Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Callan S.

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Q&A / Moralising and logistics
« on: June 22, 2016, 08:33:49 pm »
Kind of a meta question again : If being moral (some kind of moral, atleast!) is something kind of rented rather than owned, paid for with resources (ie, giving to others is a kind of morality - but you have to have something to give to do that), traditional writing seems to involve chiding this or that action as being wrong or questionable - but this style of writing seems to assume that as long as the bad habits are pruned off, that's all that's needed. As if nothing about logistics needs be said, just something that might get in the way of logistics. Which makes sense given for millenia we were all doing the same old things, agriculture and livestock and it was people sleeping with other peoples spouses or starting wars and such was the thing that got in the way. So story writing isn't about agriculture and livestock back then because everyone does it already and knows it like the back of their hand and don't want to hear about it. Logistics just doesn't have a tradition in story telling.

But now - well, people will vote for what they think will get them jobs. Ie, people need jobs to get food and shelter because they don't at all control their own food supply, so it's easy enough to control voting by controlling food supply. Never mind how people will close mindedly lock on to an idiology if their bread and butter depends on it - the less control they have of their own food supply, the more closed minded folks get (probably scientifically provable, that). It seems there are strong moral issues inside of logistics, but writing has no tradition of logistics - it's all this interpersonal drama like who is sleeping with whom, who is angry at whom. All the things that, yes, used to get in the way of a functioning community - but now are peripheral with regard to how that community is being manipulated from external sources.

Where is genre going when it doesn't address logistics? And I mean a hands dirty address of logistics - actually talking about food production as part of the story. Not just writing about how Johnny is skiving at the back of the shed and should get back to work/yet again some pruning of abberant behavior, but instead the actual steps of production in story, how it can be re-implemented and the political upshot of having more control of food supply. Where's genre going when it avoids this?

Author Q&A / The themes, then and now?
« on: June 22, 2016, 09:28:19 am »
Were all the themes there at the start of the second apocalypse story? Over two decades ago? Surely your meeting with the poker playing nihilist was after you'd started the idea (as D&D gamers). So why do all the themes fit into something you'd made up from years before that - did they? And if they did, given the revelation of the poker nihilist, isn't it spooky that the themes still fitted in? Like, super spooky?

I just wonder how you can essentially shift philosophies dramatically over the years and yet the story started before the shift and begun after the shift remains...unmoved? Or am I just imagining that and the story was a lot different back then at the start and in the first few years than now, in philosophical terms?

General Misc. / Some kinda game idea brewing
« on: June 20, 2016, 10:43:13 am »
Ages ago I made a small flash game that, without impinging on IP, was basically about fighting sranc.

It might not have blown socks off - I think the pacing probably wasn't fast enough, but at the time I was entranced by the D&D six second combat round - which is surprisingly slow in real life game play.

Now pretty much every feature, even a simple one like 'you can make bandages' takes about an hour to program. Or it does for me. I'd love to see some faster programmers doing something with the prince of nothing series (err, I mean the totally not the PON series, a completely different IP that only harkens to PON as much as is legally legit to do so!). And more complex features break down into multiple basic features, which means multiple hours. I'm saying this to basically destroy your hopes - so I can sift amongst their shards and find fragments I am capable of building into a game inside my lifetime!

Anyway, I bought construct 2, which is a HTML5 game language and I'd like to have another crack. Maybe pester one of the awesome artists of SA to borrow some artwork for it. Once again the game would have links to Scott's blog, citing it as an inspiration and links to here and links to any contributing artist, as it's part promotional of the novels.

Basically making this post as an open work space, to ping what I'm thinking of to see if it mixes with some kind of momentum out there amongst ye, or if I'm starting the snowball all by myself (and, maybe even ending it all by myself, if fates are poor). Feel free to post your shattered hopes for a game so I may pick amongst the shards, or I can shatter them for you : "I want GTA but in Earwa!!1!" "Well, fuck no, that's not gunna happen - but *picks up shard* maybe a more text based and basic graphic 2D game of running down sranc?". That sort of breaking of hopes and dreams! >:)

So jot down any ideas you have, if feel kind enough to give them, then I'll stamp them into shard! :) And maybe one day I'll get back to doing the text based multiplayer browser game - if I wrangle some free server space with a database. It'd be cool to do something like Urban Dead, but with sranc.

