Subject: MN: Where To Begin?

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:12:15 -0800

Friends:

Now that we have an officially active set of Nomic mechanics in the new
Section 0 ruleset, it's time to get down to the fun stuff and think about
how to play the Game itself.

What I would like to do is to get some kind of extremely basic ruleset up
and running as quickly as possible so that we can get playing. To that end
I'd like to open the discussion on what is the least we can have in the
Game whilst being playable. My own thoughts here would be:

- the map
- Pieces and basic movement (with or without Line Velocity, but we need
some constraint I would suggest)
- one or two offensive moves (Block and Shunt?)
- something to collect to make MC open (what used to be gold tokens;
ticket stubs? I hesitate to suggest hats...)
- very simple Buzzing (eg if a Player makes an illegal move, they
forfeit their turn)

The point here is to keep possession tracking to an absolute minimum.
Wording, as has already been observed, should be as simple as possible
without being ambiguous.

Failing that, I'm also quite tempted by the idea of taking the old Section
1 and taking stuff out until it's more immediately playable. However, it
would be harder to keep the language simple with that approach.

In any case, if we have something playable but simple then we can add a
certain amount of extra rules until it at least becomes interesting. Once
that point of minimal interest is reached, then we can freeze the basic
rules and get onto building Options and Variants.

So, ideas please.

-- 
Dunx
A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back
- Piet Hein

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:14:40 +1100

At 05:12 PM 13/03/2001, you wrote:
>Game whilst being playable.

My thoughts are:

1) The Premove/Postmove/Neutral Action system was very stable and worked well.

2) The "Player: [Actions...] Move [Actions...]" looked good and recorded 
things fairly well. You're never going to record everything that goes on 
in a move (e.g. token transactions) in a way that still allows the move to 
be readable by any normal person; remembering what they did is usually 
enough. If you can't challenge the move as it was recorded at the time 
then it should be left as is.

3) The Premove Actions / Move / Postmove Action system was stable. The 
minor flaw was in the implementation of Wild moves, which were never really 
ratified to all work the same way.

4) The Token system is almost essential. My opinion is that the Plastic / 
Metallic distinction with seven (Red, Green, Blue, Black, Bronze, Silver, 
Gold) is pretty much all you could ever need.

My first idea here is that 'Move' is really like an action anyway - if you 
had a [Moving to <Station>] Action then it would be used in exactly the 
same way as a normal Action. It would also make sense because a [Wild to 
<Station>] is pretty much exactly the same, it just uses a separate set of 
governing rules. Likewise, a [Pass] is a movement action of sorts. So 
perhaps there are four categories of Actions:

Premove Actions - must take place before any Moving action.
Move Actions - must make at least one Moving action per Turn.
Postmove Actions - must take place after any Moving action.
Neutral Actions - can be played anywhere.

Only Move Actions are allowed to affect the location of the Player's Piece, 
and you can do more than one per turn if allowed. For instance (starting 
at Elephant and Castle on the Bakerloo Line with a LV of 3):

PaulWay: [Touching the Buffers] (Collecting a Silver Token at a Terminus)
[LV+3] (Up my LV to six)
[Moving to Oxford Circus] (four Interchanges = two black Tokens)
[Collecting Green Token] (left by Dunx)
[fFanshawe's Interchange Wild to Victoria] (move to any other 
Interchange in same Zone with same number of Lines and at least one Line in 
common)
[Blonking the Circle Line] (just in case Kevan should try an attack)
[Showing Zone 1 Pass] (three line interchange = one blue token)
Victoria (VC)

That's two Premove actions, one Move action, one Neutral action, another 
Move action, and two Postmove actions, followed by my finishing Station and 
Line.

To me this is a good way of controlling the whole 'Move to one station then 
perform some action to move your piece somewhere else' problem which we 
struggled with in the previous Incarnation. It also opens up the scope; 
some Moves must accompany other Moves (e.g. move to one Station then Slide 
along the line to another) although most would work independently of 
eachother. If you think about it, there's no real need for one Move per 
turn - witness the pseudo-Move of Pass. Pass simply becomes a Move Action 
that allows you to stay where you are.

