unforum

[Graved]

Aaand a bunch of new members at ETQ.
On the other topic: we really should change the name of the thread, because it's definitely a trailhead.

[Domarrow]

Chatangura

[Zobot257]

Corrected the thread name as requested.

Hm... as for finding the missing pieces, I don't think we CAN yet... I think that Emily's supposed to, or we're supposed to guide her there, or something.

This is just a hunch, but what if the actions we pick on the board game squares somehow affect Emily's behavior in the blog?

[ironnikki]

I've submitted my name and email address to the ETQ website, and am currently awaiting a reply. This looks interesting!

[Graved]

[Zobot257]

Um, I think our goal is to be able to get a "game piece" successfully across the board. Can we do that yet?

If we can't we should be using our squares to enable it.

[FuzzyGoodle]

My impression is that Emily is our only game piece. Which is weird, because a large part of Senet is the jumping and landing on other pieces. It does seems like the board that we have created will somehow affect her movements. However, there is, as of yet, no clear mechanism for rolling or anything else that would make this an actual game of Senet (at least, not by any ruleset I've found).

Given what we know so far, though, that leaves us with a few possibilities for how this works:

1. Emily started off the board and was put on the board by a roll of 1 (a roll by whom or what, I am not sure). Presumably, she would then be affected by the action of square 1, which is to move forward 1 space, which is what she did. That would leave her on square 2, awaiting another roll.

2. Emily started in square 1 and moved to square 2 with a roll of 1. Again, she would presumably be affected by the action of the square, moving her to square 4 ("Move two squares to the right"), although this hasn't happened yet. So that would put her in square 4, again awaiting a roll of some sort.

3. There is no rolling. So it wouldn't matter how she got to square 1. Just her being there would push her to square 2, which would push her to square 4, which would push her to square 14, which currently does not have a move.

But we can't confirm any of those yet, so it doesn't really matter.

[OhWhatProvidence]

Got this email, titled "8x8"

[Domarrow]

There is also an update in the instructions for game 1:

[Graved]

1) How much pawns for each player?
2) How many players can play in one session?
3) 4 d2 sticks or d6?
4) What happens when pawns of different players stand on the same square?
5) Can two pawns of one player stay at the same square (I'm pretty sure they can)?
6) How many times the effects can be activated in one move (one or two for more unpredictable race)?
7) Players start at square 1 or at square 1 and square 30 (tables-style - hard to balance)?
When a player can put a new pawn on the board?
9) How do players decide who makes the first move?
10) When a player wins?

[Zobot257]

Gah, I don't know if I have the time for a wiki...

What Providence, did you get that email from the email address we know of already, or a new one? That would be useful to know.

And it sounds like our next objective is to make rules for this game and how to play it... fascinating. I'll look more into this tonight, but does anyone have any ideas for a fun way to play?

[Domarrow]

I also got the same email.

I found this piece of info in EUW's blog:

[OhWhatProvidence]

Yea, the infoSPLATenterthequest.com address. Same as the last few emails. (otherwise I would've just assumed it's for another of the games or something)

I'm busy with my own stuff too... I can try to help where I can, with the rules and the wiki, but I'm pretty researched out for this story I'm writing...

[theroddd]

[Zobot257]

Alright. So our next goal is to amass a history of Senet and design rules for it.

I see two possibilities here:

A) We've GOT a listed copy of rules for the game already, and looking over them, they look pretty compatible with the rules for different squares that we have already. We could submit these rules and play the game like what we've designed.

B) Alternately, we could try making something up out of whole cloth. Anyone here an aspiring game designer? :3 It might be fun to do the thing where we make up our own rules as to how to move, if you can "attack" other pieces, and so forth. I could see movement by rolling dice, landing on the same square as someone else means the person that WAS on that square has to go back to start, and so forth, but if we make up rules whole cloth we should really all come to a consensus about what they're going to be. This is a game for all of us, after all; it doesn't feel right to let any one person make the decision here.

As for the history, we basically have the same two options there: Either come up with a fictional one and see how the PM(s) respond to that, or submit as factual a one as possible.

It looks like they're either gauging our creativity or our ability to research things, or both here.

I'd like to see what other people think, so let's put it to a vote, maybe? Should we create a game or use existing stuff?[/url]