|| -------- -- -----  A E R I E   O B L I V I A N A . singular book of text wandertainment by Frank Edward Nora ------------------- ----------- GET ALL OBLIVIANA--ISSUE 001--PART 7 <-------  ||  OsoaWeek  ||  Get All Obliviana  ||  Issue 001  ||  -------> (Cup OWga001g, Created v1 (4/27/99), Copyright 1999) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Sun 2/28/99 * 2:18 PM "8-2-5" is definitely a key breakthrough in Obliviana. The idea of a pen and paper game with the potential richness of card games is very intriguing. There are 80 basic Jots. I have come up with aa graphical way of representing them, going back to an idea of a single drawn loop and then all the possible next intersections, an idea I worked on many years ago. The 8 portion is the loop thing, the 5 portion is a design in the loop itself, and the 2 portion is on the opposite endpoint. But I am also thinking of beginning with a very simple system of A-H for 8, x/o for 2, and 1-5 for 5. So, Jots would be "E-x-4", "A-o-1", "G-o-2", etc. (Alternatively sans hyphens, "Ex4", "Ao1", "Go2". My reasoning behind th hyphens is to show connectedness, since I do see the possibility of these elements existing on the gameboard independently.) The idea here is that Jots are basic idea which can be represented in a number of ways. Using alphanumeric characters is easier to learn than the drawn symbols. So maybe the alphanumerics can be used to learn the game, as well as allow it to be easily memorizable. To remember "8-2-5, A-H, x/o, 1-5" is not too hard. Now, what about the game itself? Well, I have a good start with the 80 Jots and their 15 components. The idea of components brings up the notion of combining the elements in different ways. This could be a gameplay element. For example, you might connect a bunch of elements, like "A-A-B-x-x". The way I see it, such combinations would be "inert", that is, not a full Jot, the same as a single element, such as "C". But, such a construct would have advantages, such as being able to move all at once. Also, with the idea that a loose element, like "D", "x" and "4", can be attached to an existing group, elements chained together would need to be... hmm... Interesting stuff here. Jots are chains of three elements, one each of 8,2, and 5. Any other chain or individual symsol is "inert", and does not have the power to do anything, though it may be acted on by Jots. This new idea is easier to implement alphanumerically, as opposed to glyphically. But it is a very intruiging idea... I like the idea of each of the 80 Jots having a specific "power". Or, with the idea of simplicity, that each of the 15 elements has a power, so that each Jot is unique. One major question I have to answer is the idea of Jot ownership. I have to answer this question in the context of multiplayer games, where a virtually unlimited number of players can play. If a single board is used, then ownership will be determined either by position, or by a distinguishing "mark". Or, each player could simply have their own board. But I like the idea of a single board. So, this is a very interesting question. Thu 3/4/99 * 10:37 PM 8x2x5 is STILL alive and well! I am kind of stuck at the game design stage here. I want to relate 8x8285 in the game to 209. And, I want the game to reflect the Stormjaunting aspect of Obliviana in its structure. Just for the record, I am not doing OsoaWeek for awhile. I really have to get through this development phase before I'll have anything to say to people about Obliviana. So let me restate the challenge here: [1] Obliviana is a game which is played with paper and pens, and which can be learned and memorized quickly, and which is an amazingly complex, wonderful, and addictive game. Also, it must be expandable, and also, in its basic form, reflect the overall structure of Obliviana. [2] Okay. This is a big challenge, but I am close. The Jots, with their 15 baasic components and 80 combinations have both the simplicity whih will make them easy to learn and the potential complexity for a very deep game. In designing the game, I have to retain the overall structure of Obliviana, which is, succinctly, Wander, record, keep on forging your Fonosta Device. The idea of the Fonosta Device is a major foundation of Obliviana. It represents a lot of information in a small, graphical space. The basic game has to reflect this idea. So, in the game, Wandering and recording, and then a Fonosta Device-like thing which carries over from game to game. Idea: "Devices" contain sets of Jots combined in different ways. Two players can agree to each other's sets beforehand. the sets can be either natural or artificial. Natural sets are built up as a series of games progress. Artificial sets are constructed and not subject to the same laws as the natural sets. The issue of faking a natural set is not a big problem here, since at the start of a game session, the players will have to agree that one player does not have a huge advantage. So, natural or artificial, it doesn't really matter. Players can also have sets of these sets, with random selection possible. Also, a series of games between two players can start with either natural or artificial sets, but as the series progresses, the changes in the sets can be natural. Also, I do want the game to be able to starts with "blank" Devices, which are built up as a series of games progress. So, in the basic game, a "Device" is a set of Jots organized in a particular way. A player can have multiple Devices, but in any single game, only one Device can be involved. So, each player may have a dozen Devices, and in one variation, in a series of games, each player will secretly choose a Device to use in each game. Devices used in games will potentially gain and lose Jots. Fully natural Devices will bear potential change in every official game played. Devices can also be duplicated, so that the original is untouched. Basic info from the games should be recorded on the Devices. Dates, players, winners, game numbers, etc. Each player can have a sequential numbering system for games, where each official game is numbered sequentially. Players can have a set of Devices, both for recordkeeping and gameplay. Idea: players will have "tags", or stylized signatures, which they can write on other players' Devices, as a record of the games. Note the similarity to graffiti, "tag is a graffiti term. Collecting "tags" can be another part of the game. In this, the Wandering is the actual playing of the game, with the Devices being the record. This lifts the need for a system in the game itself of doing stuff to