General Misc. / S-rank Slayers
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:27:15 am »
Edit: Since the threads were combined - here is the game link :


I decided on 'S-rank Goblins' for a simple flash game project, simply so I didn't have to think about IP BS. I doubt Scott would not agree on the use of Sranc in a game, but because of all the money stuff and lawyers are kind of like morality molecule police in Earwa and ever present, it might prove problematic. Anyway, so it's Goblins of a certain rank - it being 'S'.

It's an 'idle game' - if you're not familiar there's quite a few out with many plays. You don't interact with them a lot, you sort of leave them running while you browse, occasionally coming back to manage stuff.

The screen shot in the attachment, though it might be hard to see (as you start off killing baby S-rank, so the graphic is shrunk. It grows as you get through the game), is actually from the wiki (slightly modified). It's a placeholder graphic - I don't have permission to use it publicly. That's partly why I'm here - to ask for a 128x128 sized art of an envisioning of what sranc might look like. I want to go with the black and white a lot of artists seem to use for PON work - but blood red is allowed amongst the black and white! I will end up drawing my own, otherwise - it will be mouse drawn art. You have been warned!  :P

I'm planning to have a number of links in the bottom left corner, stuff like 'inspired by the prince of nothing series' which will be clickable and open a browser to...I dunno. TPB? TPB is weird, the promo site is dead. Probably TPB. And maybe one to here, who knows? :). So it's me writing up a game, so as to create something, make a few cents from kongregate hosting and to promote the books in a different avenue.

I'd also like art for the background behind the gobo - gnarled black and white trees, perhaps. Wouldn't mind varied soil art too. For can you anymore sin against dirt? Probably 160 tall, however wide you want for the background. 32x32 for the dirt tiles.

Will have a credits page the lists contributing artists names (or handles, whatev) and a clickable link to their stuff.

Thanks for any contributions that can be made! :)

General Misc. / Early Inchie Action
« on: March 27, 2014, 12:57:26 am »

I started drafting this up awhile ago because I feel the conciousness/blind brain discussions at the three pound brain blog are being undermined by using terms which are not applicable with each other as if they were. It's like if you talked about 'a tree' and 'storage space for socks' at the same time. Oh, by 'tree' you meant a series of carved pieces of wood - wait, no, you meant a series of carved pieces of wood arranged into a chest of draws! That's what you mean by storage space for socks!

The extra complication here is where The tree is not carved - the carving apparently involved is really just from the lackings in perception. It looks like a chest of draws - it's actually a tree. It just looks like a chest of draws for all the parts of the tree you can't see - all the parts are carved away by blindness.

And what screws up conversation here is when we talk about the perception of the draws, or of the carved wood parts, in the same damn sentence as refering to the tree! It makes it seem like those draws or carved parts are on par with the tree - as if they exist next to it. Like russian dolls put back together poorly so some some just lay around.

Anyway, here's the draft:
Unfolding Conciousness

The various scales.

As it's clear with the naked eye, to magnifying glasses, to micro scopes, you can choose between seeing something very close in fine detail but being stuck at looking at a very small amount of material, or you can 'pull back' and see a great deal more, but at what one intellectually can see as considerably less detail. Though perhaps not see this at a personal level. When we see a tree on the street, for example, we have no impression or marker of the detail lost in looking at it, regardless if it's a few meters away or a block away. You can feel when you're hungry. You don't feel when you've lost information. Either way, it's a tree.

The thing is, the magnifying glass, the micro scope - they are generally ideas of what you can see close up. What if we reverse that notion of how much more we are seeing up close to instead be the idea of how much less we are seeing in general? By talking about what small amount of material we can see in fine detail, we use that as a baseline to refer to the vast amount of material outside of the view that we can't see at these degrees of focus, but are just as much possible to see in just as much detail. Using what we are seeing not as the focus, but merely as an achoring point for where discussion goes in terms of what we don't see. A focus on what we are not seeing.

