Agenda
- Settle Existing Business
- Propose New Business
Agenda
In “Health of the King” replace
and a publicly tracked number named Old King’s Stress that can range from 5 to 10 inclusive and defaults to 5. If the Old King is Ill, as a Daily Communal Action, any Heir or the Old King should subtract the Old King’s Stress from the Old King’s Health and then set the Old King’s Stress to 5
with
, a publicly tracked number named Old King’s Stress that can range from 5 to 10 inclusive and defaults to 5, and a publicly tracked integer number called Build Up which defaults to 0. At the start of every day, the Build Up increases by 1. If the Old King is Ill and the Build Up is positive, any Heir or the Old King may as an Atomic Action reduce the Build Up by 1, subtract the Old King’s Stress from the Old King’s Health and then set the Old King’s Stress to 5
Increase the Old King’s health by 50.
Making the timer on the king’s health explicit rather than the “you should do this but you don’t have to”
If “Expanding the Sphere of Influence” was not enacted, this Proposal has no effect.
In the rule “Tyngwall”, after the text “If it is selected to be an Endorse or Denegrate decree,” add the following text:
randomly select a Claim, then
Fixing the missing step for Endorse and Denegrate when randomly generating New Business, as discussed in https://blognomic.com/archive/expanding_the_sphere_of_influence
Reached quorum 6 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 15:38:58 UTC
Under the rule “Successors”, add the subrule titled “Assassination” as it was described in the proposal “Crime and Punishment”.
Additionally, if the proposal “Advanced Blueprints” has been enacted, add the following row to the table of Tracts in the rule “Estates”:
Gardens | The Palatine of this estate may reduce their stress by up to 4.
Idling out. I think this one got too mired in positional / ‘golden rule’ style play without enough care having been taken to build a game first, and I can’t find a way to care about winning a game that doesn’t seem to palpably exist yet.
Quorum unchanged.
To the rule “Tyngwall”, add:-
If an action is defined as a Court action, it is considered an atomic action of performing that action and then posting a comment to the most recent Meeting of the Tyngwall clearly identifying that action. An Heir may not perform a Court action if they have already performed that action since the most recent Meeting of the Tyngwall was posted or (in the case where it is a communal Court action) if any Heir has done so since that time. (If an Heir has performed a weekly action which was amended to a Court action, their performance of that action is also considered to have been a Court action.)
In “Estates”, replace “As a weekly atomic action for a given estate, the Palatine of that Estate may apply the function of each tract in that estate.” with:-
As a Court action, the Palatine may apply the function of each Tract in every Estate of which they are Palatine (in any order).
If that text didn’t exist because “Build Back Better” enacted, replace the paragraph beginning “As a weekly atomic action for a given estate that is not Destitute” with:-
As a Court action, the Palatine may apply the function of each Tract in every non-Destitute Estate of which they are Palatine (in any order).
Throughout the ruleset, replace the term “weekly communal action” with “communal Court action”, and “weekly action” with “Court action”.
We’re seeing a lot of weekly actions this dynasty, where if a player wants to know which Heirs still have an action up their sleeve, they have to open the wiki history and inspect everyone’s edits since the start of the week.
Fortuitously, we already have a place where we can note these things down and clearly see who’s performed them: the Tyngwall post that’s made at the start of every week.
This is a straight swap of terms for the most part, although Tract actions (tractions?) are merged into a single “activate all your Estates” rather than attempting to keep track of which Estates it has and hasn’t been applied to.
Create a rule called “Duchies”, with the following text:
There exists a kind of claim known as a Duchy, representing major titles held in the history of the kingdom that later became defunct. As an Act of Subterfuge, an Heir may take the Forge Claim atomic action, which has the following steps:
* Add a new Claim to the Claims in the rule Claims with a name that starts with “Duchy of “.
* Set the Type to Standard (Duchy), the Strength to 0, and the disown list to blank.
* Set the Condition to “Be the Palatine of the Estate which has a name of ‘X’”, replacing X with the name of any estate you are the Palatine of and which has a Prestige of 10 or greater. (Where that Estate name is held within that condition, it is not permitted to be interpreted as anything other than an Estate name.)