That's enough from me; what do the rest of you think?

>The point here is to keep possession tracking to an absolute minimum.

I agree. While I think Tokens essential, everything else should be more 
flexible. I do think Clamps are a good solution for the problem of what 
State a player is in (although a typically Nomic one).

>would be harder to keep the language simple with that approach.

I agree. I think perhaps the thing to do now is start with a few broad 
brushstrokes (such as the idea above) and then start to Propose the details 
as they become clear.

Have fun,

Paul

---

From: "miKi" <mn_miKi@h...>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 23:25:37 -0800

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What PaulWay proposes sounds great to me. I really like the idea of a Move =
Action type, and the example presented with optional descriptions of each A=
ction and the tokens earned/relinquished in the ()'s is nice. My only comme=
nt is that I feel that having 7 (count them!), 7 different token types is s=
omething verging on overkill. We should be able to get by with fewer, surel=
y?

Mind the gap,
- miKi
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Wayper=20
To: [email-masked]=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: MN: Where To Begin?

At 05:12 PM 13/03/2001, you wrote:
>What I would like to do is to get some kind of extremely basic ruleset u=
p
>and running as quickly as possible so that we can get playing. To that e=
nd

My thoughts are:

1) The Premove/Postmove/Neutral Action system was very stable and worked =
well.

2) The "Player: [Actions...] Move [Actions...]" looked good and recorded=
=20
things fairly well. You're never going to record everything that goes on=
=20
in a move (e.g. token transactions) in a way that still allows the move t=
o=20
be readable by any normal person; remembering what they did is usually=20
enough. If you can't challenge the move as it was recorded at the time=20
then it should be left as is.

3) The Premove Actions / Move / Postmove Action system was stable. The=20
minor flaw was in the implementation of Wild moves, which were never real=
ly=20
ratified to all work the same way.

4) The Token system is almost essential. My opinion is that the Plastic =
/=20
Metallic distinction with seven (Red, Green, Blue, Black, Bronze, Silver,=
=20
Gold) is pretty much all you could ever need.

My first idea here is that 'Move' is really like an action anyway - if yo=
u=20
had a [Moving to <Station>] Action then it would be used in exactly the=20
same way as a normal Action. It would also make sense because a [Wild to=
=20
<Station>] is pretty much exactly the same, it just uses a separate set o=
f=20
governing rules. Likewise, a [Pass] is a movement action of sorts. So=20
perhaps there are four categories of Actions:

Only Move Actions are allowed to affect the location of the Player's Piec=
e,=20
and you can do more than one per turn if allowed. For instance (starting=
=20
at Elephant and Castle on the Bakerloo Line with a LV of 3):

PaulWay: [Touching the Buffers] (Collecting a Silver Token at a Terminus)
[LV+3] (Up my LV to six)
[Moving to Oxford Circus] (four Interchanges =3D two black Toke=
ns)
[Collecting Green Token] (left by Dunx)
[fFanshawe's Interchange Wild to Victoria] (move to any other=20
Interchange in same Zone with same number of Lines and at least one Line =
in=20
common)
[Blonking the Circle Line] (just in case Kevan should try an at=
tack)
[Showing Zone 1 Pass] (three line interchange =3D one blue toke=
n)
Victoria (VC)

That's two Premove actions, one Move action, one Neutral action, another=
=20
Move action, and two Postmove actions, followed by my finishing Station a=
nd=20
Line.

To me this is a good way of controlling the whole 'Move to one station th=
en=20
perform some action to move your piece somewhere else' problem which we=20
struggled with in the previous Incarnation. It also opens up the scope;=
=20
some Moves must accompany other Moves (e.g. move to one Station then Slid=
e=20
along the line to another) although most would work independently of=20
eachother. If you think about it, there's no real need for one Move per=
=20
turn - witness the pseudo-Move of Pass. Pass simply becomes a Move Actio=
n=20
that allows you to stay where you are.

>The point here is to keep possession tracking to an absolute minimum.

