Subject: MN: Re: Alternative Game Structures

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 21 Jan 99 10:38:39 +0000

>> What do people think? Any other ideas? 
>> 
>One other possibility is that you have a main Piece, and subsidiary objects 
>('pegs' comes to mind) which you can use as part of your play. 

That chimes quite nicely with some of my own ideas - a kind of mix between 
the chess and 'trail' approaches. Interesting. 

> ... I'd rather 
>just play at the moment - I'm rather happy with the idea of getting used to 
>the ruleset as it is now rather than trying to play in the face of 
>constantly shifting objectives. 

That's fair enough. If you want a relatively static ruleset for a bit, I 
would suggest voting for the moratorium proposal (Frozen P's). 

What I was suggesting, though, was a rather more radical series of Special 
Rulesets rather than a complete restructuring of the 

As to the relationship between MN as it is now and ISIHAC/York... well yes, 
but yet and at the same time, no - I don't think there is necessarily any 
consensus about how many pieces are on the board under the control of a 
particular player. In fact, I would suggest that some of the more complex 
token loading and logic map manoeuvres would be unplayable in anything 
except a multi-piece world. 

Still, it sounds like I should restrict my ventures along the wilder shores 
of game mechanics for the moment. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/l-nomic-d
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com