gain Jots, though it does not preclude it. 11:00 PM Okay. So I am getting somewhere here. But I still do not have the actual gameplay. I have many definitions of what the gameplay must be like, however, so I will be "reverse engineering" the gameplay, to some extent. I can see that "High Jots" are needed here, and in terms of the basic game, this will be accomplished via sets of Jots which are connected. Also, and perhaps conversely, Jots can have "levels", so that there might be a level 1 Bo4, a level 2 Bo4, etc. Sets of Jots will have different associations, and I will relate these to poker hands. For example, a set of Cx4, Co2, and Cx1 would be "three of a kind" of 8s (I need new terms here for 8, 2 an 5!). A set like this could potentially interact with other sets in different ways. And this brings me to the actual gameplay. Jots on the gameboard, Jots of both players. Perhaps an enclosing line (circle/oval) with an identifying "mini-tag" could be used here, enclosing sets of Jots. I want to create a basic gameplay idea. At this moment, I only have a vague idea of gameplay! I want a single game to last from 10 to 20 minutes. Aha! A "Hero Jot"! I just had this idea--that each player will assign one Jot, or set of Jots, as a "Hero", who must travel somewhere, or otherwise compete. The idea here is that I want the gameplay to reflect Stormjaunting. How do Jots interact? I am thinking of NOT using Jot components in the game, but rather, Jots themselves are the basic unit, the quanta. Sets of Jots, then, are the things which are transformed in the game. 11:44 PM I like the idea of single Jots supporting the sets of Jots. Maybe capturing of Jots, with the new Jots being instantly usable. And the idea of having to decide at the end of a game the particular Jot set to put back into the Device. I gotta go to bed. But I did make progress! Mon 3/8/99 * 11:29 PM Right after that last writing session I started thinking about Scrip, and how well it woule work with this system. Basically, each player making their own Scrip, with the aesthetic value of the Scrip being a big part of its desirability. This would be yet another aspect to counteract "cheating". That is, whatever the game value of the Scrip, and whether or no Scrip will have to be earned in some way, the aesthetic value stands on its own. Now, this is four days since that last writing, and I've been kind of flipping out a little being away from working directly on the issue. I had trouble sleeping last night and stuff. Of course, the big issue is the true nature of the game! And I had a thought before on the bus--that each player would draw two Jots on the board, for the other player to see, and then based on this information, each player would then secretly draw a set of Jots. The revealed Jots give the other player a clue as to some possible directions the other player might go in, but it could also be a bluff. So the game would have a lot of second-guessing. Another thought was that different combinations of Jots would have different names, like a "Carrier" (that was the thing that came to me...). But the basic game can't have names like that, since it has to be totally memorizable. There is no doubt that the basic game is going to use the alphanumeric system I have defined. I just had a thought--that a rectangle drawn around a single Jot or a set of Jots would define a "game object". I was just drawing this idea, and track 3 of this CD, Beaver and Krause was playing, and I got confused and thought like a loud motorcycle was coming, but then I realized it was the CD, and it was kind of like the THX theater sound thing, and it was pretty dramatic. So this idea looks pretty cool. Visually, it is not too great, but of course more advanced versions of the game would have much better visuals. I am thinking that these "Jotsets" will have from 1 to 5 Jots in them. A Jotset of 5 has many internal relationships--pokerlike patterns in the 8s, 2s, and 5s. And patterns as well with 8-2, 2-5, and 2-5. So, what is going to be the premise of the game? Jots interact, and in around 20 minutes, there's a winner and a loser. I think the game could involve splitting and merging. This mechanic could be used both defensively and offensively. The idea then would be that a 1-Jotset would be able to be "frozen", by drawing triangles around the edges. The ultimate goal, then, would be to totally break apart and freeze all of the opponent's Jots. A player will be able to "thaw" his own Jots, but it will take an action by a "warm" Jot to do this. So, Jotsets will perform actions on each other. The specific Jot in each Jotset will determine if an action can take place. Hmm... I just had another idea. The interrelationships of Jotsets will not be determined by spaces, but rather by attributes of Jots themselves. I am thinking of dots around the four edges of each Jotset. Somehow, a player could move closer or farther away from an opponent by adding or taking away graphical elements from its own or an opposing Jotset's boundaries. I had a vision just now of players sitting next to each other as opposed to sitting across from each other. Or, if sitting across from each other, would have both his and his opponent's separate sheet in front of him... This would then allow for a much more casual atmosphere--passing papers back and forth--and in a game of three or more players, a very "folky" or "informal" way of playing, where all the players are vying to be the last one standing (or "warm"). Jotset direction--up, down, left, or right, could determine which Jotsets could have contact. This would mean that each Jotset would be pointed in a certain direction. But now I am thinking of am thinking of each Jotset having a "buffer" on each of its sides, and when two Jotsets can "touch"--ie, the left of one and the right of the other are not buffered, they can potentially act upon one another. Wow. Now this is real progress! And when splitting, buffer values are also split--if you do it ourself, you choose the distribution. If you opponent does it, he chooses. Merging would pretty much just add the buffers that exist on the sides. Okay. Real, major progress here! I gotta go to bed now, but this has been a VERY key writing session, eh! Tue 3/9/99 * 10:59 PM Okay. So I had a pretty big breakthrough last night. But I have to keep on moving! I'm thinking very seriously about doing a MAME arcade game review site, possibly starring Zope. It could be a way to get people into the main Obliviana site. Idea: Connecting Jotsets without merging them. Interesting... 