the outside world on that piece of Gamestate.

I did try to get a more generic Gamestate wording into an earlier round
of DocNomic, to save us from having to say "This piece of data is part
of the Gamestate." all the time, but, from memory, Doc preferred such
things to be stated explicitly, for the sake of clarity.

Kevan