|
The framework within which MN thrives is that of the Nomic, a game where
changing the rules is the object of play.
Nomics were invented by the lawyer and philosopher Peter Suber, but like
many my first introduction to the Nomic was through Douglas Hofstadter and his
Metamagical Themas (first a column in Scientific American, and
subsequently a compilation volume). People have played Nomics ever since they
were first described, but the internet seems uniquely suited to enable more
active and vigorous variants to be played (presumably because of the unique
combination of rapidity and written history) - there are several Net Nomics in
progress at any given time, thoroughly documented by the Nomic database and Nomic web
ring. The typical Nomic will have a ruleset, and each player will supply
Proposals to change that ruleset which everyone votes on.
MN is not, however, a typical Nomic.
Many Nomics contain sub-games within their rules, diversions and occupations
which help to keep interest in the game going or which provide a hook for newer
players (pure rules lawyership often being a dry and forbidding introduction). The
object of the Nomic itself, however, is usually either to win outright (the definition
of 'winning' being as mutable as the rest of the ruleset), or to 'scam' - that
is, to paralyse the game by tying the rules into such knots that play cannot
continue.
By contrast, in MN the sub-games are the point. The goal is to win playing
Mornington Crescent rather than to manipulate the rules to your own ends.
Clever reading of the rules to engineer a win is permitted, of course, but such
loopholes tend to be viewed in a similar light to the scams in other Nomics:
aberrations to be weeded out.
|
