Page 1 of 9

One-upmanship! Now with 20% more gay!

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:47 pm
by AHMETxRock
Woo hooo hoooooo! So I have a game to propose! It's a bit fun too. I've had many good laughs with people over this as we've tested our imaginations.

As the title suggests, the members attempt to do better than the others! How exactly do we do that? Well, there will be a scenario that we have started, one that is to be determined. What happens is that the next person needs to think of something that is better! These rules are very vague, with a few guidelines meant only to form an actual game and prevent people from ruining it.

Now, I know what you're thinking. What do you mean better? Frankly, there are so many problems with that. There are things that are merely matters of opinion, for one, such as brand choice or popular opinion. Some things are favorable in certain aspects and lacking in others. Well, I am perfectly aware of that! The point of the game is to find a hole in you opponent's tactics.

For example, let's start with a simple concept. Fire. I have fire. I want to keep this fire. You can simply throw water on my fire, and you have successfully thwarted my attempts to keep the fire. Or have you? The fun part of this game is how quickly the focus can shift. I can either attempt to prevent you from putting out my fire, or get revenge for your water throwing. I can grab a piece of firewood from the bonfire I built and flee with it, preventing you from completely drowning out my fire. I can kick up the mud and ashes into your face, something I would not have been able to do if you had not been a jerk and put out my fire. I could even do something fantastical or overly exxaggerated, like zap the water with a freeze-ray, or summoning a wall of sponges to defend my fire. Any of those choices would effectively cancelout YOUR want, which was satisfaction in putting out my fire. It becomes a game of revenge, defense, honor. ONE-UPMANSHIP!

There are rules to this game. I shall list them, explain a bit about them, and hope for some response. We can put a few more in for clarity and fairness, but the first four are basically set in stone, unless something really ruins it for you guys or something needs clarification or retouching or some other unexpected bull I didn't think you could pull.

1. You MUST reply to the MOST RECENT PROPER RESPONSE.- On an active forum game or discussion, we can get carried away and perhaps branch off. Perhaps you have an idea that is AWESOME, and you don't think anyone could think of a way around it. However, if it doesn't fit the sit(uation), then you must quit it. If I've said something, then LordRetard says something, you must respond to LR's post, not mine. Even if your suggestion might have been funnier or generally more intelligent, you cannot break the chain.

2. You CANNOT REPEAT a response EXACTLY.- For the example scenario, if you throw a bucket of water at my fire, and I grab a flaming branch and run, you cannot throw more buckets of water at me. If you're dumping water from a bucket, dumping it from a water bottle, from the inside of a super-soaker, or an aquarium would be the same. However, throwing an aquarium literally allowing the glass to shatter and the fish to die would be different, as would attempting to put it out with a super soaker. You can shoot someone with a gun and then a machine gun and then a bazooka and then the A bomb if you want. You cannot drop the A bomb then the H bomb, however. I know scientifically they're drastically different, but shut up.

3. Your suggestion must according to ANY OPINION be able to beat an aspect of the WANT.- In the example, my want was to keep the fire going. Your WANT was to put out my fire. You cannot make a fire to make me jealous, because I can simply ignore you, or not be jealous. However, I do not neccessarily need to approve of the WANT you disprove of. If I attempt to put your fire out with water, you can choose which WANT you want, to get revenge or preserve the fire longer. We can spend 100 posts simply attempting to protect the fire as if it was the key to keeping ourselves alive, then suddenly let the fire go out to get back at the person at a second's notice. The interesting part is when the scenario becomes extremely complicated, and there are many wants active. We can follow one path, then someone can ingeniously refer to a previous want to keep going. You don't need to agree with it, if it argueably works out. Check example below. Emphasis on the aspect part as well. Completely canceling out a want can get difficult depending on the situation, and there will always be some sort of aspect left to continue the one-upmanship.

4. No GOD-MODDING. PERIOD.- It won't work. Seriously. I honestly have had god thrown in a game we've played. It was jesus-god is better than jesus-atheism-going to hell for eternity-reincarnation-etc. If you can't god-mod with god, I don't know what you can god-mod with. I personally don't believe in reincarnation, but I can't object to it.

And there we go! First of all, I'd like to know who's interested. Second of all, I'd like to hear how you'd like to play. Do we do it turn based, or free for all? If it is turn based, then we could get points by successfully preventing the next person from being able to one-up you. If it is free for all, you would get points for integrity, originality, and hilarity or cleverness.

1. Odd numbered posts get this blue tint.
2. Even numbers get this red tint.
People will make suggestions in the purple color if it is not a response.
((I SHALL UTILIZE BOLDNESS AND CAPS LOCKS TO EXERT MY FINAL SAY ON RULES.))

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:51 pm
by AHMETxRock
Edminster wrote:Hooray for merging double-posts!

Dude. I did that purposely so that if we were going to have points or a guide for how the game went, it would be seperate, not as cluttered, and generally easier to read. If just 3 people show interest, after a week this could get very confusing.

Oldrac wrote:I think leaving room for additional clarification is a reasonable thing to do. Please don't kill me, Edminster.

Edminster wrote:I was not aware that it was possible to change the Poster when editing posts, Oldrac. How did you do that?


[

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:08 pm
by Lethal Interjection
The idea intrigues me, but I kind of feel that I need a bit of example more than what you listed. Like an actual back and forth.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:46 pm
by Cirtur
Well I liked it. SIGN me up under the name Quentin Blake.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:50 pm
by AHMETxRock
Basically I want to know if we should do it turn based or free for all. Perhaps only 2 posts a day, to limit it? Perhaps you must wait for at least 3 other people to make a comment before you reply? DEFINATELY NO REPLYING TO YOURSELF.