5-Jotsets are good in that they echo poker game mechanics, which should help in making the game understandable. But I think that larger Jotsets might be possible. 7-card stud has seven cards, but only uses 5 of them, after all. In this design process, the need for simplicity is a driving force. This helps guide the process. I have to say, however, that even though the use of A-H, x/o, and 1-5 is very easy to remember, there is a potential aesthatic problem with the look of the game, since the Jotsets look kind of mathematical and complicated, even though they aren't. I think, however, for the basic game that I have to keep this system, since any other system would most likely be harder to remember and learn. "8-2-5: letters, hugs and kisses, and numbers". Pretty simple, eh? Idea: MAME poems/ramblings! Aha! Much better. Ie, "Mikie, high school rebel, head butt teachers, baby. Mikie, Butt shove the other kids, sit in their seats. Mikie, smash everybody. Thank you Konami for the thrill of it all." Cool. "Zope's Arcade Poems" That's the idea. Yo! So, back to the game. Basic Obliviana. Bo. Okay. Bo must be simple, and it must be absolutely addictive so that it can be a super-effective meme. Poem: "Vaus, break out of it dude. Go wild on Doh, he shall not have revenge. Sweet candy-colored powerups, suck 'em all in, Vaus. Saturnoid, Baltoid, go for it. Break out!" Poem: "There must be a king in 1995. Beat them all up. Mix up those teams, get the right order, it is good. Many hot fighting ladies. Let's go, let's fight." New idea, split each Bo sheet into four quadrants, I, II, III, and IV. Jotsets have to be in the same sector to act on each other. The concept here is that each player has his own sheet, but can act on Jotsets on other sheets. Okay. New idea. The "Barbs" are like lightning bolt shapes, like letter "N", and to "dull the barb" a circle is put around the "N" part. Okay. I do not like the board sector idea. But I do like the Barb idea. And... maybe different KINDS of Barbs will identify different "sectors"! Wed 3/10/99 * 12:26 AM So, to recap, my current plan is for players to have Jotsets, all in one "space", and distinguished "spatially" by "Barbs", which keep enemy Jotsets away, but also prevent the Jotset from attacking. Goodnight. 9:32 PM Man, I am really out of touch with the past of Obliviana. But I need to create Core Obliviana, and to do so I have had to, subconsciously I think, set a lot of things aside so that I could get to the heart of the matter, which is pretty much where I am now. Bo (Basic Obliviana, the game) is very much at the core of Obliviana. New idea: "asychnronous" time, where players can spend different amount of "time" each turn, perhaps even making moves at the same time, or marking off "click" with marks on the page. Also, the random idea, four coins, quarter, dime, nickel, penny, one throw determines 8 and 2. A second throw could do 1 thru 5 with a 1 in 16 chance of requiring another throw. This would have three combos for each number 1-5. I want to pull back a little and look at the design here as it relates to Fow and 209. Bo is, right now, very much centered on Octagon. Does there need to be a connection to 209? I think that the relation to 209 will come in the Fonosta Device. The recording of the games. But Bo itself, I think, has most of the basic elements that it is going to have. So let me go over what I have so far. BASIC OBLIVIANA (Bo) [1] Bo is a game in which the first and simplest implementation of the Obliviana Game System. Many of the limitations of Bo will be exapanded upon as the game system expands. Bo is meant to the as simple as possible, easy to teach and learn. [2] Bo is a two player game. The equipment required is paper and pens or pencils. [3] The basic unit in Bo is the "Jot", which is put down on paper like a three-letter word. The first letter is the "8", and there are 8 possible choices, represented by the capital letters A thru H. The second letter is the "2", and is represented by either a lowercase "x" or "o". The third letter is the "5" and is represented by the number 1 thru 5. This yields a total of 8- possible Jots. [4] Jots must be made into "Jotsets" in order to enter play. The basic Jotset is the 1-Jotset, which is a Jotset with one Jot. This is represented by a Jot surrounded by a rectangle. A 2-Jotset is two Jots, one on top of the other, surrounded by a single rectangle. I have not yet determined the maximum number of Jots in a Jotset, but for all Jotsets, the Jots are drawn one on top of the other, and all surrounded by a single rectangle. I am thinking of the 5-Jotset as the largest, but higher numbers are still possible. [5] Bo will have a "rules sheet" that will be one side of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. From this sheet, the game can be entirely learned. [6] Each player has his own sheet or sheets of paper on which his Jots and Jotsets are drawn. Opposing Jots and Jotsets never occupy the same sheet of paper. Rather, Jots and Jotsets interact "across" pages. [7] The basic play mechanic is merging and splitting. Right now, I am thinking of the winning conditions as when one player's Jotsets are split to all 1-Jotsets. Then, the other player wins. [8] 1-Jotsets are inert and unable to do anything. 2-Jotsets and higher can perform a number of functions. For example, a 2-Jotset could merge with a 1-Jotset, so that even if a player had all 1-Jotsets and just one 2-Jotset, and merge would be possible. Or, a 2-Jotset could merge two 1-Jotsets into a 2-Jotset. But with all 1-Jotsets, the game is over. [9] So, as far as offense goes, the basic mechanic is splitting opposing Jotsets. Defensively, there will be merging and splitting. Offensively, merging is also possible. [10] "Barbs" are placed on the four sides of Jotsets to put distance between them and other Jotsets (both friendly and opposing). Barbs are the mechanism by which Jotsets have spatial interrelations. There may be several different kinds of Barbs, but I have not decided this yet. [11] The basic idea of Barbs is that for two Jotsets to "meet" and hence interact, they must be able to "touch" on one side--left for one, right for another, top for one, bottom for another. Barbs prevent this touching. [12] Jots by themselves are not in play at all--they must be part of a Jotset to be "in play". I see the game starting off with an establishment of the Jots that each player will be using. This could be done in either a "public" or "private" way. A good public system would be for each player, in turn, to put down a Jot, and keep doing so till the established number is reached. A private