Subject: MN: Re: Sv: Sv: MC: A (single) player's perspective

From: "Ole Andersen" <palnatoke@g...>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 07:14:56 +0200

Kevan answered:

:> The Nomic-mechanisms tend to favour the maximalist approach, I believe.
:
:Not really; I've played a few (mostly face-to-face) minimalist Nomics. It
:depends entirely on the players, as does everything else.
:

I haven't tried FTF Nomic. But I have a hunch that 'net Nomic tends to be
maximalist.

:> 2) Keep the standard rules as they are now, and make a minimalist
:> variant.
:>
:> I believe both ways are practicable. But we have to make a choice if we
want
:> both minimalism and maximalism satisfied.
:
:I think a minimalist variant might be interesting, shorn of the more
frivolous
:Actions and Possessions, but as we've discovered in the foreign-Map games,
:there's an awful lot of "Oh, hang on, we can't use Freem Clamps because
we're
:not using Zones" problems when you try this.
:

If we wanted a Basic Ruleset, what should be there?

Standard Moves, Tokens, Shunts? Do we need more?

:It's really a matter of deciding whether to carry on with the real-life
:aspects of our Crescent rules, or to backpedal a bit and forge ahead with
:semi-random abstract jargon. (Although I suspect that, being in a
democracy,
:we've already got what most people are in favour of.)
:

You are probably right.

Ole

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications