h a l f b a k e r yNot so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I reckon that you could play draughts (checkers) on a trampoline - except with people as the pieces. The trampoline would have to be big, with specially marked spaces on it.
So, you have two teams, black versus white for example, represented by the colour of their t-shirts.
This would be pretty
trying team-work wise, seeing as that you'd have to agree on whose turn it is to jump. Everyone would be in squatting position, unless it was their turn to jump, in which case you jump over an opposing player leap-frog style. If a 'piece' deliberately trips over someone while they're having their turn, that piece immediately gets taken out.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I like it. I'm not sure about the board being a single trampoline. I think people would tend to fall towards the centre, although this could be part of the fun. If it was done as sixty-four square trampolines joined together, it would work better. I think these would have to be slotted together having been assembled separately, because it would then be easier to transport, in several nested stacks perhaps. |
|
| |
And who, [nineteenthly], has room for 64 square trampolines? This could be fun, because jumping would create a 'fallout' where other pieces are taken accidentally. The challenge would be to balance. |
|
| |
I'm keeping my bun and fishbone until you put more details in. |
|
| |
My bun/bone hinges solely on the quality of the smart-arsey comment. |
|
| |
Well [dbmag9] if each of the 64 trampolines was to be 1/64 the size of the whole trampoline there wouldn't be any problem. |
|
| |
How big is the original trampoline, [pooduck]? In my mind, 1/64th of a trampoline is not much. |
|
| |
I think you'd have to go with 64 small trampolines. If you had 64 average-weight people on one trampoline, even if it was strong enough to hold them all, you never be able to build up enough bounce for one person to jump, if all the others were standing still. Plus, if you did manage to get one person to jump, everyone else would probably lost their balance from the springs rebounding. |
|
| |
I'll bun it, though, because I love trampolining ! |
|
| |
Do Kings have to piggyback? |
|
| |
No no no! You don't need sixty-four trampolines at all! Remember, checkers is only played on half the squares. That's 32 trampolines. Twice as practical. You only need all sixty four for chess, and that doesn't involve very much jumping. |
|
| |
I'm very concerned about crowning a piece that gets all the way to the eighth rank. In many sets this is done by stacking two pieces on top of one another, and I seriously doubt I could safely jump across another player with a third player riding piggy back. |
|
| |
//Twice as practical// Twice as practical as completely impractical? What the hell is the result of that? |
|
| |
Maybe I should have said "half as impractical" instead, since this site is all about halves. |
|
| |
This game would also be much more practical in a reduced gravity environment such as a moonbase. See? Perhaps it's just too far ahead of its time. |
|
| |