Sunday, March 15, 2009

Proposal: Popularity Contest

Passes 6-1-1. Cut and print. Darknight

Adminned at 17 Mar 2009 08:14:02 UTC

A new rule to make this game a little more than a rack-up-bodies, random contest:

Best in Show Votes
Once an Act has been declared Finished by the Producer, all Scripters who contributed to that Act may vote on which Scene they thought was the best and which was the worst. Scripters may only vote for one Scripter per category, and may not vote for themselves. Once the votes have reached 50% of the contributing Scripters, the Producer may declare voting to be closed. The Scripter (or Scripters if there is a tie) who receive the most votes for Best Scene gain 1 point of Popularity (tracked on the GNDT). The Scripter (or Scripters if there is a tie) who receive the most votes for Worst Scene lose 1 point of Popularity (tracked on the GNDT).

And also:

Popularity
Popularity is statistic tracked on GNDT, represented by any integer (may be negative).
Scripters must add their Popularity (regardless of whether or not it is negative) to their roll for number of Bodies in a Scene. This can result in 0 Bodies, and the player should narrate it as such. This cannot, however, result in a negative amount of Bodies.

What do you all think?
If I have mis-formatted or phrased anything, do not hesistate to tell me.
I’m still learning the possibilities of this interface, and any feedback would be great!

Comments

Rodlen:

03-15-2009 03:18:32 UTC

against Well, it needs to say that it creates these new rules.

Rodlen:

03-15-2009 03:21:32 UTC

Rules are good-sounding, though.  However, the word “must” in your second rule is flavour text, and has no effect.

Darknight:

03-15-2009 04:15:49 UTC

As Rodlen, either CAPPING or bolding a word is the way to go if a word needs added emphisis

against

Igthorn:

03-15-2009 07:21:08 UTC

against

Kevan:

03-15-2009 09:48:21 UTC

The proposal says “A new rule:”.

And the sentence still makes legal sense even with the italic word treated as invisible (by Glossary 3.1, which maybe it’s time to repeal).

for

Influenza:

03-15-2009 10:38:22 UTC

for I agree with kevan, it’s not really an ambiguous way of stating a proposal to say ‘a new rule : blah’ and popularity would add more things to consider, and perhaps the overall winning clause won’t be ‘big number of bodies’

Darknight:

03-15-2009 17:09:55 UTC

for COV per Kevan. I always thought you had to say “create a new rule called….” though lol. I’m gonna assume that the bold words are the rule titles.

Klisz:

03-15-2009 19:02:54 UTC

for

Rodlen:

03-15-2009 23:21:36 UTC

for RODLAN DUZ COVEE.

SingularByte:

03-16-2009 13:22:43 UTC

imperial