Nick;
Thanks Kassen, perfect.
>
> Nomic is the one I was looking for here.
>
Happy to be of service. There is a treasure-trove of analogies for
livecoding there and from this perspective the whole idea of "lifecoding"
makes a lot of sense. I think you would enjoy that book, BTW.
> I've played Fluxx and I don't believe you can write entirely new rules in
> that, you can only swap within the existing cards (well, unless you decide
> arbitrarily to do so...),
>
Not arbitrarily so... I do have blank cards with Fluxx backs and a marker
right here. I believe that creating the right cards and having a lot of luck
with the order they turn up in could turn two person Fluxx into chess
without any rules ever being broken. most of these cards would be very much
unlike the established Fluxx cards but I see no real issue with that. We
might create a card that says you have to create a new card and shuffle it
in. Actually; I think I will.
We could classify games according to a sort of "Turing completeness" based
on whether they could -theoretically- turn into any other game without rules
being broken in between. We could -of course- also imagine games that state
in their rules that the game can't be played if it didn't start out as being
the game it is currently. This wouldn't cause any issues if we'd add it to
the rule-set of chess but we could debate whether it would affect the
"completeness" of Nomic, seeing as how Nomic might change how language is
perceived, much like law and contracts can.
> but following your links lots of relevant material around it seems:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_mutable_rules
> and I like the blank cards.
>
>
Me too. I'd like to try that one once. I also still want "Fridge poetry"
magnets with punctuation and UGen names.
> Your 'add a rule' game is similar to the lecture demo I sometimes run of
> passing out live coding cards which say 'pass this card on after modifying
> this instruction' ; )
>
>
It's a good game. Relatedly it struck me that this list doesn't actually
have any official rules that I'm aware of. This strikes me as both very
logical (we're all quite aware of Goedel's work) and dangerously paradoxical
(aren't we supposed to like writing rules?) at the same time.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Sun Nov 08 2009 - 04:18:08 GMT