I agree with K. Really great work, and much appreciated. Gaelan, could you link the sentences in the summaries to the specific rule from which they’re drawn, for ease of reference? If not, I might have a crack at it, but I’m not going to have a ton of free time for a couple of weeks - I’m in Vancouver visiting family.
-o > On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Kyle Anderson <kyescott5...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Incredibly useful. While the information contained in those descriptions can, > of course, be gleaned from the rules themselves, they catch the eye and > simplify the language in a way that promotes quick understanding. > > -K > > On Aug 24, 2017 9:02 PM, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com > <mailto:g...@canishe.com>> wrote: > 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 >> <mailto: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. >> > >> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
