I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset (agoranomic.org/ruleset <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset>). They try to give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
Gaelan > On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson <kyescott5...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful. > The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not > necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it > and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of > the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather > reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity. > Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't > remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should be > played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate) and > trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating. > > On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans" <nich...@gmail.com > <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote: > >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of > >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at > >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges, > >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove > >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions? > > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that > > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the > > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have > > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either > > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you > > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the > > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't > > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a > > historically long time?). > > > > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the > > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when > > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate > > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like > > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's > > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and > > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic > > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win). > > We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's > not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a > new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and > that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new > player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that > the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely > irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between > 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think > that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the > underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed. > > > > > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to > > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule > > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the > > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a > > new player if they apply to everyone. > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
