Subject: RE: Horizontal complexity

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:45:15 +1000

On Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:14 AM, Snow [SMTP:snowl@s...] wrote:
> 1) One of the main problems with the current ruleset is that it has an
> awful lot of "horizontal complexity" and not much "vertical
> complexity". By which I mean there are a lot of different things in
> the game, but most of them are only small, underused, even
> half-finished things.

Absolutely. But this is not necessarily a fatal flaw. The horizontal
complexity is a result of the breadth of MC play in the wild - there are
lots of different gambits. The lack of vertical complexity is a result of
this - we lack depth because people don't usually (get to) explain how they
built up to their move over fifteen previous moves.

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. 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.

We do have examples of deep complexity - shunting, for example.

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.
However, a lack of breadth is more of a problem; look at the attempt at
Baker Street for an example of a very simple game which was ultimately
(IMNSHO) flawed by having only one way of winning. I think I've had a
couple of proposals rejected because they made the game more vertically
complex.

> 2) The object of the game is really "get 3 golds", not "land on MC".
> In itself this is acceptable though not really desirable. But bellow
> the gold level the game becomes unfocused, which implies to me that we
> have a game centred around getting golds not landing on MC. That
> probably doesn't make sense, but I think how to put it clearer right
> now.

Well, I see what you mean, but again I don't consider this a problem. There
needs to be a way to govern winning, and in most games you don't win in a
single move - you win by gradually accruing the things you need to win. The
"land on MC" side links in nicely to the tactical map situation - even if
someone's got three golds, winning is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

My attitude to the rest of the list's actions is that you're attempting to
take a working grandfather clock and make a sundial out of it. You're
working with a very complex thing, in which the pieces all fit together
quite well (albeit not perfectly) and make with fewer parts and a slightly
diffferent function. To my mind the most likely course of action is that
you will bash about an ever-increasingly-lobotomised ruleset, then throw the
whole unworkable mess out and start again from scratch.

Because to my mind the real problem with MC at the moment is that we aren't
playing. Everyone's pleading that they can't find the time to actually
play, and yet you're attempting to put together a construct which will have
very little testing until you've actually hammered it together. It's like
constructing a program by writing everything first and not testing until
everything is complete. You're inevitably going to hit bugs, which will
make people even more apathetic about playing, but you've got no real
structure in which to implement solutions.

I have always considered the nomic to be a good solution to the problem of
people collaborating to build up a set of rules. I think MN has worked
particularly well because proposals generally keep to the level of
experience and understanding of the players - proposals that are seen as too
complex or too simple usually fail. It also means you have a ruleset at all
stages of play - show me a ruleset now from what you've been debating.

Since my opinions, which I've basically stated before, have basically been
ignored outright, passed over or criticised, I'm basically stating my point
of view as a matter of record here. 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. I watch
your progress with interest.

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: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:14:50 +0100

> 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.

> The fact that

To me it suggests everyone was pulling in different directions. Even
so, individual ideas working doesn't mean the whole thing together
worked.

> 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.

> I think I've had a

But did they make it more horizontally complex as well?

> > 2) The object of the game is really "get 3 golds", not "land on MC
>
> needs to be a way to govern winning, and in most games you don't win
in

Agreed.

> 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.

> I'm quite interested to see what your
> 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.

-- Snow
I invented the colour orange.