Talk:Comparison of action systems

Historical examples

Might also be good to link to old rulesets to show examples of where we've used each of these. --Kevan (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Linked actions

Paging User:Card: are linked actions a meaningful modifier, if their only action-related pro is "This action usually inherits the pros and cons of whatever action triggers it" (which sounds like it means "doesn't fix anything")? Breaking out actions can be good for writing clearer rules, but this wiki page is more about what systems exist and what problems they have, than how best to write them down. --Kevan (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

i think that the action related con is what stands out more for this modifier. i reworded it. Card (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

These tables will be useful if they end up as a list of Actions and Modifiers that we can hybridise into something where all of the negatives have been cancelled out. Modifiers with no "pro" effect (which would encompass a lot of things) feel like an unnecessary distraction from that; linked actions are useful as a concept, they just don't solve any inherent action-timing problems. --Kevan (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

a page for fixing problems with action systems sounds nice and productive in nomic/game theory; however the title of this page is "Comparison of Action Systems" which doesn't imply any fixing. i came to this page to document actions systems/modifiers that exist and are used, not to attempt to fix them. wouldn't documenting actions that have mostly cons be useful in the fixing context anyhow in order to identify and substitute accepted replacements, if any? Card (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinning down terms would certainly help, and true, if there was a mechanic that we often added to "fix" a daily action that only made it worse, that's worth remembering. I think linked actions are more like a ruleset-formatting choice (scattering a class of action around the ruleset instead of listing all outcomes in a single action rule), than something that creates a different "action system" - you could refactor the ruleset differently and still be playing the exact same game. --Kevan (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought about this some more; I am simply considering different aspects of actions here that possibly deserve either an entirely different page or table. Essentially the medium of actions is important as rules are the lifeblood of blognomic. The way an action or collection of actions gets written out in the ruleset can wildly affect the reader's interaction with those actions. I've seen you spend an entire proposal to just change the name of an action or variable. Would you say that the game is the same if it were reverted back near the end of a dynasty? Anyhow, ruleset formatting and variable names are a bit more abstract than everything else listed on this page so I understand where your are coming from now. Card (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)