One problem is that 'brain' sits at another level of unfolding entirely to something like 'heuristic'. Crossing the streams like this does not lead to semantic hygene with either term. But of course were quite used to refering to 'brains', as we all know we have one, that we casually refer to them. Yet 'brain' is actually very strong language, like a very strong swear word - it's several folds down the ladder. But culturally we are quite prone to using the word amongst concepts which are several folds upward.

Feeling (arguably this should be put just above synaptic feedback loops. As it comes before the synaptic connections reading the loops, but at the same time cognitively it does not appear to. This is probably why the redness of red is so damn convincing (I'll endulge the phrase 'damn convincing' since we are so high up in the folds at this point!))
Synaptic connections drawing input not from the world, but from the prior feedback loops as they enact across synaptic connections, creating a second, semi-meta loop.
Synaptic connections + nervous system feedback enacting firings and environmental feedback, which prompts further firings, looping.
Synaptic connections, enactions/firings
Synaptic connections, algorithmic

*** (Here is a tricky point : One might attribute an algorithm to how the synapses make their connections. But this is reaching upward in the folds to describe something that is further downward in the folds. This is why synaptic connections physical has it's own fold below. An extra dimension to it is that it rests on the enactions of life, that in turn make this or that synapse both connect with others and continue to function. This in itself lends itself to a shortcut heuristic. So you have two pins to knock down at once - if you knock down only one, the other maintains the mystery still. The first pin is the way synapses end up connecting is due to life processes, and the second pin is that the life processes are themselves a series of chemical reactions to each other that happen to form an ongoing chemical reaction (a chemical reaction largely fed, directly or indirectly, by the energy the sun casts. Fail to knock down both pins and synaptic connections (physical) will simply appear to be synaptic connections (algorithmic) repeated a second time.)

Synaptic connections, physical.
Bio structural electrical connections
Bio-chemical electrical transmission
Chemical scale
Atomic scale. Which for this piece will be the final fold (I wont go into quantum!)

I have this plan - it's taking a few years to really get it going but I'm pretty certain it's viable and didn't want to wait until it's done to start spreading the idea. I'm describing it in rough form here as I've mostly had it in my head.

The base of it is resource generators - ie, growing food. Yes, I can hear some of you groan from here - how is that sexy? But really it's just a replication of the structure that keeps you alive right now - someone grew that food you just had, right?

The antagonist here is basically the sort of fiscal singularity coming up or that exists - everywhere ends up as part of, to various degrees forgotten, America (or whatever is the fiscal heart of the world - maybe China soon?). Further the idea that beauty and art, not just on our walls but in the very structure of the town/city you and I live in requires charity or generosity. Think of the old building in your town with their ornate stone work - now look at the new building made of graveyard slabs of stone thrown together in an effort for the least cost for the 'most' result. This is the fiscal singularity reaching out - because the economic map is stretched out to the world, businesses don't form cosy little complacent cul de sacs where the businesses do not enter into ruthless economic play and so they start being indulgent and spending money on nice buildings and other community forming structure. Ie, being charitable and generous. The global financial structure does not allow such cul de sacs of complacency to form, because as soon as anyone in the world gets ruthless about money (and someone will, of course) everyone has to get ruthless or otherwise be out competed by the ruthless ones. Thus the ugly slab buildings entering your community - the harvest of the global ruthlessness.

That horse has essentially bolted on that, I think - especially as it hinges on everyones desire for 'cheaper!'.

The idea here is not just that producing your own food leads to more political indepedence relative to the amount of your food supply you can meet (taking into consideration a ceiling on that due to 'land taxes'), but as the very source of charity and generosity to reinvigorate the artistic domain of your community rather than the economic singularity turning where you live into more and more of a battery hen. I mean, think about it: Imagine all of the advertising on the walls of the businesses your community hinges around were all just one uniform shade of graveyard grey. How incredibly ugly would it all be - yet this is where you'll live your life, to a great degree? And the 'levity' of the advertising you see is all weaponised - they just fake happy, smiling faces and just emulate the idea of bright colours=good times, so as to lever money out of you. Perhaps the old signs from the early nineteen hundreds or earlier, with their ornate art were actually beautiful additions in themselves. But again they were a product of indulgent businesses who had not yet had a reason to become ruthless.