* Reduce your Reputation by 12.When a Duchy claim has an Heir added to its Disown list, if that Heir is the Palatine of the Estate named in its Condition, the Heir with the highest reputation becomes the Palatine of that Estate. (In the case of a tie, the age of those Heirs should act as a tie-breaker, with the older Heir getting the Estate. If that still results in a Tie, the Old King becomes the Palatine of that Estate.)
In the rule Claims, replace the line “a type (Minor, Irremediable, or Standard, defaulting to Standard)” with
a type (Minor, Irremediable, or Standard, defaulting to Standard), and optionally a Subtype of Duchy.
Add the following bullet point to the Appraise any Claim action in the rule Claims
* If the Claim is a Duchy and no Heirs currently hold that Claim, remove it from the subrules of Claims.
This is intended to be a potential win condition in the sense that it’s a claim that only one person can hold at any one time, making it the perfect target for influencing to be stronger. The downside of course is that you’re starting from a very low value, and it’s more vulnerable to being lost than most claims.
Add the following rows to the table of Tracts in the rule Estates:
Caretaker’s Hut | This estate gains 1 Prestige.
Markets | The Palatine of this estate may pay two of a given resource to earn one of a different resource.
Poorhouse | The Palatine of this estate gains 6 Reputation, and this estate loses 3 Prestige.
If the rule Assassination exists, add the following row to the table of Tracts in the rule Estates:
Gardens | The Palatine of this estate may reduce their stress by up to 4.
In “Estates” replace “publicly tracked positive integer prestige” with
publicly tracked integer Prestige. If an Estates Prestige is 0 or less, it is considered to be Destitute
and replace “As a weekly atomic action for a given estate” with
As a weekly atomic action for a given estate that is not Destitute
Add the following to “Influence”
To spend a Resource means for an Heir to remove one of that Resource from their Resources—an Heir cannot spend a resource they don’t have
Add the following to “Estates”
An Estate’s Size is Equal to the number of Tracts it has. The Palatine of an Estate may spend a number of different resources equal to that Estate’s Size to add a Tract of their choice to it (each resource spent must be different).
An Estate’s Upkeep is calculated as follows
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Size !! Upkeep
|-
| 0 || 0
|-
| 1 || 0
|-
| 2 || 1
|-
| 3 || 3
|-
| 4 || 6
|-
| 5 || 10
|}An Estate may never have more than 5 tracts
As a weekly communal action, any heir or the Old King may perform the following atomic action, known as Estate Upkeep
* Randomly remove one Tract from each Destitute Estate that has one or more Tracts
* Reduce the Prestige of every Estate by its Upkeep
Right now there is no way to increase your estate’s prestige, so adding multiple tracts is a death sentence but something similar to what Josh proposed here https://blognomic.com/archive/tempus_fugit4 could be added
This was an illegal proposal, as Desertfrog already had two proposals pending (Crime and Punishment and Promoting Democracy) at the time of its submission. A proposal may not be made if the proposer “already has 2 Proposals pending”. Flagged by Kevan.
Adminned at 07 Dec 2023 16:14:01 UTC
Add the following new Claims:
Lots of Resources
-standard
-strength: 16
-condition: have all the Resources named in the table in the rule “Influence”
Reputable
-minor
-strength: 60
-condition: have the highest Reputation among all Heirs
Close Relative
-irremediable
-strength: 8
-condition: you haven’t Nominated a Distant Successor for yourself during the current dynasty
All the different ways to change claims’ strengths feel a bit useless at the moment with just five claims. Besides, we probably don’t want Eldest to be the srongest claim.
Timed out, 2-0 with 1 DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 14:05:13 UTC
In the rule “Influence”, move the text starting with “At any time, an Heir may execute the Exert Influence action” and ending with “directly to do so.” into a subrule named “Influencing Claims”.
In the same rule, replace the text “a list of zero or more of the following named Resources, defaulting to all Resources named in the table below” with
a list of zero or more of each of the following named Resources, defaulting to one of each Resource named in the table below
In the same rule, in the subrule “Influencing Claims”, replace the text “Exert Influence” with “Influence Claim”.
