The player (by player means both an individual player and a group of players, as well as game characters/objects) controls the determining majority of game assets. The rules of interaction of two or more separate assets controlled by the player are prescribed (destruction, creation of an asset, receipt/loss of an asset by a player and a non-player, inclusion of one asset in another asset). To interact with assets, the player must select them and make a decision about their interaction, automation/a series of these interactions is possible if the player has selected assets and made a decision. These rules apply to the determining majority of game assets in the game. A separate set of player assets is considered to be a number that is relevant to the goal of the game (reducing to zero, getting a certain amount). The assets obtained as a result of interactions have their own rules of interaction. The total number of assets in the game is replenished with the help of game processes.
Ideas for a new genre (anonimous)
You have shared and/or private stuff you can use in the game to get some amount of particular stuff you're supposed to collect.
I'm not sure if I understand it. But it seems like a special kind of abstract strategy game to me. And what is new about it?
What would a simplified and more concrete instance of these "asset interactions" be like as a board game?
For example, many strategy games replenish troops by placing reinforcements in territories (typically with player decisions on quality, quantity and destination of the reinforcements and often with explicit actions to buy/build/convert them); the player controls where troops march and whether they fight; troops interact with enemy troops by killing each other; and being the only faction with troops in a territory is rewarded. Does this fit your abstract framework?