It's funny that it's the antagonist that is complicated in this matter, but the idea here is fairly simple - an exchange structure that is based largely on generosity, of providing food stuff in a certain, metered extent, for free as an act toward building community and further food stuffs for the exchange of art. What art you say? Those big expensive canvas things, just for some spring onions? No, not at all. In fact I've seen art exhibitions from a group who used to paint upon the lids of cigar cases - just for a little money but after many years these became important and collectable works of art that warranted their own exhibition.

So the art could be on the back of recycled paper (ie, something printed on the other side) and in biro! Indeed some biro art is amazing and there's an example in my local gallery that was short listed for a prize of 12 K, as I recall. This would also includes texts/stories (as in selling a copy of it, not selling the rights to the words. The exchange simply grants the capacity to sell the material object, like second hand book shops sell books. I'll have to look at the legals to ensure an ethical structure is written in explicit ink). And I will be glib and assume people can access biro's pretty easily - even if they do a quick sketch in a bank using one of their chained pens - heh, now that's subversive! :)

Further the model I'm looking at may even have a return policy - if the art is not sold after a certain amount of time, the artist can simply pick the art back up, having kept the food stuffs he'd gotten from turning it in - possibly even turning it back in immediately for more food stuffs.

The capcity for the art to be sold allows this structure to marry into the global economic singularitys currency system and to subvert it. To quell the ruthlessness, to the degree this structure is practiced. Part of that would be by (with a formula I've yet to map out) not only give food stuffs, but take part of any profits from art sales and actually give food stuffs and money for the art works. Thus feeding money into the artistic communities that lend the artistic life to the greater community. I would dare say even make community worth forming (for surely we don't just form community to protect ourselves from the elements anymore, do we?).

The giving of food stuff here is a structured thing - it involves in part giving some for free to each individual, but with a limit, so as to make further trading for further food stuffs attractive. Even the art for food stuffs exchange is fixed at a limit per individual. And indeed the whole structure is set at a hard limit as to how much food stuffs you can produce anyway. The exact trade ratios are contentious and their integrity at an ethical level is vital to the whole structure and...I haven't worked the ratio out yet! I'm sure it's workout-able but right now I'm at a place holder idea - if you want to shoot the idea down, okay, but please do it from a 'Without a ratio explicitly stated, you offer nothing!' position, rather than 'This wont work!' position. Without the ratio, you don't really know if it wont work.

Further structures I've considered are food stuffs being traded for money and a ticket lottery for part of the moneys paid. I really dislike pure lotteries, as they give you nothing - here the traded food stuff (remember that each person only gets so much food over a certain time period, so to get more involves trade) definately gets something and with that the chance to get even more. This seems more fair to me instead of what seems to be exploiting peoples hopes. Then the remaining segment of money is segmented again and used as part of the art trade or straight donation to charity or even trickled into a hard luck fund that can be granted at discretion (with a time cap on it - if it's not used it goes back into art trade and starts refilling, so as to stop a few issues that come with stagnant money). However I do not know the local laws about what you have to have to run a lottery - I've been waiting to get my resource generators fully into gear before researching this. I'm guessing it wont be any exorbitant fee to do a small scale local lottery (though I could be wrong).

This, essentially, is my fight against a multitude of issues I feel exist beyond those I outline here (and I can get into them if you ask!), because it fights the very economic structure who's self serving nature means those issues continue because no one has a buck to lay against those issues. The generosity of giving from resource generators (from gardens/urban farming) lays the foundation for defection against the world wide economic structure, instead of repeating its semi invisible dogmas (think about it - how much can you give to oxfam or other charities - is this restriction not a kind of dogma?) for not having any alternative way to live. Here is an alternative - thus allowing some different philosophy to form than one that is beholden to money and thus beholden to the global structure/whatever is the global economic power and the degree they are disinterested in your particular welfare.

Some philosophers try to find a way of living with integrity and honour in light of various nihilistic cognitive science findings - I do not find this the first and foremost issue, especially when the structures of money exchange colour our philosophies so much. With the battles of cognitive science & philosophy, how on earth can we fight when we neglect the very fundimentals of war? Our supply lines? To just try and win this in our heads - I do not think this works. The war, at it's roots, is earthly. The head in the clouds part is part of it, but to just concentrate on that is to have your feet swept out from under you in short order. Where your feet are swept, so too will your head shortly follow.

