BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

I still don’t like the idea of having a map-based mechanic two dynasties in a row. (And this proposal seems to depend on one that’s failing massively.)

CoV Ah no, the proposal it depends on passed while I wasn’t looking.

WOuld love some graphical aspect in nomic… :-)

for now, I am concerned that the graphics may be too large of a burden on new players joining the game.

I’m happy to knock out a dozen default avatars. I’d be concerned that the wiki usage (which requires players to have a wiki account, and to remember to check the wiki page to glance at the gamestate) is too large a burden, but I think it’s fairly unavoidable as soon as we start having players on a map.

Players will have to check the Ruleset anyways and if the wiki ressources are as well linked as in last dynasty, it won’t be a problem.

See, this is exactly what the previous proposal was meant to set up. I love the image idea

I know I’m still learning the ropes with all of this, but this does seem an unnecessary complication to the nomic concept.

@Prince Anduril: I am also a relatively new blognomic member, and I thought the same thing when I read an old ruleset. You must understand that Nomic can be a game, or it can be a infrastructure of a game, or even a modification. Blognomic uses Nomic as an infrastructure built upon firstly with a theme, then with gamestates, rules, GDNT categories, etc. Blognomic’s dynasties are games of their own, with the additional rule-changing qualities of Nomic. You kinda have to think of it as an entirely different thing with similarities to Nomic. Make sense?

Below is a list of things I dislike about this proposal.  I’m still   , these are just things I think should change, but don’t want to propose yet.

1.  Introduction of the keyword, “Empty.” It isn’t quite necessary yet, and I’d rather allow gladiators to move onto squares that are not Blocked, rather than only to squares that are not empty.

2.  Though it is strongly implied, I don’t see anything forcing players to update the Arena page when they change their location.

3.  I prefer “K0” over having an extra column in the GNDT.  Though I’d use “Locker” instead of “K0”.

4.  I’d rather have the definition of Valid Entry points be in “The Arena”, be called “Entry Points” (i.e., no word Valid), not have any requirements related to if it is blocked, and then have Gladiators be able to enter the Arena by changing their location to any Entry point that is not Blocked.  This does not materially change the complexity of the ruleset, but does make it easier to talk about Entry points later in other contexts.

5.  I think entering the arena should be a Main Action (as should movement, but this proposal doesn’t talk about that).

I also don’t like that this rule contradicts the Arena, is it claims new players have no Location (by giving them a status of resting), whereas The Arena claims new players have a Location of K0.