Cosmonaupoly RPG

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Cosmonaupoly RPG

Rather than one person owning the board, the object is to resolve all conflicts (including with aliens) with all players still in the game, and turned from an other/them to a self/us, avoiding mutually assured destruction of all life/persons in the universe.

First way to start: All players start out as a negative enemy other/them on the brink of mutually assured destruction. If they choose foolishly, they remain an other/them. Whenever they choose to wisely resolve a conflict, they become a self/us, moving toward cosmonaupoly.

Second way to start: All players start out as a positive friend self/us in a state of cosmonaupoly. Whenever they choose to wisely resolve a conflict, they remain a self/us. If they choose foolishly, they become an other/them and move toward mutually assured destruction.

When you choose wisely, you protect the most, even a negative enemy other/them, and flip/keep all involved to a positive friend self/us — IF they consent (you have to ask the respective player & wisely respect their answer, or you foolishly turn everyone involved into an enemy).

When you choose foolishly, it always has embarrassing consequences that turn positive friends into (or keeps) negative enemies (frienemies) - whether or not either of you consent to that.

Some cards are self/us coping cog distorts/resists that may have a positive & negative side.

There are certain actions/phases you can only advance to when you have a complete set of virtues either as an individual or as a group — if you lose virtues (instead using a foolish vice), you regress/fixate back to a previous phase.

Other cards are the situation/conflict scenarios to be resolved — unique to each phase of advancement/regression.

Mutually assured destruction happens when you fail to advance by resolving conflict, and regress/fixate to all players being enemies whose vices work against each other.

Cosmonaupoly results when you avoid irresolvable conflicts and advance to all players being friends whose virtues work together. Whether that is where you started the game, or arrived to it, it’s “continued winning” to fixate there :slight_smile:

Even if you choose to play the game in a dark way, you learn something about how to do it the right way, and it opens your eyes to current events & how you are viewed by the players.

2

But between commonopoly and monopoly a third needs to arrive not singularly but to real singularity, asap - that is the thingy between a behaviorally iinduced / resigned and a more appropriately post ed.adolescent will full adaptative sign.

3

We need not wait to cultivate the cosmonaupoly on earth inside us.

4

The only game I want to play is not having to play a game to get what I want.

Anytime I’m invigorated by fresh morning rain smell…

I think of someone trapped in a sewer.

And I think to myself…. I feel a sort of gratitude that I’m not them, but I can feel them as well.

They’re miserable.

It’s called melancholia…. Happy - sad

5

Who is trapped in a sewer??? Let’s get them out, man!

6

Oh I get it. You’re pretending to be the Pharisee praying on a street corner?

By the way, I tidied up the original post, in case it was hard for anyone to read.

7

In this game everyone has friend or enemy potential (they start out neutral). There are also a group of beings outside of the friend vs enemy spectrum who reward you according to an algorithm you must learn in order to win the game. The algorithm supports: “If you turn enemies into friends, you win more than if you eliminate enemies. The only enemies it wins to eliminate are those who refuse to learn the algorithm and instead treat everyone as enemies with no potential to be turned into friends.” Obviously, those who refuse to learn the algorithm also have to know/recognize it in order to refuse it, and are losing the game on purpose.

Question, though. What sort of signifier would you give those who are losing the game on purpose? How would you know they had zero potential to be turned into friends?

Wouldn’t the fact that they are losing the game “on purpose” indicate there is something you can still do to salvage the situation?

Perhaps the algorithm knows what it would take. Perhaps that is a level of winning that very few reach.

8

Sounds like a poorly designed game. There’s really only 2 outcomes: either everyone wants to win, in which case you go around the board asking each individual player if they all want to win, they all say yes, and then… game over everyone wins, OR not everyone wants to win, you go around the board asking everyone and if one person decides to say no, game over everyone loses.

You know if the game is won or lost immediately, and one person can spoil it for everyone else. Not a fun game at all. Can we play balderdash instead?

9

Can everyone win? If not, can I automatically win?

10

Maybe call it “Heroes and Victims” and arm all the victims (including hustlers) with weapons like unconditional positive regard that turn them into actual (not just pretend) heroes.