Subject: MN vs MC - an issue of complexity (was: Moving)

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:30:24 +1000

On Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:49 PM, Kevan [SMTP:kevan@s...]
wrote:
> MC:CG had a fairly neat approach to the whole business, which I was 
> quite pleased with for its elegance - basically, you could move up to 
> three Stations per Move. That was it. There were certain ways you 
> could increase the maximum (Game States to up everyone's, Possessions 
> to raise your own), or decrease it (States for everyone, Clamp 
> Possessions for specific victims), and "maximum Move distance" was 
> vaguely referred to as "LV". Dead easy to keep track of, and it 
> worked perfectly well strategy-wise.

OK, I've worked out what I think the fundamental problem in the "playing a
move" paradigm is.

Let's look at the three non-MN genres in which MC is played: 

1) ISIHAC. This is the original game, the reference if you like. This is
the game that has the fearsomely complex ruleset, the terse game play, the
surprise and simplicity and driving logic of chess with the complex strategy
and intricacy and subtlety that go with it.

2) MC:CG. This game has to have simple gameplay, because there's only a
certain amount of state you can store either in your head or on whatever
portable state-storing systems you have (e.g. dice for hit points, counters,
etc).

3) MCiOS, !York, PantsMC, Orange, whatever. This is where we get our
fearsome complexity of move from. "Backshunting Raak and performing a
Triple Inverse Stoat on the Central Line with Bethnal Green, lowering
helical stress by 2.8 Brians and introducing a plaid token rain on all even
cross-hatched stations." I need say no more.

>From the "simplicity of ruleset" point of view, 1 comes between 2 and 3. My
justification for this is that we have to explain our moves! In 2, they're
self-evident. In 1, they're implied, but the players are assumed to be up
to handling it all, and therefore they're not so difficult that they need be
noted down. In 3, there's the implication that the players, who are not
assumed to be so below ISIHAC standards that they need reminders, still need
to either point out or remember what's going on.

Now, MN derives its structure principally from 3. There are bits tagged on,
like clamps, to explain things that are sort of implicit in 3 but need a
common structure or methodology to be played sensibly. However, the current
feeling of the list seems to be that we should be heading towards 2. 2 is
good for new players - it's almost what it's designed for. However, with
the baroque ruleset we have at the moment, scrapping it would be the best
way.

But I, for one, don't think that's what MN should be about. Because I don't
think a simplified ruleset will offer anything more than a half-hour's
entertainment - for the same reason that no-one really considers Baker
Street to be a complex game. The beauty of what we have is provided in the
underlying structures - the hour's worth of time to divide between actions
and moving is a good example. It's a structure, moreover, which can
accommodate a large amount of new stuff without needing a heck of revision.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the card game. I promise I'll look at it
someday (when my life is sorted out and I'm living in Melbourne). I'm all
for having a quick, playable game of MC that still makes you think. But
equating that with MN is like trying to say a propellor is equivalent to a
hypersonic ramjet engine.

_THAT_ to me is the issue we need to pursue here. If everyone's all for the
simplicity of a card game, then let's all go to the card game forum and
abandon MN. But in my view butchering it to produce a simple game is like
running CP/M on a Pentium III.

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