Subject: RE: MN: Re: RE: Horizontal complexity

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:39:27 +1000

Replying to Snow and Riff's comments in one.

On Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:00 AM, riffraff@n...
[SMTP:riffraff@n...] wrote:
> >I'm not sure that players' plans being visable in the GSD is something
> >to be considered good.
> 
> Well, if I grok Paul's meaning, it's not so much eir plans as a record of
> what ey've done, from which you can attempt to deduce eir plans. Right?

Basically, yeah. It's impossible to hide your intent completely, since
we're assumed to all be wanting to win. So from the premise that the person
is angling for golds, you can deduce a fair bit from what they're doing at
the time. This doesn't mean that you're setting your plans out for all to
see, it just means that there are only so many courses of action that you
can take.

> >To me it suggests everyone was pulling in different directions. Even
> >so, individual ideas working doesn't mean the whole thing together
> >worked.
> 
> True... I think that's pretty much why we started the new ruleset, really.

OK, let me clarify something here.

To my mind, the Action system is a vertically complex thing. At the top you
have the idea that actions are formatted in certain ways, and can be played
at certain times during the move. Below that you've got general classes of
actions - Singular actions, Token Exchange, Purchasing, Aggressive,
Defensive, Neutral, Translocation, etc. Below this you have groups of
actions - Aggressive actions include all the things you can do with Clamps,
for example - but Clamps also have a defensive Action (removing the clamp).

Each of these layers has an effect, in-game or not - Singular actions can
only be played immediately after a move, clamping actions all have a certain
interaction with a particular clamp, aggressive actions usually involve a
red token. The fact that each layer adds its own particular complexity to
the meaning of the action is what gives you vertical complexity.

We have a lot of horizontal complexity, since as Riff says there are a
swagload of individual actions you can do each turn. Likewise, we have
horizontal complexity in the system of timing - you can only fit so many
things in an hour, which governs your choice of actions without having to
necessarily structure what you do.

Another way of looking at this is how you add things. When you add
something and it broadens a level, then you've added horizontal complexity;
adding Ghost Stations to the map, for instance. When you add something and
it creates a new level, that's vertical complexity; for example, adding a
new type of actions called Translocation actions which move your piece
without it passing along a Line.

So; Snow's statement still stands - we have vertical complexity and
horizontal complexity. From hereon in, I'll use breadth and depth for those
two terms to save my typing.

The point I'm trying to make with this is that MC, as played on !York and
Outer Space, is a very broad game with little depth. MN, OTOH, is a deep
game because it needs to be structured - but it has a fair bit of breadth
too. Games are all relatively 'deep' - you need a structure to fit rules
into and to order things hierarchially. I think the thing that really
confuses people and makes a game difficult to play is /disproportional/
breadth or depth. I don't think MN was that.

Sure, there were a couple of things that needed to be overhauled - I think
one of them was the way moves were performed. But my sustained opinion is
that the way to do this is by proposals, not by stopping progress entirely.

> >I disagree with this. I can't see how having lots of different small
> >rules is easier than fewer large ones.
> 
> Well, most of the small rules were simply different Actions... so you
> didn't lose much if you forgot them or didn't understand them. I do
> agree
> to a point, but I like having lots of different Actions because of the
> diversity. And I want to keep the ultra-complex vibe of Original MC.

My point precisely. The rules of Othello are simpler than the rules of
Monopoly. Both are interesting games in their own right. The small rules
ultimately have to fit in a larger structure, but there's no reason to limit
the number of rules per 'layer' just to satisfy some sense of deep
structure.

> >Speaking for myself I certainly haven't ignored anything you've said.
> >If I criticised your comments it was because I didn't agree with them.
> 
> Ditto... I've got a very poor memory (some would say notoriously so), but
I
> don't recall any particular suggestions or commentary from you (Paul)
since
> we started the new ruleset, except for wanting to get rid of the RPG
> aspects, which I whole-heartedly agreed with. Not to seem wossname,
> please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Well, I sent a number of fairly lengthy (ooh, from me, how surprising!)
mails about abandoning the nomic process and keeping that alive. And
perhaps if anything the general apathy level - which is the same as what
I've got from my proposals: little comment, little suggestion for
improvement, just outright against voting and silence - is what's putting me
off. No-one seems to find any inspiration or interest in my ideas, they
just keep pottering on with their own.

Who knows - maybe I'm guilty of my own criticism. Do you think so?

> >Riff has twice asked for other peoples' views on the Silver issue,
> >once specifically using your name. I also would like to know what you
> >think. This is a open discussion, you don't need an invite.
> 
> Please! I particularly want to get some other views on the Silver issue,
> because it appears that Snow and I aren't going to reach an agreement on
> our own. And anyway, I don't want it to be just the two of us doing this;

As to Silvers, I would say that they're pretty traditional by now and they
don't add much extra complexity to the game - rather, they add a nice extra
level of strategy - so they should stay.

To come at the idea completely afresh, why don't we start with the Volume 0
rules and nothing in the other Volumes, and Propose things from there. Each
person takes on a certain aspect and tries to propose a good logical
structure, and we vote, discuss and amend from there. The main change I
would make is that the Nomic Week is actually a Nomic Month, to give people
time to get their ideas fully collected.

What do you think of that?

Paul Wayper -- DPI IS&S ITO Computer Systems Officer
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

---

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:31:33 -0500

Gosh, Paul - I agree with pretty much everything you've said. Great minds,
eh? ;)

>Who knows - maybe I'm guilty of my own criticism. Do you think so?

Well, as to the MN system we had, it certainly wasn't very conducive to
discussion. Proposals sent in blindly, we receive a large list of them,
and then vote anonymously, with no discussion or amendments during or
afterwards. The tendency (at least for me) was to vote "Sure, why not?" or
"Nah." rather than actually For or Against. We never got to explore the
possibilities of the ideas.

After MN and before the current process, it was pretty chaotic. I think
Snow and I jumped in and started the current discussions and decisions just
to get the productivity ball rolling; we really didn't seem to be going
anywhere otherwise. I do remember now that you suggested a fourth vote of
'Delay' or 'Discuss', or something like that, which I thought was a good
idea.

>What do you think of that?

That's sort of what I was thinking, except that I think we should start
with a very basic core ruleset, consisting only of how movement works, how
tokens work, and some very basic actions (i.e. Blocking, Shunting, and some
alternate way to get Golds other than collecting Bronzes and Silvers),
which would be developed via discussion and consensus (or as near-to as
possible) rather than via the proposal and voting system. This way, we
have a firm foundation of fundamental rules that we can all agree on, on
which to build more elaborately through Proposals and Voting. The first
set would simply be The Basic Rules, and then the first set of additions
would be, say, The IMCS 1922 Fairfax Amendments. Followed by the 1929
Lancashire Revisions, the following month. And so on. Thus newbies can be
trained on the Basic Rules, and add revisions in order as they get the hang
of it. This would also allow us to choose games with rules only up to a
certain revision. Or even "all current rules except for 1945 Dunlop".
Tres MC. :)

I definately think we should do away with all the automated Proposing and
Voting, though. Make all your Proposals on-list, as you think of them. We
discuss them openly and the Proposer is free to add or change the Proposal
according to comments and discussion until we have a dozen or so good
Proposals to vote on, and then we vote and compile the next IMCS Revision.

>level of strategy - so they should stay.

Yup, that about sums it up IMO.

--Riff

"This calls for a subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"