We've had plenty of games that don't need any deceit or trading of wins. Simple trivia or puzzle contests for example. Farming games where everyone invests in a different portfolio, and portfolio success has random elements.
I think, as impossible as it is to define algorithmically, it's not too difficult to know what rules "intend" to do much of the time, and it's often pretty clear when a win is "as intended" versus "via loophole". On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > it is a strong expectation in every game that every player can win the > game, and has a decent chance of doing so. that's just what games do. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created. > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of > >> winning is kind of "trading wins" > >> > >> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of > >>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of > >>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think > >>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. > >>> > >>> -Aris
