Nomic is a game in which players are allowed to modify the rules. Typically, players take turns suggesting rule changes and voting on them. It’s fun if you like making and debating laws. It’s great for message board and email play. The best way to get quickly familiar with Nomic is reading the Standard Initial Rules.
We tried playing once before (in a thread I’m unable to find), and it fizzled out after about 10 rounds. (I get the impression many Nomic games are like this.) Nobody won, but I still thought it was fun, and I’d like to try it again.
There are as many variations of Nomic as there are Nomic games, and I’ve been working on my own ever since our last game. Someone accused me of trying to construct a web of rules that can be pushed and bent without being broken, and that’s pretty much what I did. I made a Glossary which has definitions, in order to make the rules unambiguous without being wordy. Because of this, I called it GlottoNomic.
If people want to play, we certainly don’t have to play with my rules, but I did write them (especially rules 100-160) keeping in mind the problems we ran into last game. The purpose of this thread is to see if people are interested, and also take suggestions for GlottoNomic if you have them.
Although there are some variations which are more restrictive than others, the Nomic rules always specify how you may modify the rules, not just that you can. You still have to follow the rules (Rule 101 in the Standard Ruleset says so), even if the game is about changing them.
Not completely true. Admittedly the game was becoming pretty entropic, but it was officially completed and winners were declared within the scope of the rules.
On which note, I’d like to suggest that if we start another game we begin with no defined rule for winning the game. I think the terms of victory should develop during the game itself.
Just kidding Achernar
I’ll follow the game. Seems that I need to read a lot to understand it though Well, I’ll have time monday/tuesday/wenesday: it’s snowing in Waltham… as it is in Boston
…and go Pats!
Okay, I wasn’t sure, and I couldn’t find the thread to check. Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, as with all the best games, winning isn’t what makes it fun.
As for your suggestion about win conditions, I think it’s a good idea if everyone else does. That would involve scrapping Rule 210 from GlottoNomic, for instance.
However, I think we should include something like Rule 213 in the Standard Rules, which says if further play is impossible, the current Proponent wins. In GlottoNomic it’s Rule 90.
Aha! I found [thread=203529]the old thread[/thread], and the status board that went along with it.
Reading through the first few pages, I remember some of the things that mucked us up before. It wasn’t clear (or at least there was some disagreement on) when the game actually started. It wasn’t clear which turn we were on. It wasn’t clear what defined a “player”. It wasn’t clear when voting ended. I think I took care of these things as best I could with my variation, but possibly not. I also think that this time, if there’s any ambiguity as fundamental as this, we should work it out before the game begins.
Just to make it clear, this game has not started yet, and I think it might be a couple of days.
Since nobody seems to be objecting to my rule set, I’ll work with it, with the intention of using it. If people are new to this and feel overwhelmed, just read Rules 140 (Turn Composition) through 190 (Awarding Points). This is the basics of gameplay, and if you understand that much, you should be able to get started with no problems.
I deleted the rule about winning with points, and made a couple of other changes. Let me point out what’s different about the GlottoNomic rules as they stand, compared to Standard Nomic:
[ul]
[li]None of this mutable-immutable rules business. Nobody likes that anyway. There is no limit to what kind or how big of rule changes you can propose. You can propose to delete the entire Rule List. There are still some proposals that would require a unanimous vote to pass.[/li][li]New Rules can go anywhere in the list, not just at the end. So if you want a Rule that supercedes Rule 50, for instance, propose Rule 47. I tried to make it so that the lower-number Rules are more “fundamental”.[/li][li]The proposing and voting process (Rules 150-170) is more explicit. Everything has time limits, or else can be declared over. A single absent person, or even a large number of people, cannot hold up the game that much.[/li][li]The Point formula is less complicated.[/li][li]I hate the Judgment process (Rules 110-130), and I hope we don’t have to use it. But I tried to make it very explicit too.[/li][/ul]
I’d like to give it another go. I like your rule set, it seems to clear up a lot of the problems from the old thread.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to suggest a couple of things:[ul]
[li]A Player is ‘a single human person […] attempting to win’? Knowing just how word-twisting some people are even when not playing Nomic, wouldn’t it be clearer without that clause?[/li][li]How about making a ‘day’ (perhaps called a ‘period’ instead) definable in the Overseerer’s initial statement? It wouldn’t make any difference here, but might be useful in future.[/li][li]Is it stated if votes are known publicly? Or to the overseerer? From when they are cast or from the end of voting?[/li][li]Just to remove ambiguity, mightn’t it be good to specify if the score can be negative or not?[/li][/ul]Apologies if I missed where the rules dealt with these.
First of all, GlottoNomic is a stupid name, so I changed it to GloNomic. I also changed Overseer to Registrar, and Trump to Void. Because of the sticky in MPSIMS asking us to limit games on the board, I started a Yahoo! group glonomic. If someone has a big problem playing there, they should say so. Maybe we could also start here and then move there once we get going.
I uploaded the Initial Rules and stuff to the files space of this group, but I don’t see how to make it publicly accessible. If anyone can help me out with this, I’d like that. I think people can start joining if they want, in the meantime, although you don’t have to yet to guarantee a chance to play.
Shade, I like all your suggestions. I changed the definitions of Player and Score, and the length of a Period is now definable in the Registrar’s initial statement. It was my intention that votes be public like they were in our last game, that they be a form of declaration just like Propositions or Judgments. I was hoping that the Registrar’s initial statement would cover that. If we want secret ballots, I defined a position (Monitor) to handle that. Do you think this should be changed in any way?
Great. I wasn’t clear about voting - I agree with what you think, and think that that is the obvious way to do it - but thought that it needed to be made explicit just to be on the safe side.
But if nobody objects by tonight, I’ll make it the official announcement.
The game starts at 00:00 GMT 29 Jan 2004 (7PM EST 28 Jan 2004). The Registrar for the game is Cosmologicon [cpilman@cfa.harvard.edu]. All Votes, Proposals, Judgments, and general declarations will be made as posts or emails [glonomic@yahoogroups.com] to the Yahoo! Group glonomic [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/glonomic/]. The Status Board will be maintained by the Registrar in the Files section of this group, and may be mirrored at another place, linked to in the Links section this group. Anyone wishing to play should join this group and express their desire to play; joining the group alone is not enough, and people may join with the intention of watching and commenting. A potential Player may request any Player Name; if none is requested, their Yahoo! ID will be their Player Name. The duration of a Period is 24 hours. In the case of an Emergency, the Registrar may alter the text of this Rule only to the end of maintaining the game.
What the hell, count me in. As one of a few co-winners from the last game, the only place I can go (discounting the low odds of winning again) is down. Story of my life:D
Looks interesting, and I am interested in giving it a shot. I’ve got a couple of suggestions, though.
I’m kind of confused with some of the Rules appearing in the Glossary, most particularly with the definition of how to accept Crucial proposals in the Glossary, but Non-Crucial proposals in the Rules.
Also, there are multiple uses of the word ‘period’, one to describe a set amount of time used as a measurement, and another to describe a section of time passing (as in the “Voting Period”). I’d suggest renaming those items to be ‘Phases’ instead of ‘Periods’.
Lastly, what is the point of the Impact glossary definition? It’s an interesting item, but I don’t see what it would be used for.
