Board And Card Games

[BokaBB]

Are you here?
Have a good day!

BokaBB

[BokaBB]

Does Wikipedia says that the last card dealt must be publicly shown to all players?Add that if not.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

[BokaBB]

SOMEONE DEVOURED YOUR WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a good day!

BokaBB

[MathAndCode]

SOMEONE DEVOURED YOUR WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should someone make a separate thread for discussing Wikipedia so that we can use this thread as it was originally intended?

About the species game, what mechanism should be in place in order to create climactic variations? Should the climate vary on a fixed cycle, or should someone draw a climate card every so often?

[BokaBB]

SOMEONE DEVOURED YOUR WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should someone make a separate thread for discussing Wikipedia so that we can use this thread as it was originally intended?

About the species game, what mechanism should be in place in order to create climactic variations? Should the climate vary on a fixed cycle, or should someone draw a climate card every so often?

I think that is unnesecarry and that this thread perfectly suits the talk about our article.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Should someone make a separate thread for discussing Wikipedia so that we can use this thread as it was originally intended?

I think a separate thread for Wikipedia is kind of unnecessary, though we still shouldn't talk about it or at least stray of topic here.

About the species game, what mechanism should be in place in order to create climactic variations? Should the climate vary on a fixed cycle, or should someone draw a climate card every so often?

I think drawing a climate card along with a fixed cycle would be the best. Stuff like the tilt of a planet varying would change the intensity of seasons, but there could also be more or less random events like volcanic eruptions. Can you come up with more examples of events like these? I couldn't come up with any others. The day before yesterday I also started watching Biblaridion's series on speculative evolution on an Earth-like alien planet (I have so far only watched the first four videos), and I think we can use some of the stuff from those videos in this game. One thing I was thinking should be in this game is that it should be hard to come up with a trait from scratch, like you can't (quickly) evolve, say, bones if you are a soft-bodied creature. This actually happened in the series but I can't think of any other realistic example. You should be urged to change what you already have. On way we could implement this is making it unlikely for a creature to have a hard-to-evolve trait, but easy to change between similar ones. Another thing that the series has is sessile and radially symmetric animals, which I think could be interesting.

Edit: BokaBB, sorry, I didn't see your posts. We can talk about your game if you want.

[MathAndCode]

One thing I was thinking should be in this game is that it should be hard to come up with a trait from scratch, like you can't (quickly) evolve, say, bones if you are a soft-bodied creature. This actually happened in the series but I can't think of any other realistic example. You should be urged to change what you already have. On way we could implement this is making it unlikely for a creature to have a hard-to-evolve trait, but easy to change between similar ones. Another thing that the series has is sessile and radially symmetric animals, which I think could be interesting.

I agree with that, but we should decide how to implement it. One option is for certain mutations to have prerequisite mutations, e.g. a species can't gain a mutation for eyes that can sense direction unless it already has a mutation for rudimentary light-sensing cells. However, this could create a problem if players' hands get filled up with cards for mutations that they don't have the prerequisites for so that they can't use any of their cards. There are several possible solutions. One solution is to allow players to discard cards for which they lack more than one prerequisite, but I prefer the idea of having level up cards for various aspects (e.g. sight) that aren't specific to a single level.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I agree with that, but we should decide how to implement it. One option is for certain mutations to have prerequisite mutations, e.g. a species can't gain a mutation for eyes that can sense direction unless it already has a mutation for rudimentary light-sensing cells. However, this could create a problem if players' hands get filled up with cards for mutations that they don't have the prerequisites for so that they can't use any of their cards. There are several possible solutions. One solution is to allow players to discard cards for which they lack more than one prerequisite, but I prefer the idea of having level up cards for various aspects (e.g. sight) that aren't specific to a single level.

Level up cards sound good to me. We should use those for incremental adaptations like, as you said, sight. I think we should first come up with more basic adaptations so that we can can base others on them later. I was also already thinking of being able to discard any card actually. What do you think of radially symmetric and sessile animals?