system would call for both players to create the set of Jots secretly, and then reveal them before play commences. Combinations of both systems are possible, such as publicly establishing several Jots, and then doing the rest secretly. Or, this process could be uneven, one player public and one private, as a part of an expanded Obliviana game. [13] In general, Jotsets have powers, and all actions in the game are controlled by Jotsets. But in order for this to work, at least one Jotset of 2 or higher will need to be created at the start of the game. Then, Jotsets will draw plain Jots into Jotsets, and the game will be going. [14] It is possible that the various potential powers will be had by all Jots, but depending on the size of the Jotset and its component Jots, action will cost less or more in terms of "time" or "power". [15] If Time is used, then each player, in turn, will spend an amount of time, which the opposing player will be able to "use up" and then leapfrog it. In other words, Using a lot of time will allow you opponent to use that time on his own against you. Good progress! Goodnight. Sat 3/13/99 * 3:36 PM Cleaned out my Jeep earlier--even the little compartment between the front seats. There was an ATM receipt from 1994 in there! Wow. So I want to get into the play mechanics of Obliviana a little bit more. Clearly, splitting and merging are the major play mechanics. There may be other play mechanics, but splitting and merging will be major elements. So, how are these accomplished? For actual gameplay, the Jotset(s) to be changed are crossed out, and a new one or ones will be drawn. But this does not answer how, in the game mechanics, splitting and merging are allowed to happen. It is the combination of Jots in a Jotset that is the key to the game mechanics. Aha! I was thinking of pokerlike combinations in the Jotsets, But now I am thinking that the order, from top to bottom (or bottom to top) will matter. So, for example, in the 5s, if you have 1-2-3-4-5, you have a straight, but if you have 3-1-4-2-5, you do not. This opens up a new dimension in gameplay, because the makeup of a single Jot cannot change--for example, F-x-1 is set, and none of the three parts can be changed in any way. But, the order of Jots within a Jotset CAN change. Here's an example: F-x-1 D-o-1 F-o-4 Here, two 1s are "touching", and two Os are touching. Mix them up... F-x-1 F-o-4 D-o-1 .. and the two Fs are touching, but the 1s are not. Mix again... D-o-1 F-x-1 F-o-4 And both the Fs and the 1s are touching. This is just a very brief example of this new play mechanic. So, "Remixing" is going to be a major play mechanic, along with Splitting and Merging. Wow. This is a great new aspect of the game. Now I have to come up with what the various combinations mean! First of all, as a general concept, any given combination will be very useful in some situations, and not at all useful in others. This is absolutely needed, because otherwise, it would just be a contest to bring together the most powerful Jotsets, and with total player selection of Jots, it would lead to a game that is not very fun. So, you could pre-plan an awesome Jotset, but no matter what, there would always be another Jotset that it would be weak against. So, order and touching matters. the 2s (x/o) does not have an order, but the 8s and 5s do have an order. And, the orders can be either rising or falling. So, the most successful set of Jotsets will be those which have a flexible set of basic Jots, which can be remixed to face different challenges. 4:17 PM In developing Bo, the basic game, I do have to have a view of what the expanded/advanced game is going to be like. And I think that the potential complexity I have already described is going to be ripe for expansion. Focusing on Bo, I am very happy so far with the extremely rich potential with such simple components. So let me examine the combinations. The basic combinations are column-based--8s, 2s, and 5s. I had felt that other combinations--8-2, 2-5, 8-5, and 8-2-5 would be used. For example, three 4-x's that are touching--should this have meaning? I will deal with these other combinations later. For now, I will focus on the colmuns. In order to deal with the columns, I need to deal with the idea of a maximum Jotset size. Firstly, does there need to be a limit to the size of a Jotset? Maybe not. Perhaps, limits could be implied by gameplay. To this end is the idea of targetting formations within a Jotset. Hence, if a Jotset had, say, 20 Jots in it, it would be much more likely that a vulnerable subset could be found. THIS is a good idea. Very big Jotsets would have both advantages and disadvantages. So let me talk about attacks. There will be a number of different attacks. The Splitting attack will be a major attack. In this kind of attack, the target Jotset will be split. The most mild level of this attack would be a single split, and the "splitpoint" would be decided by the defender. The most devastating attack would be the "collapse", where the Jotset is totally split apart into 1-Jotsets. Another kind of attack would be a Remix attack. In this kind of attack, the order of the Jots in a Jotset is changed. Yet another kind of attack would be the Merging attack, where the targetted Jotset would be forced to merge with another Jotset. Freezing is another possible attack, wherein a Jotset is "frozen" with a number of "time units", and these "time units" must be checked off before the Jot can be active again. Freezing could be used both offensively and defensively. Related to Freezing is the idea of Barbs--elements which prevent contact between Jots, with Barbs potentially placed on all four sides. A major element of the game is that basic Jots are neither lost nor gained from the set the game is started with--rather, Jots are transformed, with the winning condition defined as splitting the opponent's Jotsets in all 1-Jotsets. Freeze things and Barbs--elements placed on the sides of Jotsets, could work both ways. For example, a "positive" Barb would make the Jot easier to both touch and be touched. And a positive Freeze element would give a Jotset additional time, which could be used later, and also protect against Freezing. Barbs/Freeze, Space/Time. Plus Time elements could be added when a player has no clear "moves", instead of just passing--plus Time will always be useful. Now, back to combinations. Back combinations are more than one of the same value touching, "groups", and "straights", which are elements in sequence (up or down) and touching. What about, like: A-B-A-B-A This consist of two straight, up