An example. I have created a bonfire. cheeze-wiz is jealous, so he fills a bucket of water and dumps it on my bonfire.
However, I notice him approaching with a bucket of water. I grab a branch that is lit and run, salvaging a piece.
cheeze-wiz notices me fleeing with the branch, so he throws water balloons at me.
I run inside a building and the balloons burst both harmlessly and menacingly against the brick building.
Cheeze-wiz ironicly sets the building on fire. Here, instead of attempting to rid the fire, he attempts to stop me from fleeing him.
I use a teleport spell to appear in china, far from cheeze-wiz's reach.

As for how this would play out, it would start like this.
1:
I have a bonfire. What you gonna do peaches?
2 Cheeze:
I fill a bucket of water and dump in on on the bonfire. Fire extinguished.
3 Me:
I grab a branch before you reach me and flee with a part of the bonfire. Viva la Bonfire.
4 Cheese:
I throw a bunch of water balloons at you, attempting to further put out the fire.
5 Me:
I run inside a nearby apartment complex and am shielded from your water-balloon barrage.
6 Cheese:
I set the building on fire. Like magic. now you can't run away anymore.
7 Me:
I cast a magic spell I totally always knew how to use to teleport to china, far away from here. Now you can't get me.

As you can see, it might resemble a text based game. It feels a bit like MSPAINTADVENTURES, but I totally thought this up two years ago before I ever knew of the site. Plus, I've never played it online, only with friends in person.
Pay close attention, and you'll see how each action is defined clearly. I dump a bucket of water on your bonfire. You can't get all that specific unless it is neccessary. You cannot say for a fact that your action had the desired consequence. If I say I run away, you can't so, no you didn't. You can say that the moment I began to run I fell into a pit you dug, thus nullifying my efforts to run. Get it?
Also, if we could number all the actions, that would be great. IF you look closely, you'll see the want is also clearly defined as well as the action. You must explain how your action truely is better. Even if it means winning the lottery, or the existance of god, or having the ability to teleport like magic, it must somehow fit.

So yeah. How do you think we should tackle this? This is a game you can take part in, get sick of, then jump back in later. So long as there are at least 2 people interested the game will keep going. In fact, with only one person interested, it can keep going as long as a different person takes up the mantle of interested person when the former interested person gives up. This will result in sluggish gameplay.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:42 pm
by mountainmage
It sounds to me as though eventually it will degenerate into "I kill you. You can't do anything else." and then the next guy says "I revive myself somehow." then "NUH UH YOU WERE DEAD" etc. etc.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:46 pm
by Edminster
And then there's the thought that crossed my mind a while ago in one of my more Dani-esque moods. You know, the one that has me one-upping Ahmet by locking this thread and sending it to New Outlandia.

But no, I shall not do that since I'm not going to participate.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:17 am
by LordRetard
It's not a terrible idea, it's just one that I have the sneaky suspicion about that it will not work.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:19 am
by cheez.wiz
Edminster wrote:And then there's the thought that crossed my mind a while ago in one of my more Dani-esque moods. You know, the one that has me one-upping Ahmet by locking this thread and sending it to New Outlandia.

But no, I shall not do that since I'm not going to participate.

But then he could get super mad, campaign to have super mod power too, and reinstate the thread, while making it mandatory, and impose an anti Edminster theme to it. :roll:

Wrong thread?

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:20 am
by Cirtur
It seems perhaps that someone here has ruined a good thing.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:21 am
by LordRetard
We're too busy making fun of people that we don't really ever learn from anything.

Whatever, I'm down for it.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:23 am
by AHMETxRock
So you guys get the idea? That's great. Although, I could also move back to the chitchat box. I'm king there, if you remember.
This game requires relevant posts. However, just respond first, then you can go on however much you'd like to.
Also, good things cannot be ruined. Only cheapened up until it doesn't seem preferable at the moment. Trust me. You'll get lonely enough one day to spring for that questionable hooker, coupon or no coupon.
So, no one has any requests on the rules? Just do what you want, and don't respond to your own?

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:27 am
by Cirtur
How 'bout editing to your own advantage? Is that allowed or is it considered unsporting?

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:55 am
by AHMETxRock
Oh, that's a good question. I think you should make your post self explainatory. This game, when spoken, has a time limit. Therefore you'd lose when you fail to give an acceptable response within a reasonable amount of time.
Typed online however, I think it's not very kind to fake your history. However, if you give a proper response, you could say all you wanted afterwards in the same post.

I would recommend not editing if you change it just so that your opponent's previous action is invalid. If it's an honest mistake, where you edit a post before someone replies, but submit it and it ruins the following person, the following person needs to edit theirs for it.

So you'd say you pull out your magic map and change the name of where you are to china so I would be there, then make fun of my stupid choice. Unless you make something really stupid, I don't think you should edit.
You should edit if you do something that spoils the game, such as god-modding. Winning isn't spoiling, however. If you were to derail the game's progress by not following the proper chain, accidental or purposefully, you pretty much NEED to edit your post. Editing would be best for clarification. You can put in more details, but being too specific could hurt you. For example, stating I teleport to a specific building in china would be great if it were a museum that I would animate the fossils possibly if it came up. However, your opponent could do something you don't expect. Leaving vagueness is best.

Re: One-upmanship!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:40 am
by Oldrac the Chitinous
1. If nobody objects, I'll start this party off with the following statement:

I've got an eyeball. It's just a disembodied eyeball sitting on a table. It's big, too. Big as your fist. I don't know how it got there, but I sure am fond of it.