Thank you all for reading.

Ever noticed how rappers, once they get signed up, start rapping about all the spooks and tools in the music industray - how they kind of just lose touch with what essentially got them signed up?

Story. I guess there's the utterly made up kind. But apart from that, story is, with whateve embelishments, the conflicts you run into in real life.

And so I quickly get to the non euclidean point - what if (and this is hardly much of an 'if') the conflict you have is that you need money and want to write in order to get sum? The hand touches it's own elbow. I mean, what is that as a story? And yet, like the signed up rapper faced with music industry zombies as their conflict, that IS your conflict right there. The conflict of not having money for not writing a conflict for it's a conflict about not having money because you don't have a story because you conflict is about not having money because...

I told you it was non euclidean! A kind of mobius strip, but tight. Tight as a block.

Further, lets take the tenure of most stories floating around - distanced fantasy. Refined just world fiction. Ie, the very stuff that is most withdrawn from a poor and hungry writers day to day conflict. Ie, the things most withdrawn from from his muse.

Okay, okay! How could these stories float around so much if that's the case - well I dunno. Depends on how much you buy into a just world, that you can write a world that is awash with such justice, I guess. Or if you just have a nice income or mooch off someone who has, then you are not going to be stuck in this knot.

But what if you're a skeptical bum?

The thing is, what if there is ground to work with here? It's just the non euclidean part has made it hard to see?

I raise that, in case a discussion happens here that's of use to me - or more likely, if X number of views and zero number of replies occurs, it might be useful to some other fuzzy creature out there.

Philosophy & Science / Objective Morality - one method
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:46:07 am »
I was thinking one method I'd accept for a universe with an objective morality (for that particular universe) is where the creator of it goes and makes it the only minds that can form in it are ones that follow the morality he lays out. Either making it that only that type can evolve, or more crudely perhaps intervening during a childs development in the womb.

The thing about this is that the creator takes on the task of making his creations follow his morality. Ie, he takes on the responsibility of that and should one stray somehow from his model, then the creator takes it that they are at fault (they simply didn't implement the morality enforcement properly)


Linkies. And yeah, he's quoting someone, but I'm sure its a reflection of his own views.
Third, if your superheroine is stronger than any normal man, and does not need Prince Charming to settle the hash of the evil dragon, but can wield the sword herself, you can either leave out your male love interest, or...

Whoa, hold up!

Now lets just say the 'or' involves giving the male interest supernatural powers - it isn't going to get any more interesting from Vox's quote on that.

But are you seeing what I'm seeing here?

Isn't it kind of facinating?

I'm not sure I grasp the full psychological frame of it.

It's just utterly facination how it seems, by quoting this stuff, he feels there is no place for such a male. Such a male is completely useless and pointless.

Can you get a glimpse of that dystopian worldview that I get a glimpse of in seeing this? No place for a man at all! Practically man hating...

General Misc. / 'Work and Smile'
« on: December 09, 2013, 07:12:11 am »
I'll make my argument by making an argument for...

We are in a battle, friends! We all know that to earn a living, to have food and shelter takes work! Labour! It always has and always will! There is no getting around it! Nobody expects to get something just for simply being - and with good reason! That's why I speak to you today, beamed live from my office with it's fantastic view! We all know you need to go find a job! To do otherwise is to shame your peers, your family and your spiral into poverty is only your own damn business and fault! If you find yourself living on the many streets of concrete and other land that was cleared of vegetation for dwellings in a fine example of progress, you're inability to find food is your own fault. It's no one elses - get a job! Anyone can get a job! Just grab one like you might grab an apple from a tree, by going to job interviews where a panel will decide if you get the job.

And whether were athiest or religious, we all know land is something that is owned - you have to buy it or there are plenty of kind people who will rent a space to you. If you wish to buy it, you can! By which of course we mean buy a mortgage (it's silly to think that anyone could just buy land outright - that's old mode thinking that weve well and truely moved on from now!). The land is owned - you can't expect you just have some roots somewhere! The civilised approach is to buy rights to land. To expect to just have them is the mark of someone practically a traitor to his fellow men (as they all work hard to pay their mortgages, as they should).