or down, but up AND down, it has... 8? Should I not have up and down at all? I think it is good to have up and down, but not "at the same time". Jotsets interact, with both friendly and opposing Jotsets. Should these interactions be different or the same? I would very much like then to be the same. That is, the same rules would be applied to interaction between friendly Jots and opposing Jots. Barbs and "Ticktocks"--I'll use that term for now. Could these two things be combined? Also, I want to be able to record a player's current status in a text file. Like: A-x-5 C-o-4 C-x-2 C-x-1 L: nnnnp R:uuuq U: D: I am thinking of using n/u and p/q for plus and minus Barbs and Ticktocks. Should there be a limit to the nunber of Barbs/Ticktocks per side? I think that this makes sense, since the "sidedness" of Ticktocks would otherwise be meaningless. This limit could be directly related to the size of the Jotset--one element per side per number of Jots in the Jotset. Side Elements: Plus Barb, Minus Barb, Plus Ticktock, Minus Ticktock. I think that any further side elements would go beyond the basic game, so I will keep it at four for now. Sun 3/14/99 * 9:34 PM Okay. I am getting very close to being able to start playtesting this game. The last major hurdle I have is determining exactly what the various combinations mean in terms of gameplay. In general, Jotsets act on other Jotsets. Can a Jotset affect itself? Hmm. This is a good question. Let me go over the possible actions in the game: Merge, Split, Remix, +/- Barb, +/- Ticktock. Is that it? I think that right now, these are indeed the basic actions. Regarding Barbs, the way to get rid of a positive Barb is to add a Negatiive Barb, and vice versa. Regarding Barbs, I am thinking of a different system, wherein Barbs are REQUIRED to touch. Different kinds of Barbs would help define the interrelation of Jotsets... I don't know. This is a very important issue. I think the way I have established it is good. Plus Barbs are defensive, but also prevent the Jotset from attacking. Minus Barbs make the Jotset more vulnerable, but also aid it in attacking. I just had an idea, that each of the four sides of a Jotset represents a different kind of attack/interaction. Plus/Minus is a big thing here. It applies to Jotset construction, Barbs, and Ticktocks. Maybe the plus/minus could relate to the x/o. In fact, I think that this absolutely should be the case. X is Plus, and O is Minus. Maybe in the case of an attack, if there are more Xs in a row, it is a Plus attack, and if there are more Os in a row, it is a minus attack. If the two are equal, it would then be the defender's choice as to whether it is a Plus or Minus. It then follows that with the remaining columns, the 8s and the 5s, that one should deal with Jotset construction, and one with the side items, Barbs and Ticktocks. As far as remixing goes, perhaps it would require a "balanced" 2s column--ie, the maximum number of connected x/o's being the same. So: "xoxox" is balanced, because the maximum number of Xs touching is 1, and the maximum number of o's touching is also 1. "xooxx" is also balanced, since the maximum number of touching Xs is 2, and the maximum number of touching Os is 2. "xxxoo" is PLUS, because the X's are at three, while the O's are at 2. Note that this particular set of Xs and Os can only be PLUS are BALANCED. This game mechanic points out that what matters is what is TOUCHING. The total number of a given element is not important, except in how that affects the possible combinations. Is this play mechanic too complex? I don't think so. In fact, I think it is very simple. So, the 2s column determines the state of the Jotset--PLUS, MINUS, or BALANCED. I think that the 8s column should be for Jotset construction,and the 5s for side items. Next, I have to figure out how attacks are resolved. What one Jotset can do to another will be determined by the combinations. The combinations are either straights or matches. The 8s have 8 elements in sequence, and the 5s have 5 elements in sequence. 10:18 PM Left Column, Middle Column, Right Column. Maybe a little easier than 8s, 2s, and 5s. 1-Jotsets, Jotsets which contain only 1 Jot, are inert. I want there to be a clear reason why they are inert, and that reason is that a 1-Jotset cannot have a match or a pair, since there is only one element is the left and right. By this reckoning, higher Jotsets can also be inert. For example: C-o-2 F-o-4 This 2-Jotset cannot be made to have a single match or straight. However, this Jotset... C-o-2 D-o-4 ... has a 2-element straight in the Left Column. It can potentially split Jots, since it is MINUS. I think that the winning conditions have to be that the losing player's Jots are all INERT, even if they are higher Jotsets. What is the biggest Jotset that can be inert (disregaring the mix)? It would, I believe, be a 3-Jotset, such as: A-x-1 E-x-3 H-o-5 With a 4-Jotset, it is impossible, I believe, to have an inert Jotset (disregarding mixing), since if there are no matches (and a match makes a Jot not inert) on the Right, only one number from 1 to 5 can be excluded, making Straights absolutely possible. However, larger Jotsets could indeed be inert with mixing regarded. Such as: A-x-1 C-x-3 F-o-1 H-x-4 A-0-2 This Jotset is currently inert, though it has the potential to become active, in a number of ways. Wow. I'm making pretty good progress. Now I have to figure out how, exactly, the various combinations work to make things happen. 10:49 PM Just went on a solitary, snowy foot excursion to 7-11. Alotta snow. Maybe the most snow for several years, which doesn't mean much, since last winter we got less than an inch of snow, and this winter's been very mild as well. Now, I have come to the issue of Jotset interaction. One thing I want to accomplish is to make very big Jotsets have a disadvantage. Aha! The side items can work here. There can be up to as many side items per side as there are Jots in the Jotset. So, if there is an attack such as "Freeze (Minus Ticktock) and entire side, it could be very bad if, for example, there is a blank (no side items) side, and it is, say, a 7-Jotset. Because, it would produce a 7 Minus Ticktocks (which could possibly be offset by Plus Ticktocks elsewhere). Hey! Here's an idea! Each side has an attack type! LEFT=Attack MERGE / Defend PLUS ITEM TOP=Attack SPLIT / Defend MINUS ITEM RIGHT=Attack PLUS ITEM / Defend MERGE BOTTOM=Attack MINUS ITEM / Defend SPLIT It could be arranged differently, but I can see that this provides and even richer potential for strategic depth. LEFT=Attack SPLIT / Defend MINUS ITEM TOP=Attack MERGE / Defend PLUS ITEM RIGHT=Attack MINUS ITEM / Defend SPLIT BOTTOM=Attack PLUS ITEM / Defend MERGE Side note: Adding Freezes could be a defensive move, if in return for the freezes you get extra "power" in a given move. Hmm. Could side items be directly related to the Jots "inside" the Jotset? This could work well with my new idea of combinations attacking other combinations. Starting Jots. This is a big thing. Maybe start off with a set of raw components? Let me see... All 80 Jots: 10 Each of 8 Left. 40 each of 2 Middle. 