Re: [haggis] While we're throwing out ideas

[Lyman Hurd <lhurd@yahoo.com>]

--- mballinger@fibres.net wrote:
> Please discuss . . .
> 
> 1) "discard" command.  Lyman wants this.  I kind of
> like how we can get stuck with bad cards.
> 

Brilliant suggestion!

> 2) Prepending "If you know about this rule, then . .
> ." to some special rules.  For example: "If you know
> about this rule, then every set of one of each card
> scores you 10".  (This is Ted's idea.)
> 

Not sure about this one.  I don't know if formalizing
"knowing" in this way helps.  I should think that it
would be more interesting if people shared more
informal knowledge (see previous discussion of
informal rules comunication).

> 2a) What happens if this is the lowball rule?  "If
> you have the low score you win."
> 
> 2b) What if lowball had riders?  "The low score wins
> if that player has turned in exactly 4 black cards."
> 
> 3) 50/50 chance that some special rules will get a
> negating rule as a followup.  For example, if
> "lowball" is assigned to the game, there is a 50/50
> chance that the next rule will be "Rule #x is 
> wrong.  This is not a lowball game."
> 

Remember we want to keep a certain level of
predictability so that people don't just dismiss the
game as random.  E.g., if you get the "ignore the
other rule" rule, you have an immense advantage for no
effort!

> 4) Players pick rules.  Before cards are dealt,
> everybody gets to craft one rule.  The server could
> either use them all, or choose from them.
> 

How about some robotic traders out there which could
be standing trades that the server is willing to make
with anyone (for rules or cards)?

Cheers,

Lyman