| From: | Jeffrey Nuremburg <xanatos@********.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Tokens and the Rules |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Mar 1998 00:33:29 -0500 |
>> framework of the rules as they exist.
>Maybe it's logical, maybe it's the correct answer to this particular
>situation, but it's very closed minded, unimaginative and detrimental to
>the future of any game. It doesn't matter if it's a CG or a RPG or a BG.
>I guess life would be a lot easier if _everyone_ just followed the rules
>and never questioned what was going on within those rules. And I agree,
>tokens are tokens, not gear, but if a token even represents gear (without
>being labeled it) why shouldn't you be able to trade them? Sounds pretty
>lame to me to not even consider the possibility just because the label
>isn't there.
Wow! This seems to be a pretty harsh response. Let me address what
you have said:
"close minded, unimaginative, and detrimental to the the future of
any game" - I will beg to differ on this. In the context of a strongly rule
based game system (such as a collectible card game) it is important to keep
an eye on what the rules say. They define the limits and help to create the
challenge of any given game. I would not compare a Card Game to a Role
Playing Game. Card Games are a competitive environment game where people
are attempting to achieve a definite victory goal and the rules are the
basis for all things in an environment of this sort. Role Playing games are
(most of the time) a communal story telling environment, a sort of shared
escapism if you will. There is no winning or losing beyond enjoyment of the
game itself, there are no definitive victory goals (except for those that
individual players impose upon their PCs, but that's a whole 'nother topic).
In order to guarantee that all people have any enjoyable time (part of which
is keeping the game fair and balanced) a strong rule set is imposed. This
rule set defines agreed upon boundaries that let everyone enjoy themselves
within the context of the game. In addition to this, I stated in my post
that individual groups might choose to deal with this issue however they
wish. I know that for my group we all agreed that the "Z-Zone" was
unbalanced (in our opinions) and banned the card from play. I personally
have no problems bending the rules (by group consensus of course) when I
believe that they will enhance my and my group's enjoyment of the game.
Ultimately my point was that if the tokens were supposed to be Gear, it was
merely an oversite on the parts of the designers and should be addressed (by
adding the Gear label to the appropriate cards).
>> In other words, if there are no rules about trading tokens, that
>> probably means you can't. =)
>I guess that's one way of looking at it. Maybe my thought process isn't
>as logical as yours or maybe I'm just not as bent on rules if it doesn't
>accurately represent what's going on in the game. Drugs are an object,
>the tokens represent those objects. Objects can be moved from one person
>to another, FRAG THE RULES, in this case, they don't make sense.
That's fine. It was never my implication that this was an incorrect
attitude. I was merely addressing a rules situation from an objective
standpoint and attempting to reconcile an issue in a logical fashion within
the confines of the current SRTCG rules set.
>To all you rules lawyers out there, you'll keep coming back to me with the
>exact same arguments that you all have repeated to me in every post,
>"tokens are tokens and gear is gear". I've run out of different ways to
>state my argument, so unless someone has something new to say on the
>discussion, I say we wait for the official ruling.
I think that your "argument" is quite clear. You believe that the
"letter"
of the rule should not override its "spirit". I do not disagree with this,
but it is a personal and subjective opinion. My whole statement about the
rules regarding tokens was coming from my attempt at an Objective and
logical analysis of the rules.
>BTW-if I had to bet on the outcome, I'd say that it'll get ruled against
>trading. The only reason for this is that it'll keep the game easier to
>play and there will be less risk for abuse by future token generators (I
>know which is exactly every one's point). I think that this is fine as
>long as it's ruled this way because no one wants to deal with the
>consequences. Regardless, it makes sense that you _can_ trade them even
>if it's ruled against.
I don't know that your are correct here. It is possible that the
designers of the game will look at what we have all said here and decide
that in certain instances the tokens are gear. For example, "Info Tokens"
are obviously not gear, they are more like a piece of data you aquired or a
rumor you heard. This can't be traded, taken away or destroyed. The "Drug
Token" on the other hand represents a tangible phyiscal object (a
pill/jack/patch/etc.) that could conceivably be given from one person to
another. In the light of this, perhaps the "Info Token" will stay as it is
and the "Drug Token" will become a "Gear/Drug Token".
In the end, the game designers will listen to what we have to say,
make up their minds, and ultimately modify the rules. Once that's done, you
can choose to play by them or ignore them as you will. I tend to believe
that you would not regard the designers of the game (who most likely used a
fair amount of logic to create the rules) as "unimaginative, close minded,
and detrimental to the future of any game", so I fail to see why you feel
that my attempt to address and perhaps add to the rule set is such either.
Okay, that's two days in a row of big posts. This time, that's my
nickel! :)
--
Jeffrey Nuremburg / System Administrator
xanatos@********.net
cgiguy@********.net - All CGI related requests
"I've been an atheist - I had found it difficult to
have religious beliefs and scientific ones, but I've
accepted that I have a duality - there's a human
way of interacting with people but also a mechanistic
explanation of what people are and how they work."
- Rodney Brooks, Director of MIT's AI Lab