[MathAndCode]

Level up cards sound good to me. We should use those for incremental adaptations like, as you said, sight. I think we should first come up with more basic adaptations so that we can can base others on them later. I was also already thinking of being able to discard any card actually. What do you think of radially symmetric and sessile animals?

I don't think that they present as many interesting opportunities, so it's probably not worth creating a bunch of mutations just for them.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I don't think that they present as many interesting opportunities, so it's probably not worth creating a bunch of mutations just for them.

I honestly think we should have them. A lack of movement does not necessarily mean they're not interesting. Just to name a few adaptations: stingers, armor, clumping, and limb retraction. Sessile animals are also motile in their larval stage. If you really don't want sessile aminals, then let's at least have radially symmetric ones. Starfish and jellyfish can move around after all.

[Moosey]

wait you're writing a wikipedia article about your game? P sure that doesn't merit an article

[Schiaparelliorbust]

wait you're writing a wikipedia article about your game? P sure that doesn't merit an article

I told him that it needs to be notable and known by more than just a few people.

[MathAndCode]

I honestly think we should have them. A lack of movement does not necessarily mean they're not interesting. Just to name a few adaptations: stingers, armor, clumping, and limb retraction. Sessile animals are also motile in their larval stage. If you really don't want sessile aminals, then let's at least have radially symmetric ones. Starfish and jellyfish can move around after all.

You have a point about being motile in their larval stage, but as the third video in the series shows, species for which that becomes a major part of their lives tend to switch from radial symmetry to bilateral symmetry. For sessile animals, it's more difficult to move to a new environment, so they would miss out if the other species move to land, for example.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

You have a point about being motile in their larval stage, but as the third video in the series shows, species for which that becomes a major part of their lives tend to switch from radial symmetry to bilateral symmetry. For sessile animals, it's more difficult to move to a new environment, so they would miss out if the other species move to land, for example.

First of all, I would like to thank you for watching the videos! I think they're supremely interesting. The videos say they might become motile but 1) the sessile ones don't go extinct and 2) on Earth there are sessile animals like barnacles which are arthropods (this was a huge surprise to me when I learned this), and arthropods are usually motile, so sessility was actually a desired trait in this case.
I was also thinking of a kind of drastic change for this game that you may or may not think is a good idea: getting rid of adaptation cards. I think that adaptations are too diverse to ever list themselves and their interactions. Instead of that you would write down the trait your animal has, and players would decide the outcome of certain events themselves. Maybe there could be someone like a dungeon master that could do this. What do you think of this?

[MathAndCode]

I was also thinking of a kind of drastic change for this game that you may or may not think is a good idea: getting rid of adaptation cards. I think that adaptations are too diverse to ever list themselves and their interactions. Instead of that you would write down the trait your animal has, and players would decide the outcome of certain events themselves. Maybe there could be someone like a dungeon master that could do this. What do you think of this?

What if we keep the adaptation cards, but about a quarter of the cards allow the player to propose his/her own adaption that isn't in any of the cards as long as the dungeon master approves? This way, the game has more structure without being too restrictive.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

What if we keep the adaptation cards, but about a quarter of the cards allow the player to propose his/her own adaption that isn't in any of the cards as long as the dungeon master approves? This way, the game has more structure without being too restrictive.

That seems like a good idea, but I think what is actually written on the adaptation cards should be written in normal language like "This animal can hold its breath for longer" instead of something more definite. This way players can come up with adaptational interactions on their own.

[MathAndCode]

That seems like a good idea, but I think what is actually written on the adaptation cards should be written in normal language like "This animal can hold its breath for longer" instead of something more definite. This way players can come up with adaptational interactions on their own.

That seems fine as long as it doesn't conflict with my idea of levels.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

That seems fine as long as it doesn't conflict with my idea of levels.