I agree. While I think Tokens essential, everything else should be more=
=20
flexible. I do think Clamps are a good solution for the problem of what=
=20
State a player is in (although a typically Nomic one).

>Failing that, I'm also quite tempted by the idea of taking the old Secti=
on
>would be harder to keep the language simple with that approach.

I agree. I think perhaps the thing to do now is start with a few broad=20
brushstrokes (such as the idea above) and then start to Propose the detai=
ls=20
as they become clear.

Have fun,

Paul

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20

iWin.com - The Place to Win Stuff!=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20

---

From: Gunnar Thoele <gthoele@G...>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:10:11 +0100

Hallo!

My suggestions are:
> -map
I suggest using the current state of real-life London Transport,
including the JLE and every "Underground" line and also the DLR, but
not Tramlink and mainline railways.

> some constraint I would suggest)
Line velocity seems to be a good concept as far as i know.
Additionally i would personally like that movements are not dependent
on dice.

> ticket stubs? I hesitate to suggest hats...)
Wasn't it (the real-life stazion) closed for rebuilding some time ago?
Why not collect building material (tiles, concrete,...)?

> - very simple Buzzing (eg if a Player makes an illegal move, they
I agree.

-- 
Gunnar

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:28:51 -0000

> be readable by any normal person

I think we should at least aim to have the GSD describe our Turns
fully. If it proves it too complicated then we can leave it. But we
shouldn't set out to leave gaps.

> Gold) is pretty much all you could ever need.

IMO this is too much. I would say a better system would be to work out
what types of Tokens are needed and then decide what to call them. I
think there are 3 or 4 types needed:

1) Tokens for agressive/targeting Actions.
2) Tokens for defensive Actions.
3) Tokens for winning/special Actions.
4) Tokens for movement Actions.

Whether movement Tokens are needed depends on whether moving needs
Tokens. If not then Actions that cause movement are just Special
Actions. Also type 3 might be better if there was a high (gold) Token
and a low (Silver) Token.

> same way as a normal Action.

On the 4th June 2000 I said:

>> I think moves should be made actions to standardize the notation.

To which PaulWay replied:

> I disagree. I think it looks fine. It also makes the person's
current
> location very easy to find in the GSD.

Anyway I agree with making moves Actions.

> Premove Actions - must take place before any Moving action.

The only ones I can think of that would go here are ones that are in
the Player's interest to go here. If players want to do stupid things
why not let them. I don't think premove actions are required.

> Move Actions - must make at least one Moving action per Turn.

Why must someone make a move? Why not just let them sit there? Loops
are a special case, but they are a special case whether or not you
force Players to move.

> Postmove Actions - must take place after any Moving action.

I think 'must take place after all moving Actions' would be better.
Post-move Actions are often agressive, so the Player should not be
allowed to run away.

> and you can do more than one per turn if allowed.

Agreed. I like the idea of allowing more than one move per turn.

> Pass simply becomes a Move Action

Pass would have to be limited to Turns that don't contain any other
moves.

> I agree. While I think Tokens essential,

Agreed. Tokens are central to the game.

> everything else should be more

I not convined there's anything wrong with writing "Knip" next to the
Player's name. But it's just symbology, so I don't really mind one way
or the other.

--
Snow
(1245678912456789124567891245678912456789)

---

From: Paul Wayper <paulway@e...>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:30:01 +1100

At 08:28 AM 15/03/2001, you wrote:
> > current location very easy to find in the GSD.

OK, here's a life-size oil painting of me standing in a corner wearing a 
dunce's cap, a monkey suit, a banana in each ear and having a cream pie 
rammed into my face just fast enough to make it wrap around the side of my 
head.

I'm sorry, Snow, that I didn't see what you were on about then, otherwise I 
would have agreed with you. Maybe you didn't explain it enough for my 
simple brain, maybe I was just too intent on the old way of play to think 
about it. Anyway, I owe you a large drink and a good deal of kudos.

Which reminds me, are we going to have Kudos again? My gut says 'yeah!' 
but my brain says 'that's a Nomic thing, and it doesn't contribute to the 
game. Shut up, gut.'

>why not let them. I don't think premove actions are required.