16 each of 5 Right. Um... 5 each of 8 Left. 20 each of 2 Middle. 8 each of 5 Right. This would make 40 Jots. But I want less for Bo. "2.5" each of 8, Right. 10 each of 2 Middle. 4 each of 5 Right. AAABBCCCDDEEEFFGGGHH xxxxxxxxxxoooooooooo 11112222333344445555 or AAABBBCCCDDDEEFFGGHH or ABCCDDEEEFFFGGGGHHHH or AAAABBBBCCCDDDEEFFGH or AAABBBCCCDDDEEEFFFGGGHHH... and cross out 4 or AABBCCDDEEFFGGHH... and add 4 (on paper, adding above or below existing letters) hmm... AABBCCDDEEFFGGHH... and add 4 xxxxxxxxxxoooooooooo 11112222333344445555 Okay. I'll have to work on this a little more. 11:29 PM Okay. I just tried this system out on paper, and it looks pretty good. But I encountered the possibility of making the same Jot more than once. Should this be allowed? I think not. What about the possibility of reducing the number of Jots even further? It would be: ABCDEFGH... and add 2 xxxxxooooo 1122334455 I'm not sure if this would work, but it would be nice if it could, since it would make Bo that much easier. Well, I checked it out, and indeed, the 10-Jot system is too sparse, so I will focus on the 20-Jot system for Bo: AABBCCDDEEFFGGHH... and add 4 xxxxxxxxxxoooooooooo 11112222333344445555 So... where do I stand now? Attacks and defenses... Straight vs. Match. This should be a part of attacking and defending. Straights attacks Matches, Matches attack Straights. Could it be as simple as: [1] Each left or right column will have both a Straight and a Match value. The Straight value is for the longest Straight, and the Match value is for the longest match. [2] Straights attack Matches, and Matches attack Straights. A larger attacking value means a successul attack. ??? But--does Left attack Right? Or does Left attack Left? No--I think that Left should attack right. What advatanges does this produce? In the current system, there could be up to six of any given Left Letter. This could produce an unbeatable attack, since the longest Right Straight is 5. If I change the rules, and allow at most four of each Left Letter, then the Right Straight 1-2-3-4-5 becomes unbeatable. But what about the Left Straight A-B-C-D-E-F-G? The longest possible Match on the right is 4. So even, say A-B-C-D-E becomes unbeatable. 11:59 PM Wow. I've come to a little bit of an impasse. At the 2-Jot level, Left Matches are gonna be a lot harder than Right Matches. And... do the actual Letters or Numbers making up the combinations mean anything? Maybe... a Straight can attack ANY Match, and a Match can attack ANY Straight. Another thing, devastating Jotsets might not be so bad, considering that putting them together will be tough--especially if the opponent is intent on stopping you. One more thing--Freezes are good defensively because an attack cannot be made on a Frozen Jotset! I envision a potential attack where a Jot has Extra time, and it first "melts" the Freeze on a Jotset protected by Freeze, then uses its extra time to attack the now-defenseless Jotset. This is the kind of action I want to see in the game. A Freeze--even a single Freeze--prevents attack? Hmm... And Barbs prevent attacks too, from one side... Remix attacks, when the attacking Jotset is BALANCED, can shuffle Jots for a Left Attack, and Side Items for a Right attack. Maybe each turn is made to happen by adding Plus Time Items to your Jotsets. This is interesting, since a Jot that was Full of Barbs would be unable to move! Hmm... Could there indeed be only one kind of Side Item? It would have three states--Plus, Minus, and Balanced. Balanced would the the "Barb". So: PLUS ATTACK ON: PLUS: No effect. MINUS: Becomes Barb. BARB: Becomes Plus. BLANK: Becomes ? MINUS ATTACK ON: PLUS: Becomes Barb. MINUS: No effect. BARB: Becomes Minus. BLANK: Becomes ? I'm getting a little confused now... Okay. First of all, attacks are on SIDES, not on items. No Jotset can have both Freezes and Times. So... TIME ATTACK: If Jotset has Freeze(s), a Freeze is removed. If Jotset has no Freezes, then if side has no Barbs, Barb is added. If side has Barb, Barb becomes Time. FREEZE ATTACK: If Jotset has Time(s), a Time is removed. If Jotset has no times, then if side has no Barbs, a Barb is added. If side has a Barb, Barb becomes Freeze. Whoah. I have to figure this out... First of all, I have established that Item Attacks are done on the Right and Bottom... So the sides in question... um... so in essence, a single side might not be targeted... but rather, the side affected will be chosen, by either attacker or defender. So: PLUS ATTACK CAN: [1] Remove a Freeze. [2] Add a Barb. [3] Make a Barb into a Time, only if there are no Freezes. MINUS ATTACK CAN: [1] Remove a Time. [2] Add a Barb (?) [3] Make a Barb into a Freeze, only if there are no Times. (?) Now I'm really confused. Okay. How about Balanced Attack adding Barb, and... PLUS ATTACK: [1] Barb becomes Time. [2] Freeze becomes Barb. MINUS ATTACK: [1] Barb Becomes Freeze. [2] Time becomes Barb. Hmm... This does allow, strategically, for an attacker to do a Plus attack on an opposing Jot which will give the opposing player time, but will open that player to attack! Maybe there should be stages to turns... like, each player adds time to Jotsets, and then play starts. But no... I want a player, in his turn, to be able to use up all Time Items if he so desires. I like the idea of everything happening within the context of interaction between Jotsets. But something has to get them started. Maybe way Jots on the page generate time somehow... I guess what I don't like is the idea that each player gets to add time, and also Jotsets can add time to each other. Also now, items are gotten rid of only when they are at Time stage and "spent". That is, a Barb becomes a Freeze, and a Freeze is "thawed" back into a Barb. The Barb has to become a Time, which can be "spent", to get "rid" of it. Well, I'm still a little confused, and I have to call it a night. Hopefully, I'll be able to bring this all together soon... Mon 3/15/99 * 9:56 PM I want to step back and get reoriented here. That last part of writing last