Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alain Colcer]

now that is a gold nugget of info, i was wondering how mindclash "illegal" version could be ........just blow the mind of the enemy head........yummy

[Qansh]

Hey, all.

I came up with a word-game a number of years ago that I call "Dueling Concepts". It might work as a Mind Clash kind of game.

It goes like this.

Each opponent thinks of a secret word, which can, however, be shared with the audience. Bets can be laid.

The person who goes first says a word (but not his secret word). The second person must then say a word that the first person will accept as being related to the first (it's simply a matter of "seeing" the connection). The first person can completely reject what is offered and cannot be questioned on this (though the audience might shout "idiot" or what-not). If what is offered by the second person is rejected, then he simply withdraws the word (which could have been his secret word) and tries again. When he says a word that the other person accepts, then the turn passes. It continues back and forth like this.

The game is won in one of three ways: A) Say your secret word and have it accepted; B) Get your opponent to say your secret word as his word (generally by having moved the subject matter that direction); Or C) Guess your opponent's secret word (which costs one turn).

It's fun for the audience to know the secret words and it requires will and finesse on the part of the players, who have to try to move the subject matter their way while also trying to keep their word secret (or have the other stumble into saying it). Words with multiple meanings (which are also best for secret words) can whip the subject matter into new territories in an instant, lending to interest.

Anyway, the game really works. I've played it quite a bit with family and friends, so give it a try if you're of the mind to.

P.S. It just occurred to me that you could have live betting if it took place in a different chat-room from the contest (so as not to give the opponents, who wouldn't have that access, a heads-up). This would also keep the "arena" itself cleaner-looking.

P.P.S. (Had to log back in) This does have my imagination going. In the arena window you could also have a Moderator/Time-Keeper who sets the time when the opponents may speak (at which point bets are momentarily closed). You'd also have the "Illustrator" who translates the game into imaginative combat. For example, one player says "faucet", so the Illustrator says A giant faucet appears on the stage and water begins to pour out of it. The second player says "wrench" and the Illustrator says A wrench bears down on the faucet and begins to unscrew it from its base. And so on (I don't know if the Illustrator would chime in at the moment the word is said or after it is accepted). The Illustrator could add color to the game, then, by getting creative about how the "words" are attacking/stalking/avoiding each other. It could work, I guess... or just end up being silly.

A more complex version of it with the rules of Ars Magica.

Ha! Just read that (maybe I should have scanned this thread before jumping in). There's definitely some similarities there, though what they have is more elaborate. Also, it could be a plus that the opponents get to illustrate their own concepts.

[Logan Fyreite]

Hey, all.

I came up with a word-game a number of years ago that I call "Dueling Concepts". It might work as a Mind Clash kind of game.

It goes like this.

Each opponent thinks of a secret word, which can, however, be shared with the audience. Bets can be laid.

The person who goes first says a word (but not his secret word). The second person must then say a word that the first person will accept as being related to the first (it's simply a matter of "seeing" the connection). The first person can completely reject what is offered and cannot be questioned on this (though the audience might shout "idiot" or what-not). If what is offered by the second person is rejected, then he simply withdraws the word (which could have been his secret word) and tries again. When he says a word that the other person accepts, then the turn passes. It continues back and forth like this.

The game is won in one of three ways: A) Say your secret word and have it accepted; B) Get your opponent to say your secret word as his word (generally by having moved the subject matter that direction); Or C) Guess your opponent's secret word (which costs one turn).

It's fun for the audience to know the secret words and it requires will and finesse on the part of the players, who have to try to move the subject matter their way while also trying to keep their word secret (or have the other stumble into saying it). Words with multiple meanings (which are also best for secret words) can whip the subject matter into new territories in an instant, lending to interest.

Anyway, the game really works. I've played it quite a bit with family and friends, so give it a try if you're of the mind to.

P.S. It just occurred to me that you could have live betting if it took place in a different chat-room from the contest (so as not to give the opponents, who wouldn't have that access, a heads-up). This would also keep the "arena" itself cleaner-looking.

P.P.S. (Had to log back in) This does have my imagination going. In the arena window you could also have a Moderator/Time-Keeper who sets the time when the opponents may speak (at which point bets are momentarily closed). You'd also have the "Illustrator" who translates the game into imaginative combat. For example, one player says "faucet", so the Illustrator says A giant faucet appears on the stage and water begins to pour out of it. The second player says "wrench" and the Illustrator says A wrench bears down on the faucet and begins to unscrew it from its base. And so on (I don't know if the Illustrator would chime in at the moment the word is said or after it is accepted). The Illustrator could add color to the game, then, by getting creative about how the "words" are attacking/stalking/avoiding each other. It could work, I guess... or just end up being silly.

A more complex version of it with the rules of Ars Magica.

Ha! Just read that (maybe I should have scanned this thread before jumping in). There's definitely some similarities there, though what they have is more elaborate. Also, it could be a plus that the opponents get to illustrate their own concepts.

I think it would need to be modified a bit to prevent easy-cheating. IE if the crowd knows the secret words, then one simple alt, or friend in the crowd PM's you the word and it ruins the fun. But then on the other hand if the word is not shared with the audience, then their involvement and interest is very diminished unless they are trying to play along.

[Matariki Rain]

When it comes to Katrina's example [childhood molestation], I've never seen anyone writing that kind of material in their backstory, probably because it'd be in bad taste and not fun. I don't see any obvious reason why the same standards wouldn't apply even if we started playing mind clash with hellgremlin's recipe.

