Friday, December 16, 2005

Proposal: Goose Steps

Passes 14-0. Congratulations. -Elias IX

Adminned at 18 Dec 2005 15:49:38 UTC

I propose that a rule with the title “Actions” be added to the ruleset with the following text:

Protagonists may take the Actions listed below in order to change the current gamestate.  Each Action takes a certain amount of game time to complete, which is described in terms of Steps, which are tracked in the GNDT.  Each time a Protagonist takes an Action, e must increase eir Steps value by the amount given for that Action.  New Protagonists start with a Steps value of 0.

The list of acceptable actions is below:

Movement: A Protagonist may often change eir Location field from its current value to one whose name corresponds to one of the Exits of eir current location.  A Protagonist may not move to a location that does not have a defined Maximum Occupancy, Description, and Exits.  Performing this Action adds 5 to a Protagonist’s Steps.

Add a Steps field to the GNDT.  Set all Protagonists’ Steps values to 0.



12-16-2005 17:29:51 UTC

Is it unreasonable to be uncomfortable with the ‘and’ in ‘Maximum Occupancy, Description, and Exits’?  I’m still trying to figure out how much language lawyering is considered reasonable. =’)


12-16-2005 17:38:52 UTC

hmm, I guess the way I phrased it, a legal move has to end up in a location with:

A defined Maximum Occupancy

though, I don’t see why this should cause any problems.


12-16-2005 17:40:31 UTC

for I read that “and” meaning I can’t move to a Location that lacks either a Maximum Occupancy, a Description or an Exits list.

Since the rule doesn’t state otherwise, it’s interesting to point thar Glossary forces step to hold only non-negative integers, and any action that would set those values below zero instead sets them to zero.


12-16-2005 17:42:35 UTC



12-16-2005 17:47:36 UTC



12-16-2005 18:40:18 UTC



12-16-2005 20:05:39 UTC


Angry Grasshopper:

12-16-2005 20:21:30 UTC



12-16-2005 20:37:40 UTC



12-16-2005 20:57:19 UTC

Well, contingent on everyone agreeing that foo, bar, and baz means any of the three,  for.


12-16-2005 22:12:03 UTC

danopato: I think (hope?) that the argument is that the ‘and’ is causing a clause. As in: if it doesn’t have “a defined x y and z”. If any of the three are not defined, then it doesn’t have all three defined. It’s a bad precendent, though ;P.

Elias IX:

12-16-2005 22:42:29 UTC



12-16-2005 23:28:15 UTC

i don’t get danopato’s complaint.

you cannot move to a place without x y and z means that unless the place has all three of them, a move there is illegal.

what’s the problem?


12-16-2005 23:58:52 UTC

Yeah. I’m actually having a hard time coming up with the word chunking that would cause a problem. Apply DeMorgan’s law: “A Protagonist may not move to a location that does not have a defined Maximum Occupancy or does not have a defined Description or does not have a defined Exits.” Perfectly safe.

I do find it irritating that it wasn’t factored as “A Protagonist may not move to an Undefined Location.”, considering there was already a flag in the Rules to determine this (Undefined) without having to spell it out.


12-17-2005 00:00:07 UTC

(Ok, I guess “A Protagonist may not move to a Location that has only a name and includes the text -Not Yet Defined-.”, after looking at that Rule again. That’s also kind of unweildy, though.)


12-17-2005 00:14:44 UTC

Doesn’t this violate the spirit of a text adventure game? 75th, the Narrator, went through a lot of trouble to get Erratatime passed to add this mechanic of Threads and Commands.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

12-17-2005 03:01:46 UTC

That’s okay.  All it means is that there’s a disjoint between saying something in Threads, and making it part of the Gamestate.  I knew this would be possible from the get-go.

Although, of course, I strongly hope the two are linked together (and soon), so that the way you perform an Action is to make a corresponding Command.

But no problem establishing the two separately and bridging the gap later.  for


12-17-2005 03:54:48 UTC

Fair enough: for.


12-17-2005 21:32:57 UTC



12-18-2005 13:05:34 UTC



12-18-2005 20:04:46 UTC

I think a valid reading of “A Protagonist may not move to a location that does not have a defined Maximum Occupancy, Description, and Exits.” is that as long as any one of the three fields is defined, it’s legal to move there.  If I were writing this and wanted to suggest that any one of the three being undefined made it impossible to move there, I would have used ‘or’ instead of ‘and’: “A Protagonist may not move to a location that does not have a defined Maximum Occupancy, Description, or Exits.”


12-18-2005 20:08:39 UTC

In fact, the more I read it, the more firmly I’m convinced that and is inapropriate here.  I agree with the intention, but not the wording.  I’ll defer to the majority on this.imperial