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

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:00:26 -0500

>> The lack of depth is a good thing in a way. It means that you don't
>have to
>> remember to prepare a lot for a move; this means that you can play
>after not
>> looking at the game for two weeks because the game state, and hence
>your
>> plans, are pretty much elucidated in the document itself.
>
>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?

>
>> The fact that
>> people haven't built amazingly vertically complex structures is, to
>my mind,
>> simply a reflection of the fact that each idea works as well as it
>needs to.
>
>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.

>
>> If we had a lot of depth then this would make things an order of
>magnitude
>> more complex; and it would also make it a lot harder for new people
>to play.
>
>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.

>> Since my opinions, which I've basically stated before, have
>basically been
>> ignored outright, passed over or criticised
>
>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. :)

>
>> I'm quite interested to see what your
>> work eventually produces, but since your aims are quite divergent
>from mine
>> in this instance I see no common ground for my interaction. I'd
>rather
>> leave you to peacefully sort out what you want than bang my head
>against the
>> brick wall of your opposing preferences.
>>
>> Of course, if you feel I can contribute at some stage, please ask.
>
>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;
this game's supposed to be for us all.

--Riff

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

---

From: "Kevan " <kevan@s...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:31:46 -0000

> this game's supposed to be for us all.

Forgive my silence. I think the existence of Silvers is a fairly good 
thing, seeming an obvious middle ground between Bronzes and Golds, 
but that they're spent on "extra-powerful Actions" seems a bit vague, 
particularly when the other Token colours are so neatly defined.

Maybe "Mind the Gap" should cost one Blue and one Silver, or 
whatever. (Was Gapminding a Silver Action? I can't seem to get to the 
MN site.) I think I'd be just as happy if such an Action cost three 
Blue, though. Do we really want a generic "powerful" Token, when 
Token quantity already signifies an Action's strength?

Kevan

--
kevan@s...
http://www.stormloader.com/kevan
"Am I still ill?"