I note that just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it's not here in our RP scene. "The same standards applying" might well mean that certain scenes are invitation-only, or that your character can use the EVE equivalent of a PG-13 filter to screen the avatars he sees as representations of the gameplay.

[Qansh]

I think it would need to be modified a bit to prevent easy-cheating. IE if the crowd knows the secret words, then one simple alt, or friend in the crowd PM's you the word and it ruins the fun. But then on the other hand if the word is not shared with the audience, then their involvement and interest is very diminished unless they are trying to play along.

Ha! You're right. Shows you how trusting I am. I can't think of an easy work-around, I'm sorry to say.

[Misan]

I haven't had much time to sit down and think about the different suggestions, but I'll try and update this post (or reply later) with some thoughts on that.

Quickly because I want to get a feel for this: What kind of times/days are people that are interested available to come to events? First two have been early US TZ / late EU (21/23:00) but not certain those are ideal. Could use some input.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Late EU is good for me

[Matariki Rain]

Quickly because I want to get a feel for this: What kind of times/days are people that are interested available to come to events? First two have been early US TZ / late EU (21/23:00) but not certain those are ideal. Could use some input.

As a Kiwi, that time is possible on EVE-Fridays and EVE-Saturdays, but not otherwise.

I'd quite like to see one to decide whether I then want to say "please make times when I can attend".

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

Sooo... slight thread necro, but I have to ask... did this idea go down in flames?  Or go into hibernation?

[Matariki Rain]

Sooo... slight thread necro, but I have to ask... did this idea go down in flames?  Or go into hibernation?

It happened. I think it then went into hibernation (or I've missed hearing about follow-up matches).

It was actually rather interesting as a spectator sport with spectator commentary. Two channels: one where only the combatants and the host/referee have voice while the spectators watch, and another venue-type location where the spectators can chat about what they're seeing.

The main difficulty with growing it into a "league" is that the outcome depends on neither skill nor chance, but on the decision of one player to concede and play their way to a loss. Quite fun narrativist stuff with people you enjoy, but a bit too dependent on OOC roleplay style and personality to expand into a "sport" rather than a "performance".

[Kybernetes Moros]

Some degree of external control over the matches could assist in extending it to a league, but I'm not sure how that would work. The simplest route would be a 50-50 chance between "countering a move effectively" and "being forced to pull back / just defend against it / lose the game", but obviously that leads to a lack of any skill being involved in it. Some combination of trained skills, attribute distribution and the nature of the preceding move might help in weighting that element of chance towards one side or the other while still maintaining some degree of predictability?

Of course, the issue there is that "the nature of the preceding move" is the only criterion that incorporates skill or flair at the actual game, and is largely down to one person's subjective opinion -- the referee's, in likelihood.

[Saikoyu]

Well, expanding on Kyber's idea,


You could do it quasi table top RP style.  Pick one or two capsular stats that are relevant (Like charisma and intelligence) and for every X number of points, that character gets a die to roll and extras get just added on.  So, say player A has 14 points in charisma, and say three points is a die, the character would get 4 dice and a plus 2 for the left overs.  Then each player would privately tell the ref what they wanted to do for the next turn and the ref would roll the dice for them and tell them if A) they made what they wanted, and B) if it beat the other player's creation.  The ref could post what actually happened in the public channel, using the player descriptions.  The ref could also give a few extra points for detailed or creative mind forms, like a player would get extra points for saying, "I create a giant squid, its tentacles extending forward to grab my opponent in its suckered embrace." rather than, "I make a really big squid."

Then for the win lose stat, pick another capsuller stat, like willpower, and just take the number of points in it.  Every mind form you lose subtracts one from your willpower, and when you hit zero, you lose. 

That would keep some player skill in it, add some chance, and assuming you kept the same ref for all of the games, any biases would be constant. 

[Kybernetes Moros]

My idea was similar, but kept the referee ignorant of what a move would be until it had actually been made. It would have been something like:

- Player A makes such-and-such a move
- The biased coin is tossed to determine Player B's state of "progressing / regressing" (or hell, a third where it stays as a stalemate that turn).
- Player B progresses, for instance, make a move to encroach further on A.
- Coin toss for A.
- So on and so forth until the options eventually become "progress or lose", perhaps as determined by behind-the-scenes stamina / willpower / effort points?

That, aside from playing with an RNG and determining how far each way to skew the chances, this route in particular would be relatively quick to keep moving appeals to me, but I'm unsure of how well it would translate to actual use. I'd certainly be interested in discussing it further, though -- what little Mindclash I've RPed has been enjoyable.

[Misan]

Sooo... slight thread necro, but I have to ask... did this idea go down in flames?  Or go into hibernation?

As far as me working on it, hibernation. Super focused on real life stuff right now and really have no time to dedicate to EVE (or video games in general aside from the random LoL or SC2 match). Busy planning a move to Europe and starting a business. Misan is still subbed right now and the channels are in place, so if someone else wanted to run point on this they are more than welcome to go for it. I can give operator status on the ones I'm running, or they could be run somewhere else. vOv

[Misan]

So this isn't a back from the dead (yet) message or anything, though I suspect I'll be poking my head into EVE a little bit in the next month or so (figuring out how much time I can commit).

Can anyone tell me if there have been any mind clash activities going on since I left? I want to figure out activity levels, and ideally find a few noticeably interested people to help keep things going. I doubt I'll have time to run events with any regularity, but I'd like to continue to push this idea forward in some way.