On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bryan Stout <bryan.stout@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As I think about new cards I want to design for Fluxx, I realize that I am > missing some vocabulary. I want terms to refer to: In addition to terms such as Bryan described, back in November, this morning I was realizing that there are actually a body of such information that exists. It is information that does not appear on an actual card, but which is a part of the game. If Andy had not already made use of the term Meta Rule, that is what I would call such things. And in fact, perhaps they really are meta rules. For instance, how do you describe Fluxx to someone new. Some people, perhaps, just toss down a deck and start playing, telling the new person to watch and learn. Others, however, attempt to describe Fluxx. And the terms and information that are used are a part of the "meta rules" of Fluxx ... rules about the rules. For instance, when I am describing things, I generally mention the types of cards that are available, and what they are for. I mention that one takes the deck, deals out a certain number of cards, and that the next step is to follow the printed rules on the game. I mention that one is attempting to have keepers which match the goals. There are several of these types of things. These are, technically, meta rules (and in fact, variations on the basics ... or new meta rules ... such as double agenda, creepers, etc. already exist as exceptions/alternatives/extensions to the basic meta rules of Fluxx). Thinking about Fluxx in this manner provides possibility of extending game play by creating new meta rule cards to alter the game farther. Just a thought on a cold Ohio morning... -- Tcl - The glue of a new generation. http://wiki.tcl.tk/ Larry W. Virden http://www.purl.org/net/lvirden/ http://www.xanga.com/lvirden/ Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.