You really need to work if you expect to keep a stocked cupboard. You had to work in the middle ages for your food - why would anything have changed now? All the experts at our panel tonight, enjoying the excellent spread put on, have researched this thoroughly. Weve looked into it - we even have a department, dedicated to checking out statistics on the matter. In fact all our corporate endevours often have department after department, some of them there simply to oversee the others, running various research projects that would simply not work without you and your fellows working for them. Of course we have to tighten our belts - weve taken on various consultants on the board here, with the appropriate salaries for their position, to determine how many positions will be appropriately cut. But remember you can always grab the bull by the horns and get back into it, by sitting in front of a panel (should you get that far in the application process) for them to decide if you get a position with their company.

We honestly couldn't do anything about that situation - were all busy with getting our businesses ahead in todays competitive marketplace. Were desperate (for those of you qualified or needed) for you to keep our businesses strong! Really the fight against nature to get food - it hasn't really changed. Your good notions to work hard and keep your head down? They are as relevant today as they were on the savanna! You know in your heart that if you work hard, you will prosper! We developed in the wild with a strong urge for survival - and that urge has the same place it always has - work hard now! You need to - we need you to, because were all in it together, in this tough battle! And we toast you! *raises a glass of bubbly*. With work, we can all appreciate finer things, just as much as you might enjoy watching a forumla one race on TV, for example - and the champainge they splash around at the end is no mere bottle of bubbles! It's a fine thing - we should know *clinks around the table*. The thing is, you've worked hard for years, knowing that prospering was ahead - and keep working know, knowing it is still ahead! You're a smart bunch and you've figured out that working hard is definately the only way ahead (which is to say ahead of the starvation that we all face should we turn from civilisation) - and without you, many fine institutions and companies could not have formed and have their venerable status. Our corporate meetings are all about you, the statistics of you, in fine detail - often we put considerable effort into collecting data, to make sure they are about you! Sometimes we laugh 'aren't these things only a mother would know?' - but in a way, can't you see how we look after can see it, right?

And of course you need leaders - for, while it's clearly established that you need to work to survive, who will assign the work then, hmm? You have to work - nothing is clearer. But jobs? They don't just come out of nowhere. No, you need people who can lead you into the future - who, while you've got your head down, nose to the grind stone, we keep look out. For you! The helmsmen (and lets not forget these days, helmswomen!) of industry! You're strong, proud, and know your place is with us - should you pass the usual panel. Just stick with your sense of survival, that sense that you have to tough out some rough times if you wanna make it! It's gotten us all this far and it can get us *looking from the camera to around the table* even further! If you realise nothing has changed, then you'll make sure nothing will change - your job position, your qualifications, they will all remain stable and pertinent - remain reliable! For if we were to fall, naturally neither would remain - how could we be expected to maintain either?

So, remember, were in a battle! It's a tough world out there - keep at it and realise that that isn't just about to change tomorrow! So stay strong with what you're doing today! Keep toughing it out! We all think you're doing a great job! There may be regretable cuts - weve had some sad days in top office - but were sure you're doing a great job, or will be doing a great job of getting in front of a panel!

Work - and smile!

Philosophy & Science / The two slit experiment and 'quantum memory'
« on: December 05, 2013, 11:32:09 pm »
Ran into this article the other day:

Make your own conclusions on it, but in terms of posting about mine is that there isn't a quantum memory involved - what you have is basically an other dimensional object pushing into this dimension. The other dimension object does not change at all - it merely changes the side of itself that it presents, when pushing in - thus it seems to be able to be two things, when what is happening is that just one part of the two things is pressing through at once.

It's like in this video:

See when he trolls the 2D world person, by sticking his fingers into their dimension and they *poof* just appear, from the 2D persons view, to come from out of nowhere - yet it's all quite logical from the third dimension? Imagine he puts his hand in with fingers straight and flat together. Then he widens his fingers, splaying them - they would appear to the 2nd dimension person as being both a kind of wave (the flat hand), yet also particles (the seperated fingers). How can it be both at once!?!?1!? Well, ta da!

Though I'll add this probably isn't even a dimension thing - it's probably that were so near sighted that in our study of physics, weve probably taken about half of this dimension, and call that the entirety of our dimension. Then when we start to see our error, we make a further mistake and call it another dimension. But for now I'll keep with other dimensional objects, because that's cool and fun to say!