I think that some types of actions are useful as Pre-move only: line 
velocity changes, for instance (again, on the 'don't let them run away' 
principle, perhaps).

>are a special case, but they are a special case whether or not you

Well, if Pass is a valid Movement action, then this simplifies 
things. Having the "You can Move or you can Pass" thing is just a more 
complex way of saying "You must Move, but a move can be a Pass". If you 
see what I mean.

Forcing Looping by making everyone play a "Loop to <Station>" Move Action 
seems a very useful device too.

>Post-move Actions are often agressive, so the Player should not be

Er, yes. That's what I meant... Agreed.

>Pass would have to be limited to Turns that don't contain any other

Yep.

>Player's name. But it's just symbology, so I don't really mind one way

True. But all the mechanisms for dealing with those symbols are equivalent 
to the Clamp mechanisms anyway.

And, in defence of seven coloured tokens, I will say that they fit 
reasonably neatly into the GSD headers, and allowed a breadth and depth of 
Action 'qualification' that was useful. I don't like using one type of 
token as a general catch-all 'cost' device.

As an aside, I think that Blue tokens should lose the 'specialty item' 
status they seemed to have in the previous Incarnation.

Have fun,

Paul

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:30:26 -0000

> velocity changes, for instance (again, on the 'don't let them run
away'

Well I hope we can find something better than line velocity (time
maybe), but I accept that there may be actions that are required to be
pre-move. My concern was that if there are only 2 or 3 actions that
are in the game's interest to be pre-move (rather than the player's
interest), that we don't clutter up the ruleset explicity saying they
are neutral. However having thought about it if we move to a HTML/XML
ruleset it should be possible to keep it tidy.

> >Why must someone make a move?
>

But wouldn't it be less complex not to say anything? Or do I
misunderstand?

> seems a very useful device too.

But you have to say that anyway. In a loop you have to finish your
turn on the loop station (or make a move action to it), it doesn't
make a difference whether normal turns require a move or not.

> to the Clamp mechanisms anyway.

OK

> reasonably neatly into the GSD headers,

Ahh, GSD headers... I found these to be a bit of a pain to read and a
very large pain to edit. And in the wrong place, they should be at the
foot of the GSD where the last move is.

I would favour a simple footer like:

Game (10:23): Embankment blocked, bridges up
----------------------------------------------------
Rushton (Wimbledon): 1Go, 4Si, 8Gr, knip clamp
Cryer (Euston): 2Go, 3Br, 2Gr, suspect package clamp
Garden (S.Kensington): 1Bk, on fire clamp

> and allowed a breadth and depth of

Well, I would think 3 or 4 tokens covers most categories. Green tokens
were pretty much pointless; you just [Recycle <plastic>] then [Action
with green token]. Similarly the exchange thing at Bank reduced
Gold/Silver/Bronze to effectively 2 Token types.

Red - Agressive
Blue - Defensive
Gold - Special actions (inc winning)
Black (if needed) - movement

What more is needed?

--
Snow
(Scientists have proved that 97% of paperweights are incapable of
unassisted flight)

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:30:15 -0800

Where to begin indeed.

It's arguable whether this message is going to be particularly useful,
since most of the points which I wanted to raise in relation to my original
discussion suggestions have already been made. I apologise if there seems
to be an element of "me too!", but there we have it.

In any case, I'll just go through the few points mentioned in the first
place and my thinking on them. I'll also bring in some elements from other
people's messages.

I should also explain that my focus here is very much on the core rules,
the point being to make a ruleset which is simple enough to understand,
complex enough to be interesting, and extensible.

> - the map

My point in raising this was to suggest going for a modern map, which
seems to be a general point of agreement. However, using a modern map
requires a program to render PDF (since I believe that is the only form
published by London Transport these days).

Is that going to be OK? I remember the last time use of a PDF map was
mentioned some Players objected because they didn't have the plugin.
How is everyone fixed for Adobe Acrobat or similar?

> some constraint I would suggest)

I don't have a particular agenda here. I personally am quite happy with
LV, but I can appreciate the objections to it.