night kind of got me down. I had been riding high on the progress I had made, and then I got into specifics and crashed back to Earth. I want to talk about how a game of Bo will go. I would like it to last about 20 minutes from beginning to end--this includes the opening stages. It could be possible for people to totally do this preparation beforehand, or even choose from predetermined sets. But the most basic game has a Jotset-creation stage. I still think that the basic idea of Straights and Matches is good. As far as the Straight attacks Match and vice-versa, I don't know. I think I have to tackle the issue of the relationship between specific letters and specific numbers. That is, does A relate to C differently than it down to G? Side note: Maybe a Jotset with 0/0/0/0 (Left Straight / Left Match / Right Straight/ Right Match) will have special properties. Some of the problems last night came from the idea of requiring players to choose from a set of Jot components which is very spread out. But what if there were no such restrictions? Then, the only real barrier would be the highest possible Straights. I guess the big problem with this idea is that it might make the Jotset creation stage too overwhelming. Or... One player writes down a Jot. Then the next player writes down another Jot, but with one component different. And so it goes, back and forth... Whoah. That's pretty cool. Much easier that the other method. And it starts competition right away. Okay. In this idea, players will place the initial Jot in the center of the page. Then, subsequent Jots can be to the left or right--to start new Jotsets--or up and down, to add to existing Jotsets. This seems to be a pretty darn good idea. Of course, I'd have to playtest it to see if it really works. But in terms of my vision for the game, it's pretty much perfect. There could be variations that would work better, such as each player doing two at a time, or opting to change more than one element, but then allowing the other player the same advantage. Wow. That really helps a lot. I went through the previous process on paper, and it was kind of a bummer. Aha! I have an idea! The same exact Jot cannot be used more than once! This would reduce the urge for a "back and forth", like: Dx1 Hx1 Dx1 Dx1 etc. It would have to be like: Dx1 Hx1 Dx2 Hx2 etc. I think it might work. This game mechanic of the firs stage of the game will be more or less effective depending on the mechanics of the second stage of the game. So, let me get back to Straight vs. Match. What are some potential pitfalls? I guess it's that the Matches can be longer than the Straights. But if I alter the Straight rules, allowing expanded Straights, it should even things up a little, eh? One way of doing this would be to alloe for the "end" Letter and Number--A, H, 1, and 5--to aloow for a reverse. Hence: CDEFGHGFE, 1234543212, GHG, 3212, DCBABC, 45432, etc. ABCDEFGHGFEDCBABCDEFGHGFEDCBABCDEFGHGFEDCB 123454321234543212345432123454321234543212345321 Another way would be to allow for any touching characters in sequence, such as: 1212123434321 BCDCDEFGFGHG etc. 10:55 PM Here's an idea. If you're attacking with a 3-Jotset, the defender, if he has a bigger Jotset, must defend with three touching Jots. This would be to the larger Jotset's advantage, but I could add a rule that it must use both the Left AND Right, so that even if a Jotset has a very strong Right for certain attacks, the Left might be weaker, for those particular Jots. Localizing attacks. I like it. Let me look at basic Jot types, as far as defense and offense go: Strong Left Straight / Strong Right Straight Strong Left Straight / Strong Right Match Strong Left Match / Strong Right Straight Strong Left Match / Strong Right Match or SS SM MS MM So, Match cannot attack Match, Straight cannot attack Straight. So each of these is effective against two types and ineffective against two types. So all types have strengths and weaknesses. Here: Ax4 Co4 Co3 The value of this Jotset is (s/m-s/m) 0/2-2/2 Having a split value--Straight AND Match, means that wither Straight OR Match can attack. Idea: Only plus and minus Time, no Barbs--the Times act as Barbs! Maybe... Okay. Take this Jotset: Cx5 Ao1 It is 0/0-0/0. Can it be attacked? Perhaps not... it is inert... it can't be attacked, but it can't do anything either. The problem here is that there could be very big, invulnerable, inert Jotsets, which could be "activated" by remixing. So I think that "all-zero" Jotsets should be vulnerable to some kind of attack. 11:18 PM With the basic rule of not reusing Jots, there are up to 10 of each Left Letter, and 16 of each Right Number. For multiplayer games, this rules cannot be followed--but it could be localized, so that each player cannot duplicate in his own set of Jots. So there would still be the same limitations. But I do envision bigger versions of the game... This all relates to the relationship between Straights and Matches. Should 43434 be s2 or s5 (the lowercase "s" meaning Straight). Maybe it would be an s2/5, as opposed to 12345, which would be s5/5. Or 3454, which would be s3/4. Maybe... Letters attack Numbers, but the numbers can either block or not... it is the Letters vs. Letters if the attack get through... Hmmm... Well, I gotta go to bed. But I think I have made a great deal of progress... I have definitely recovered from the doldrums following last night's work! Mon 3/22/99 * 10:53 PM Well, I've moved away from Bo a little, and I'm back to a deeper level. Here's something I wrote the other day on my other computer: The State of Obliviana Tue 3/16/99 by Frank Edward Nora Well, I'm home from work today. I'm writing this in BBEdit--I figured I'd give it a shot, even though Word 5.1a is the word processor I've been using for many years now. This 9 pt Monaco just isn't working. I think I'll try out 12 pt Stone Serif, my favorite. Looks pretty good, but the leading is off a bit from what I'm used to. Anyway, I figured I'd try and figure out the state of Obliviana. I'm on my new computer, and I usually write on my old computer. But this difference might actually be good--maybe I'll get a little different perspective on the issue. Obliviana has gone through a great number of changes over the past decade. I would put the official beginning of Obliviana around September 1987, when I started with Nomadi Entertainment and the NACHUZM (later NIACHUZM) idea: Nomadi Central (organization), Interweb (creative network), Anything But Monday Productions (video), Cut'n'Shoot Records (audio), Halfevil Graphics (print), Unreal Systems (games), Zone