Monday, November 17, 2008

Proposal: Fate Mk.

vetoed—Yoda

Adminned at 17 Nov 2008 18:01:55 UTC

I don’t know the etiquette about posting things again, but I figure you can’t have a legalistic game if people don’t repost their ideas with the appropriate ammendments so I’ll assume this isn’t spam.

Add a sub-rule “plan” to rule “Location”:

There exists a GNDT-tracked variable for each character entitled planning. Characters who possess a positive planning seek to save the protagonist from his fate whereas those with a negative value for this variable are intent upon ensuring that Jason Smith ceases to exist come December 25th. The planning variable of every character who is currently at the location is incremented by the setup value at 12:00am daily. At 11:59pm on December 25th, 2008 the plannings for all active players shall be summed to determine Jason’s fate. If the result is positive Jason lives and if it is negative he dies.

Initially, every character’s planing amounts to nothing. 

In 2.2 Locations change:

Each such entry may describe any pertinent information about such Location, such as it’s proximity to other Locations, any Objects or Characters located there, or any other information.

to:

Each such entry must include the setup value of the Location if it is non-zero and may describe any pertinent information about such Location, such as it’s proximity to other Locations, any Objects or Characters located there, or any other information.

Each location’s initial setup is determined by a roll of 2DICE6 - 7 by the narrator, with the exception of nowhere, which is zero.

 

 

 

Comments

spikebrennan:

11-17-2008 16:35:03 UTC

Not a proposal.

ovangle:

11-17-2008 16:39:16 UTC

why not a proposal?

ovangle:

11-17-2008 16:57:44 UTC

Now a proposal for

Yoda:

11-17-2008 17:00:48 UTC

against

1) At what point in time does each Character’s planning change?  At 0:00:00 each day or an indeterminant time sometime during the day?
2) “Planning is dependent only on setup and the correlation established in this ruling takes precedence over any other dynastic ruling with respect to planning.” seems unecessary.

You’ll get it eventually.  Everyone starts out like this, so don’t feel bad.

Yoda:

11-17-2008 17:01:26 UTC

Did you just change it to a proposal?

ovangle:

11-17-2008 17:14:08 UTC

yeah, I did when I edited it. I felt weird about the precedence part, but I got caught in a logic trap. I was going to remove it a number of times, but all I was left with was the first 5 or so sentences of my orignal proposal, with a few changes, so I felt like I hadn’t really done anything.

Don’t worry about me feeling bad. I know as much as Socrates, so all I can do is learn.

ovangle:

11-17-2008 17:21:30 UTC

I edited the proposal accordingly.

Yoda:

11-17-2008 18:01:31 UTC

If you edited it after a comment had been made, it is illegal.

veto Just to avoid any confusion.  I don’t want this to become a dispute over whether it was legal or not.