Snow, when you mention using Turn Time to regulate movement do you mean
saying that (for instance) each station moved takes five minutes, but
line changes cost ten? I apologise if I missed earlier debate on this
subject.

Is Turn Time a good idea in the Basic Rules? Obviously the full panoply
of the Richard Whiteley Experience and Carol Vorderman's Revenge
(Section 1.13 in the old rules) would be monstrous overkill, but even
allocating people an hour to play in is quite a bit of book-keeping.

Despite its imperfections, LV has the distinct advantage of being easy
to track.

> - one or two offensive moves (Block and Shunt?)

This touches on a couple of issues, both of which have been mentioned
by others:

a) Actions
b) Tokens

I had come to the very firm conclusion that Actions were essential, if
only because they are an extremely effective way of adding new
mechanics. I am glad to see that this appears to be the consensus.

My thinking was that, in the Basic Rules at least, we might be able to
dispense with Pre/Post-Move Actions, effectively saying that Actions
are Post-Move, but that makes LV manipulation tricky (if we use LV).

Making Moves Actions would obviate the need for the distinction though,
as long as we say that things happen during a Turn in the order they
are described.

As for Tokens... well, I agree there are too many kinds, especially for
the Basic Rules. We do need something to restrict Players from doing
everything every Turn though, and Token cost is pretty effective in
this (as is Turn Time, but see earlier remarks about this possibly
being too much for the Basic Rules).

I thought we could probably get away with just Black, Red and Gold
tokens in the Basic Rules:

- Black would be a general purpose token
- Red would be the attacking token
- Gold would be the special token

Whether we actually use these colours is moot, of course.

Related to the huge number of tokens is the monster GSD header. Snow
has already touched on this, and indeed has described pretty much what
I was going to suggest: fold the Token tracking into the luggage rack.
Putting the information at the end of the GSD is a tremendous idea too,
since it will make it much easier to make moves.

> ticket stubs? I hesitate to suggest hats...)

This point actually becomes less relevant if we have Tokens, since we
can use Gold Tokens again. I mentioned it because I wasn't sure if we
were going to have tokens in the basic rules.

It's worth mentioning the abstract/realist division, though.

One of the difficulties with MN towards the end of its last incarnation
was the proliferation of weird and wonderful possessions: clothing,
wildlife, musical instruments, a massive variety of clamps... it got a
bit, well, silly. It's been termed Mornington Roleplay by some.

Which way do we go? Is Mornington Crescent an immersive experience
meant to recreate the feeling of travelling the Underground, or an
abstract game which just happens to use the map as a medium?

I'm firmly in the abstract camp, frankly, particularly for the Basic
Rules. I'm of this opinion because it will be much easier to construct
Special Ruleset options which bolt the RPG elements on the side of
sensible core mechanics than to remove distracting whimsical elements
for a more abstract game.

> - very simple Buzzing (eg if a Player makes an illegal move, they

Seems to be a consensus on this one. Not much else to say.

One final point:

> but my brain says 'that's a Nomic thing, and it doesn't contribute to the

Your brain is correct, Paul. Just say no.

We're not at a point of complete consensus yet, but I think it's worth
starting to rough out a Basic Rules section to plug stuff into. If nobody
else beats me to it, I'll put something up over the weekend.

One procedural point, though: I think we should avoid having a single
monster Proposal for the Basic Rules like we had for Section 0. Maybe this
is a good time for a bit of division of labour?

---

From: David Lynch <david@d...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:07:21 -0600 (CST)

> published by London Transport these days).

I believe that I have, somewhere in the chaos that is known as my hard
disk, a copy of the last JPG version LT (or TfL, whatever they're called
this week) put out, which is post-Jubilee-Extension. (We certianly don't
want to use the current version, with every BR station as an interchange
blob, and the (temporary) deletion of the District around the west side of
the Circle.) If I find it, I'll upload it to the files area.

> How is everyone fixed for Adobe Acrobat or similar?

If all else fails, take screen shots of the PDF and stitch them together.

> LV, but I can appreciate the objections to it.

I have no real objections here, but wouldn't be too terribly unhappy if we
were to do away with it.