I don't see how it would conflict with that. You just improve the adaptation.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

One thing that we haven't resolved yet in this game is how to define "species" and whether or not we should allow a single player to have more than one of them. I think we should allow different species made by a single player. Do you have any suggestions for how we define "species" (or more specifically how do we determine whether two creatures can sexually reproduce or not)? I have some, but I would like to hear yours' first.

[MathAndCode]

One thing that we haven't resolved yet in this game is how to define "species" and whether or not we should allow a single player to have more than one of them. I think we should allow different species made by a single player. Do you have any suggestions for how we define "species" (or more specifically how do we determine whether two creatures can sexually reproduce or not)? I have some, but I would like to hear yours' first.

I don't like the idea of having one player to have different species, as it would cause gameplay to go more slowly, and it could lead to players doing things such as making a particular prey species hard to hunt except by the same player's predator species. I mentioned the possibility of allopatric speciation earlier, but I don't think that that will be a major issue because players will not get to make more mutations total, so they will have incentive to maintain gene flow, and even if divergence into separate species results, the two species would occupy the same or similar niches if later allowed to interact, so players could not cheat by reserving one species as a food source for the other.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I don't like the idea of having one player to have different species, as it would cause gameplay to go more slowly, and it could lead to players doing things such as making a particular prey species hard to hunt except by the same player's predator species. I mentioned the possibility of allopatric speciation earlier, but I don't think that that will be a major issue because players will not get to make more mutations total, so they will have incentive to maintain gene flow, and even if divergence into separate species results, the two species would occupy the same or similar niches if later allowed to interact, so players could not cheat by reserving one species as a food source for the other.

I get your point, and I would like to bypass the problems you mentioned, but in your solution it seems to me that you're saying that you should be able to reproduce even if they've been separated for some time and have different traits, which seems wrong and unrealistic to me. Maybe there could be a rule saying that any member of a species that can reproduce has to reproduce, so that its traits would spread throughout the population, but a player could always matchmake certain members. Could you also please show the post where you mentioned allopatric speciation please?

[MathAndCode]

I get your point, and I would like to bypass the problems you mentioned, but in your solution it seems to me that you're saying that you should be able to reproduce even if they've been separated for some time and have different traits, which seems wrong and unrealistic to me.

Eventually, geographically isolated populations would separate into different species, but it takes a long time. If gene flow resumes before then, the species can simply merge (although there will sometimes be other factors, primarily behavioral, that can hinder this, effectively reducing the amount of time for which the species must be separated). Also, even a small amount of gene flow can prevent speciation.

Could you also please show the post where you mentioned allopatric speciation please?

I didn't mention it by name, but the post is here.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Eventually, geographically isolated populations would separate into different species, but it takes a long time. If gene flow resumes before then, the species can simply merge (although there will sometimes be other factors, primarily behavioral, that can hinder this, effectively reducing the amount of time for which the species must be separated). Also, even a small amount of gene flow can prevent speciation.

It's just that there must be a way for there to be mandatory gene flow and another thing is that the adaptations in this game are more discreet, though we could probably have most if not all major adaptations be incremental as you suggested. You could have members with weaker or closer to the current version(s) of an adaptation be able to reproduce with others.

[MathAndCode]

It's just that there must be a way for there to be mandatory gene flow and another thing is that the adaptations in this game are more discreet, though we could probably have most if not all major adaptations be incremental as you suggested. You could have members with weaker or closer to the current version(s) of an adaptation be able to reproduce with others.

I think that you are overestimating how quickly this would happen. It takes millions of years for enough genetic differences to accumulate to prevent interbreeding. One or two mutations aren't going to cause problems.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I think that you are overestimating how quickly this would happen. It takes millions of years for enough genetic differences to accumulate to prevent interbreeding. One or two mutations aren't going to cause problems.

Ok, I get your point, but there is a real possibility that two populations can speciate over time, especially if we are planning to have this game this game played continuously. There is also parapatric speciation, where speciation can happen while gene flow still happens. How do you plan on keeping reproduction random?