And finally, hey, what if your brains functioning hinged on 'quantum memory'? Or in how I put it, whether another interdimensional object decides to show it's trunk, rather than it's leg?

Philosophy & Science / What would a Dunyain think of money?
« on: December 01, 2013, 11:16:09 pm »
I was reading this
The central benefit of money is its predictable purchasing power. A monetary commodity is not easy to produce. The cost of mining is high. Money is slowly adopted by a large number of participants. These participants use money as a means of exchange. Why? Because it was valuable the day before. They therefore expect it to be valuable the next day. Money has continuity of value. This is not intrinsic value. It is historic value. So, a person can buy money by the sale of goods or services, set this money aside, and re-enter the markets in a different location or in a different time, in the confidence that he will probably be able to buy a similar quantity of goods and services.
And I was thinking that a Dunyain is less or not inclined to be taken in by the illusion of expectation. To them the objects we use as money would be a node in a web of causations they might cause in world born. Never mind how the above text mentions history, and the Dunyain are a people without history.

Further, sure, we can think about money as just an arbitrary object - but here's the social inertia, the social current that sweep us back in. ARE we going to treat the money object that way? Or are we going to treat it that everyone else is going to treat those objects as being a worthy exchange for their goods, and so we let ourselves get swept back into that fervour and start treating those money objects as a worthy exchange for our labour? Wait, no, we don't think of them as a worthy exchange for our labour - instead we let ourselves get swept back into the current of believing the money objects we currently hold ARE worth someone else trading their goods for our money objects.

Basically a religious fervor.

I think it's interesting to be able to see oneself being swept into that. Anyone else get that when they pause and consider the money in their wallet as just a papery or plasticy object? As much as that candy wrapper being blown along in the wind down the street is a papery or plasticy object? But then the feeling of being swept back in...?

RPG Discussion / Programming is lonely...
« on: November 28, 2013, 12:23:24 am »
In a way this fits the writing section more than anything.

Anyway, programming is a lonely affair - you can write alot of code, but have very little to show off. So you start up a thread to must the barest level of attention (the viewed count rising above 1!!1!)

I started this code awhile ago and thinking ahead, both wrote it out neatly and commented it, so when I came back I didn't have to decypher my past workings (seriously, you leave code for a few months, when you come back it's just alien to you). Having aquired a free, reliable host recently I'm working on it again. Recently added the code to give names of other players and the count of any sranc present (it's funny to name a database entry 'manorsranc') as well as the code to inflict an attack/damage. Right now it's not a combat system, just the ability to be able to deal damage to another character on the same tile as you. I'm probably going to take inspiration from Urban Dead. In that you have a flat percentage (can be boosted with skills) and deal a fixed amount of damage on a hit. Having played it a fair bit, I think it works out okay, but I'm open to toying with ideas anyone else has.

The whole thing is asyncronous play - you have action points and the other players/sranc remain in the world even when they are not playing. You use action points to move around and attack and can only attack so many times because of it.

Finally the screen shot involves no nifty CSS formatting of any kind. You have to use your imagination that I'll employ a free CSS sheet I found somewhere, latter on. I've used the amazing made up name of 'Two Too' as a secondary character that is present with the played character. If someone wants to rename the test character, feel free to post the new name.


RPG Discussion / Question on naming if making a browser game
« on: November 25, 2013, 10:52:28 pm »
Something that bugs me in online games are the totally genre breaking names people give their characters. Stuff like 'Killerdude' or 'Ilikepie' or even more inane names.

If making a text based browser game for the scalper era of the PON series, I was considering methods of managing this. One might be to have the user name as a nickname in the middle of it's full name, and either the full name is randomly generated, or the full name is built by the player using three letter fragments from a drop down menu, building a name from several of those. So surnames are traditionally first in the three seas, then the nickname in the middle in scare quotes, then the characters first name. Because stupid nicknames are more plausible.

With the three letter fragments I'd be looking for help having ones which sound right.

(on a side note, as an option, characters can face perma death - I'm thinking they all share the same 'nickname', but have new character names)

Pages: 1 [2] 3