> allocating people an hour to play in is quite a bit of book-keeping.

If the book-keeping is going to be a major problem, make moving 20
minutes, with additional time for line changes, if we so desire.

- David James Lynch -
david@d...

---

From: Gunnar Thoele <gthoele@G...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:26:06 +0100

Hallo!
> published by London Transport these days).
For me PDF is fine. And if somebody feels like it's not good, it
should be possible to make a JPG image from it without too much
hassle...
-- 
Gunnar

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:26:58 -0000

Dunx said:
> I remember the last time use of a PDF map was

It's easy enough to convert the PDF version to JPEG.

> line changes cost ten? I apologise if I missed earlier debate on
this

That's the sort of thing; though I hadn't any firm ideas.

> allocating people an hour to play in is quite a bit of
book-keeping.

Well, there are other options:
1) Fixed maximum 'steps' per turn.
2) Pay for movement using tokens.
3) Allow <zone>+2 steps per turn (where <zone> is the highest zone
passed through).

Suggestions...

> are Post-Move, but that makes LV manipulation tricky (if we use
LV).

We could dispense with pre/post-move actions, but some actions
(shunting say) should really be post-move. If you feel it's better we
could just say in the actions themselves that they must occur after
all moves.

I'm not at all sure about saying all actions must be post move. For
one thing this obstructs PaulWay's idea about multiple moves per turn.

> as long as we say that things happen during a Turn in the order
they

True.

> - Gold would be the special token

Sounds fine by me.

> for a more abstract game.

I'm abstract too.

> Seems to be a consensus on this one. Not much else to say.

OK by me.

> Your brain is correct, Paul. Just say no.

Absolutely, resist the temptation.

> else beats me to it, I'll put something up over the weekend.

If you're talking about a document that we can point at to help focus
our discussions then OK. If your talking about a proposal with actual
rules in I don't think we have anything solid to propose

> is a good time for a bit of division of labour?

No, everything should be discussed by everyone. If the ruleset starts
being divided up then people will start adding/changing things without
proper debate. Once as much agreement as possible is gained then it
can be divided up.

--
Snow
(trick penguin steals tree)

---

From: Dunx <dunx@d...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:57:39 -0800

> It's easy enough to convert the PDF version to JPEG.

I had assumed as much, but hadn't made the time to investigate.

I've got a number of PDF maps kicking around, as well. I'll see what
they're like.

> 3) Allow <zone>+2 steps per turn (where <zone> is the highest zone

Interesting.

> could just say in the actions themselves that they must occur after

*shrug* I'm ambivalent, really. On the one hand it's nice to factor out
common behaviour as much as possible, on the other it's good to keep the
up front definitions as short as possible to aid quicker understanding.

> one thing this obstructs PaulWay's idea about multiple moves per turn.

Indeed. Forget I mentioned it.

> > - Gold would be the special token

Goodo.

> rules in I don't think we have anything solid to propose

I'm purely talking about a structured blank canvas. There are bits which
could probably be filled in a bit (buzzing, for instance) but everything
is still very much up in the air in terms of content, wording, colour of
ink, etc.

> proper debate. Once as much agreement as possible is gained then it

My fault for not explaining more fully.

What I meant to suggest was that individuals could go away and write
stuff, but I'm absolutely with you that everything in the Basic Rules
should be discussed thoroughly before it's written up and voted on.

It probably is too early for that yet. I suppose I'm hankering for
something more concrete to pick holes in, though.

Ho hum.

-- 
Dunx
Just because automatic transmissions don't require a clutch pedal doesn't
mean you should put the handbrake there!

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:02:22 +0100

> up front definitions as short as possible to aid quicker
understanding.

Personally I would put the restriction in the rules to start with and
only factor them out if there were enough to warrant it.

> should be discussed thoroughly before it's written up and voted on.

Sorry, I overreacted there. That sounds like a good plan.

> something more concrete to pick holes in, though.

I have no objection to having a draft ruleset. As long as nothing in
it is taken as the 'correct way' until voted on.

--
Snow
(Having nothing to say isn't going to stop me saying it)