Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Proposal: The Wages of Death

Reached quorum, 10 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 02 Apr 2009 14:28:00 UTC

Replace “Bodies” with “Royalties” throughout the ruleset (except in Rule 2.6, which uses the word in a different sense). Add a sentence after the first one in Rule 2.1:-

This represents the amount of money the Scripter is due to receive when the film is complete.

Changing “Bodies” into “Royalties” so that we’ve got a spendable resource to play with (and so that we can stop confusingly using the term “bodies” in two completely different senses).

Comments

Josh:

03-31-2009 14:45:39 UTC

imperial It makes a bit of a mess of the theme, and I still have a lack of imagination when it comes to plotting mechanics for which a spendable resource would actually be useful.

Klisz:

03-31-2009 15:16:34 UTC

imperial  per Josh.

Kevan:

03-31-2009 15:20:59 UTC

I don’t think it dents the theme too much - what is the current “Bodies” GNDT stat, beyond a simple total of all the body rolls we’ve made?

If we assume that “Bodies” represents the amount of influence the writer has had on the script so far, then we can extrapolate it to reflect what cut of the royalties they can expect to get, and we can start using it as a cash value. (And if a writer feels confident about their future earnings, they can spend some of that cash in advance - maybe give up X Royalties to pull strings and reroll a Stunt-Cast die, or introduce a cost for getting new Props made.)

Qwazukee:

03-31-2009 15:32:21 UTC

against

Influenza:

03-31-2009 15:34:00 UTC

imperial Hmm, well lets see what Our Glorious Leader has to say on the matter.

Josh:

03-31-2009 15:47:55 UTC

Kevan - the thematic concern is really rule 2.2. Changing the Acts’ Body Counts, Total Body Counts and Target Body Counts to Royalty Counts is a bit of an obfuscation, although admittedly it does make sense when talking about props and stunt casting. But if Scripters are now encouraged to write a script that reflects the Royalty Count they have rolled, then we can quite happily get to the end of the dynasty with nary a gruesome death to be seen.

ais523:

03-31-2009 15:56:26 UTC

against Both due to Josh’s concern, and because I don’t think we need a spendable.

Josh:

03-31-2009 16:01:03 UTC

Having said the above, the rule changes ‘Bodies’, not ‘Body’... a fine technicality, but possibly a plausible one.

Kevan:

03-31-2009 16:02:35 UTC

Oh, no, I’m intentionally only changing the word “Bodies”, which (apart from Rule 2.6) is only ever used to refer to the GNDT value. The ruleset would still have “Body Counts”.

The potential confusion between the two is one of the things that I want to fix, here.

Josh:

03-31-2009 16:06:23 UTC

Swish.

But yes, I now see the logic, and perhaps having the extra option will shake things up a little. COV:  for

Psychotipath:

03-31-2009 17:37:21 UTC

imperial

Devenger:

03-31-2009 18:01:51 UTC

for Okay, I think I can see a couple of amusing enough applications of this.

arthexis:

03-31-2009 19:41:02 UTC

for

Darknight:

04-01-2009 03:07:03 UTC

imperial

gill_smoke:

04-02-2009 13:25:35 UTC

for