Friday, December 11, 2009

Proposal: Clichean Wishes

s/k’ed—Wakukee

Adminned at 12 Dec 2009 13:35:40 UTC

If the Rule “Wish Fulfillment” exists, this Proposal does nothing.

Add a new rule, titled “Wishing”:

Each Adventurer has a number of Wishes, tracked in the GNDT. Each Adventurer initially has 3 Wishes. As a weekly action, an Adventurer may spend 1 Wish to Make a Wish, unless this would reduce their Wishes to below 0. When an Adventurer Makes a Wish, they shall make a post to the blog, with a subject beginning with “[Wish]”; the post shall contain exactly one statement (the Wish). The Djinn shall then interpet the Wish, and the Gamestate shall then be altered such that the Wish (according to the Djinn’s interpretation) is true, so long as it meets all of the following criteria:
* It does not change the Ruleset.
* It does not change the number of Wishes an Adventurer has.
* It does not cause an Adventurer to become Idle.
* It does not change who the Djinn is.
* It does not cause an Adventurer to achieve victory.

If an Adventurer feels that the Djinn unfairly interpreted their Wish, they may raise a Call for Judgment.

 

There. No more vetoed wishes, except for a few basic taboos to prevent “I wish I was the Djinn”, “I wish I achieve victory”, “I wish I had 10000 Wishes”, etc.

Comments

ais523:

12-11-2009 17:07:30 UTC

against Massively abusable. That sort of safeguard is nothing in a nomic; I can think of a huge number of potential ways around it. Vetoed wishes are really quite important, unless you want this dynasty to last less than a week (as is restricting it to things the Djinn is capable of doing).

Kevan:

12-11-2009 17:17:58 UTC

against I don’t know if “according to the Djinn’s interpretation” is meant to be a capricious evil-genie veto (“Why yes, Darth, I’ll gladly give you 500 points! In this game of Scrabble!”). If it’s not, this is massively abusable - there’s plenty of critically damageable gamestate beyond “being idle” and “who the Djinn is”.

ais523:

12-11-2009 17:19:51 UTC

(/me considers changing vote to for because /me can see how to win instantly under the resulting ruleset…)

ais523:

12-11-2009 17:20:30 UTC

umm, whoops, that /was/ a CoV against Re-CoV.

ais523:

12-11-2009 17:21:09 UTC

OTOH, I like the idea of a capricious evil-genie veto, it’s traditional. (There are ways to work around that sort of thing though.) However, I only like it in addition to an arbitrary veto.

Josh:

12-11-2009 17:28:37 UTC

against

Oze:

12-11-2009 17:40:49 UTC

against

SingularByte:

12-11-2009 17:47:44 UTC

against

NoOneImportant:

12-11-2009 17:49:43 UTC

against

“As a weekly action, an Adventurer may spend 1 Wish to Make a Wish”


” It does not change the number of Wishes an Adventurer has.”

Klisz:

12-11-2009 18:25:21 UTC

against  s/k

spikebrennan:

12-11-2009 18:25:38 UTC

against

Hix:

12-11-2009 19:47:12 UTC

against Kicking a self-killed horse here.

Nausved:

12-11-2009 20:10:40 UTC

“It does not cause an Adventurer to achieve victory.”

I’m also a bit troubled by this wording. Couldn’t this be interpreted to mean that anybody who makes a wish that is at all beneficial to themselves (that is, it could indirectly cause them to achieve victory) is now ineligible to win?

Ienpw III:

12-11-2009 21:04:15 UTC

Yep, you’re right.

Bucky:

12-11-2009 21:07:27 UTC

against  due to the ability to channel a wish into a dictatorship indirectly via a scammy CfJ.