Supernature (occult/209), Mystery Etcetera (Super Objects) That was 138 months ago. In this time, I have made incredible progress, but I have never broken through to success. My closest was in 1989 with Anything But Monday Magazine, but it failed. This failure did not ruin my hopes for Obliviana (my core endeavor, which I would have called Nomadi back then). ABM was not in tune with my core endeavor. It was the kind of thing that could have been a PART of Oblviviana, but by itself, it was not what I wanted, and I knew it. My personality 138 months ago was very immature. I had a lot of growing up to do. And I did grow up, over the course of many years. Anything But Monday had a full launch, and it failed. Obliviana has never had a full launch. If there had been a full launch sometime in the past 138 months, which subsequently failed, I think I would have potentially lost motivation for Obliviana. Another factor is that over the years I have had numerous different schemes for making Obliviana a reality. With the benefit of the time I am at now, I can see that certain directions would not have worked, such as: [1] Pure Licensing. I had this idea, and so did some other people. Seeing how lucrative licensing was, the idea was to create intellectual property exclusively for licensing. No overhead, no problems, just big money in exchange for pure creativity. Well, I don't think it would have worked. Licensing is more about intellectual property that people are already familiar with, as opposed to ideas that are good. I still think that popularizing ideas on the Internet cheaply could lead to licensing possibilities, but I now view licensing as a side thing, something that would be possible only after an idea has become very well known. [2] The Micropayment Dream. This is a dream a lot of people must have had. Cheaply create content for the Web, charge micropayments, get popular, and sit back as the millions pour in. Micropayments is something of a dead issue now. And even if it was implemented, it would be very hard to get the numbers of hits required to make any money--it would take money to promote such a website, unless the content was as incredible and innovative as I envision Obliviana to be... I'm trying to list the Little World of Racetracks and the associated Revolver, from memory: [1] Arctahojast (Severe Repair) [2] Voodholo (Superior) [3] Pilcansas (Halfevil Graphics (Pelter, Yargo tree, etc.)) [4] Hucaway (Devastating Nightscape (computer games)) [5] Moodbruc (Zope) [6] Inhusto (Forge of Wander) [7] Roptoon (Welcome to the Weasel Village Mall (audio)) [8] Fogoncs (Wild Pioneer of New Jersey (reviews and humor)) [9] Wroohoots (Super Objects) [10] Twahokum (Vulpine) [11] Owltoco (Obliviana Central (and Archives)) [12] Barolcoo (no Revolver yet) [13] Quonchaw (no Revolver yet) [14] Railway (tentative-new) [15] Waterway (tentative-new) I think this list is close to being fully in tune with my latest version of LWOR and Revolvers. I added Railway and Waterway (Race Railway and Race Waterway?) to bring LWOR in tune with 8x2x5. This set of ideas is similar to NIACHUZM. It does exclude video however, and this was a conscious decision. In fact, over the years I have has a bunch of ideas related to limiting the nature of the media I use. The most extreme idea was that of rasterizing all text! I was really into that idea, and it still might not be such a bad idea... but it is extreme. I was also into the idea of grayscale-only photography. These ideas address the problem of overstimulation, which is a very big issue on the Internet and for entertainment in general. Looking at my current LWOR Revolver set, I see that further reductions could be made. What media are referred to in LWOR? [1] Text [2] Computer Graphics [3] Computer Games [4] Comics [5] Audio [6] Objects [7] Board Games This is a very rough outline of media. Video and Print are not really included. Another media which I definitely flirted with last summer is the idea of communities, and I started creating an web-based community in LWOR. I still want to do this, because it makes sense in terms of Obliviana, but in no way will community be a content focus. As far as media go, I am most excited about audio. Later on now. I got my Jeep inspected, and it's good till March 2001! I also went to the mall and a few other places, and I played three new arcade games: Hydro Thunder, Jojo's (something), and War. None of these was very good, but they were alright. On my journies I came to a realization about Obliviana. Playing the game, Little World of Racetracks, Wandering, Stormjaunts--they are all about a little journey--a race, around a track, a trip, starting at home and ending at home. And I thought that even as far as audio goes, there can be "shows" that have a beginning, middle and end, which can have the same structure as the races, wandering, games, etc. So the idea is there is a "standard" "Wander Race". "Wander Race" (Wr) is a temporary term I came up with to describe this new idea. Basically, a Wr is a journey where you do things and then return to where you started. The Wr experience is characterized by some degree of transforming or new experiences. Wr is very scalable and customizable. Note: I had a ideas called "Wrealityographer", "Wrealist", "Wreality", etc. This was in 1990. It's just interesting that I am using the "Wr" now... In this new idea, Obliviana would consist of Wr's in many different sizes and shapes. One general observation I have about Wr is that it not only presents content, but it also address the way that content should be drunk in. I draw a comparison to movies, wherein going to the movies is still popular even though the same movies are available for viewing at home a few months later. I don't think that it is just the newness and higher quality that lures people to the theaters--it is the very clearly delineated process of experiencing the movie. The experience is dictated by the movie theater--you go into this theater, choose a seat, and sit there as the movie plays. Watching a movie at home is a far more amorphous process, which can start or stop anytime, and must compete with other distractions at home. This idea is getting there--I need to get further into defining these issues. But generally, I think that I do have something here. MAME (the arcade emulator) is an example of pure content without much direction. To "Wr-ize" MAME, you could build in a sequencer, which would take you through a series of games, and not only that, but record your scores and other data. -------> ------------------- ----------- -------- -- -----