Wouldn’t the repeal of all dynastic rules deplayerise Agora, assuming it’s a player? I think it’s probably better if everyone proposes on the theme they want, and we let the rulesets fight it out.

The concept’s not bad, although I suspect the optimal strategy for winning the dynasty will be a cross-faction alliance, as usual when there are factions.

Oh right. Okay then I can exclude the rule that makes agora a player, as well as set agoras faction to agora and make it the leader?

The dynastic repeal was because the previous theme still seems to be in the rules and would interfere with gameplay.

Not sure about sacrificing the dynasty. As it’s unofficial guardian, I feel I should defend it at least.

Well if people are interested in playing it still then great, but the impression I got was that it stagnated.

I think I was the only person actually trying. Pretty much any Blognomicker could more or less trivially have got 3 Acclaim over the first 2 weeks. Only I did, and I wasn’t even paying much attention (just grinding on weekends, mostly).

Secondary idea to couple with this. Make imp votes follow faction leader over the emperor.

I like.

Perhaps we should just propose to this theme no matter what ends up happening, if the dynasty ends? It wouldn’t massively conflict with a meta, nor with an Agoran Dynasty, nor with a multi-faction Rodlenised idea.

I think ais got it right there. Personally, I wonder if having say 2 set factions might not be wiser. Or at least have a minimum number of players for a “real” faction. I could see this dissolving without that.

I like that idea. The key then is to come with actual gameplay behind it. Last time the faction game didn’t really have anything to play.

Thought about limiting factions but that makes things less,fluid and more forced. Allowing unlimited factions let’s you sort people around and new things to develop.

Could someone uniform me in GDNT?

Unidle stupid auto correct

I appreciate the support but we are discussing the idea and potential loopholes and phrasing issues.

My concern about limiting factions is that in the past these mechanisms have tended to lead to either everyone joining one group or creating their own. If any incentive exists which encourages players to lead a faction, it will almost always be easier to create your own. Counter incentives might exist, but if I’m wrong, and reasonable sized groups emerge naturally, it’s just redundant. I know this a bit more “social engineering” than some might like, I’m just trying to look for potential scams.

The way I see it working is the eventual win condition is to be the leader of a larger faction.  Obviously make it more than that. Perhaps instead of largest its the faction with the most points amongst its members.

A good way is to limit factions without a hard upper limit is by a minimum size (say no fewer than x% of quorum to be considered a faction).  Something else good is factional powers/abilities that scale nonlinearly with faction size, yet top out so it’s not beneficial to form one big faction.

Limiting faction size with a minimum would make it impossible to make new factions.

Don’t forget to change the flavor keywords in the core rules.

The mechanism can be something like “When an ‘Post of Intent to Form a Faction’ receives X invited Arrows, the faction is formed with those voters.” (an “invited” arrow is one where the post lists a set of voters allowed to opt in).

That forces clutter to the Nomic page. I’d rather the factions be done through GDNT to prevent it from exploding.

Some adjustments. Changed leader to role and made it member or leader. Put in a rule to default unidled and new members to members of blognomic.