2009/4/6 Elliott Hird <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com>: > 2009/4/6 Jonatan Kilhamn <jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com>: >> I can't be bothered to read all that, I'm sorry, but it's not at all >> what I meant. From what I can see Mornington Nomic is more of a nomic >> meant to look like a game of MC than a game of MC fitted into a nomic. >> The beauty of MC is making up the rules as you go, not avtually >> checkin a GNDT for whether a particular Bridge is up or down. Instead, >> you just declare that "I lower all the bridges in Southern District, >> allowing me to backtrack to Central". The bridges are most probably >> not mentioned for the rest of the game, but someone might say later >> that "Ah, but you forget that the Southern bridges are down, so canals >> are blocked. No Knightsbridge for you." So a big part of my MC idea is >> that things you say in your description stand, and it all turns into >> making-up-rules-as-you-go, which is fun too. > > I'm sorry, what are you talking about? Wouldn't a game of MC follow > one of the standard rulebooks, like Robertson 1979? > Please, I do enjoy the whole culture of "no, it really is a game, the rules are just out of print..." in-game but when discussing meta-rules like this I actually prefer being able to know what I'm talking about without misunderstandings. So sorry, but I'll stick with the wikipedia article's version of how it's played.
-- -Tiger
