Proposal: I wish for a Pony!
s/k’ed—Wakukee
Adminned at 12 Dec 2009 20:53:02 UTC
Create a new rule with the title “Possessions and Statuses”:
Each adventurer may have one posession and one status, tracked by the GNDT.
Any possession or status is valid, except for “Djinn”.
The effects that a possession or status has is listed in the possessions subrule or statuses subrule respectively. If a possession or status has no listed effect, then it is not considered to have one.
If an adventurer recieves a possession or status but already has one, then the new possession or status replaces the old one, except if the effect of a possession or status says otherwise.
An Adventurer may only obtain a possession or status as the ruleset or gamestate documents permit.
Create a subrule of “Possessions and Statuses” called “Possessions”, with the text:
None - An adventurer with this possession is not considered to have any possessions.
Create a subrule of “Possessions and Statuses” called “Statuses”, with the text:
None - An adventurer with this status is not considered to have a status.
All new players start with the possession “None”. All new players start with the status “None”.
Give the possession “None” and the status “None” to all players.
Where’s the fun in wishes if you can’t wish for infinite wealth or to turn someones skin blue?
Possessions are meant to be for things like infinite wealth while statuses are meant for magical effects like immortality.
In case you’re wondering, the words possessions and statuses are said 16 times each. Wait, make that 17.
Comments
Ienpw III:
Apathetic Lizardman:
Potential scam. The reason being that what if you wish someone physically unable to cast a wish? Such as turning them to stone? It would effectively lock them out of the dynasty until someone wishes them back to normal. While you were at it, you could wish that EVERYONE be turned to stone.
SingularByte:
If you wished someone into stone with this proposal, they could still do whatever they wanted. You’d need a different proposal to make being turned into stone have an effect. I’m guessing most people would vote against that effect, since it’s effectively the same as directly proposing someone can’t act.
ais523:
Josh:
Wakukee:
Hmm. Seems fairly fee and open, but I will have to change my rule so that wishing for a pony is actually legal. However, I think we need to define a better possession system.
Oze:
Klisz:
Scaramouche:
Kevan:
Apathetic Lizardman:
I suppose you are right about that SingularByte.
NoOneImportant:
digibomber:
spikebrennan:
tecslicer:
Hix:
NoOneImportant:
We have 12 for votes…
Ornithopter:
ais523:
@Ornithopter: “players” has an ordinary-language definition, which is the one that’s used (after all, it isn’t a keyword). You might as well claim that the rule claims because “the” isn’t defined.
Ornithopter:
Point taken. I move we add a definition of “the” to the glossary.
spikebrennan:
CoV: Give the Djinni what he wants
Bucky:
Strong
Qwazukee:
NoOneImportant:
Fair enough. If Wak’s got a better plan, I’m ready to hear it. CoV
Darknight:
TrumanCapote:
NoOneImportant:
Wak, veto this so we can cascade through the rest and get this dynasty going!!
Wakukee:
Nah I will save my vetos; I don’t want it to be cheapened when someone wishes for a veto.
Ornithopter:
Current Score:
FOR - 10
ais523
Apathetic Lizardman
digibomber
Ienpw III
Josh
Kevan
Oze
Scaramouche
SingularByte (proposer)
tecslicer
AGAINST - 4
Hix
Ornithopter
Truman Capote
Wakukee
DEFERENTIAL (against) - 6
Bucky
Darknight
Darth_Cliche
NoOneImportant
Qwazukee
spikebrennan
NO VOTE - 2
Dustin
Nausved
Ienpw III:
CoV
tecslicer:
CoV:
SingularByte:
I’m just going to s/k this to speed up the game.