3 ms·

The broader point is "game mechanics with permanent memory", which is interesting as a thought experiment. Imagine chess with "you may have your opponent retra

by qsort 3y ago

The broader point is "game mechanics with permanent memory", which is interesting as a thought experiment. Imagine chess with "you may have your opponent retract a move, but only once in this 9-round swiss", or a Magic the Gathering card with "you may only use this effect once per tournament", or a penalty in sports where you must sit out the rest of the season. I wish they hadn't picked pain and mutilation examples as it's the most deranged way possible to make the above point.

tgv 3y ago
There are other ways of permanent memory, like engraving it in stone. Or what did you think about a trophy for the winner. However, the mechanics to which this is compared, heal, and are therefore not permanent. It's simply pathological.
eadler 3y ago
Aren't 'legacy' mechanics exactly this?
dmurray 3y ago
It's not exactly the same, though. If you were in the last game of the tournament (or your life) you would have no additional penalty for using these abilities. You might still be averse to cutting off your fingers.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  Yes, I think there is some aspect that's supposed to be about a trade that has some effect outside the game. I think these are generally not desirable in games because they either reward those who have more resources outside the game or they reward those for which the game represents a larger fraction of their life as a whole, and this is generally against the usual fairness we tend to prefer in games (especially a bias towards this already exists through factors which are hard to control. Explicitly making it part of the game is already unnecessary).
thfuran 3y ago
>or a Magic the Gathering card with "you may only use this effect once per tournament", While not exactly that, there used to be some pretty wild cards with permanent effects: https://tappedout.net/mtg-card/timmerian-fiends/ https://tappedout.net/mtg-card/timmerian-fiends/
- rcxdude 3y ago
  Ah yes, ante was a pretty crazy mechanic.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
I think in the chess case this would just cause a lot of strange games where one player has used it, and one hasn't and therefore the player who hasn't can probably win more or less at will. Games where both players still have it will probably end up drawing because going into complications is just too risky. There will be too many strange ways one player could suddenly win. I realise you're just using it as an example here, I just can't help but analyse a chess variant when I see one.

by qsort 3y ago

tgv 3y ago

There are other ways of permanent memory, like engraving it in stone. Or what did you think about a trophy for the winner. However, the mechanics to which this is compared, heal, and are therefore not permanent. It's simply pathological.

eadler 3y ago

Aren't 'legacy' mechanics exactly this?

dmurray 3y ago

It's not exactly the same, though. If you were in the last game of the tournament (or your life) you would have no additional penalty for using these abilities. You might still be averse to cutting off your fingers.

rcxdude 3y ago
Yes, I think there is some aspect that's supposed to be about a trade that has some effect outside the game. I think these are generally not desirable in games because they either reward those who have more resources outside the game or they reward those for which the game represents a larger fraction of their life as a whole, and this is generally against the usual fairness we tend to prefer in games (especially a bias towards this already exists through factors which are hard to control. Explicitly making it part of the game is already unnecessary).

thfuran 3y ago

>or a Magic the Gathering card with "you may only use this effect once per tournament", While not exactly that, there used to be some pretty wild cards with permanent effects: https://tappedout.net/mtg-card/timmerian-fiends/ https://tappedout.net/mtg-card/timmerian-fiends/

rcxdude 3y ago
Ah yes, ante was a pretty crazy mechanic.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

I think in the chess case this would just cause a lot of strange games where one player has used it, and one hasn't and therefore the player who hasn't can probably win more or less at will. Games where both players still have it will probably end up drawing because going into complications is just too risky. There will be too many strange ways one player could suddenly win. I realise you're just using it as an example here, I just can't help but analyse a chess variant when I see one.