In the same rule, add a new subrule named “Influencing the Tyngwall” with the following text:
At any time, an Heir may execute the Influence Tyngwall action, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Select a Resource that Heir has in their Resources.
* Select a Tyngwall that has been posted but in which its Meeting has not yet occurred.
* Respond to the selected Tyngwall proposing a single item of New Business that is not a Disown decree, unless the selected Resource has a Beneficial Aspect that matches one of the Features of that Heir, in which case the proposed New Business may be a Disown decree.
* Remove the selected Resource from that Heir’s Resources.
In the rule “Tyngwall” replace the text “Once, before midnight on the Wednesday of that week, the Old King should secretly randomly generate the following information and post it in a comment” with the following text:
As a Weekly Communal Action, before midnight on the Wednesday of that week, any Heir should perform the Tyngwall Agenda action as an atomic action with the steps below and post the results in a comment
In the same rule, replace the bulleted list after the text “due to take place that Sunday:” with the following bulleted list:
* Randomly select the type of decree for a piece of New Business
* If it is selected to be an Endorse or Denegrate decree, randomly select the Strength value using the valid range for that type.
* If it is selected to be Disown decree, randomly select a Claim, then randomly select an Heir who is not already on the Disown list for that Claim.
* Repeat the preceeding 3 steps one more time to generate a second piece of New Business.
If the Proposal “Detangling the Tyngwall” was not enacted, add the following bullet point to this same list as the first bullet point in the list:
* For each piece of Existing Business, randomly select the number of non-Heir Parliamentarians that support it, and then calculate the remaining number of non-Heir Parliamentarians that oppose it.
Adding another use for Resources, which also lets people participate a little more in the Tyngwall. Also putting Heirs in charge of generating the New Business and Existing Business random data.
Timed out 3 votes to 1 with 1 unresolved DEF. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 12:21:56 UTC
In the rule “Tyngwall”, replace “If an Heir meets the criteria to be a Parliamentarian then they are a Parliamentarian” with “If an Heir meets at least four of the criteria to be a Parlamentarian then they are a Parlamentarian”.
To the list of criteria to be a Parliamentarian, add “a Parliamentarian must not be married to a Prospect” and “a Parliamentarian must have the Popularity Resource”.
If the proposal “Detangling the Tyngwall” didn’t pass, replace “The Tyngwall is made up of 120 Parliamentarians” with “The Tyngwall is made up of 20 Parliamentarians”.
Making the Tyngwall more accessible so that being a parliamentarian is mostly a matter of choice rather than luck
Timed out, 4-1. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 04:30:39 UTC
Remove the following pieces of existing business from https://blognomic.com/archive/tyngwall_december_10_2023
Baron Gregory proposes Endorsing the Prestigious Estate Claim by 7.
Baron Proudfoot proposes Endorsing the Positive Reputation Claim by 4.
When https://blognomic.com/archive/point_of_order2 was resolved, it merely stipulated Vovix’s comment was posted before midnight Saturday December 2 2023.
However, at the point in time Vovix’s comment was made, the rules still said “Two pieces of New Business that those non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.”. This indicates that these were two pieces of new business that Gregory and Proudfoot will propose… at some point. But makes no indication that either of them actually proposed either piece of New Business.
As “The Existing Business of each Meeting of the Tyngwall is each item of New Business that was proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall.”, and neither of those were actually proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall but merely were suggested to be proposed, they should not be part of the new meeting’s list of existing business.
Timed out 3-1 with 1 DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 08 Dec 2023 04:45:31 UTC
Add the following to “Business”
Additionally, Existing Business has Status which can either be Wildly Unpopular, Unpopular, Somewhat Unpopular, Neutral, Somewhat Popular, Popular or Wildly Popular and by default is Neutral. When an Agenda is created, the Status for each piece of existing business should be randomly determined by whoever creates the Agenda.
remove “For each piece of Existing Business, how many non-Heir Parliamentarians support it and how many oppose it;” from “Tyngwall”
In “Tyngwall” replace “The Tyngwall is made up of 120 Parliamentarians. The criteria to be a Parliamentarian are as follows” with
The Tyngwall is made up of Parliamentarians. The criteria for an Heir to be a Parliamentarian are as follows:
In the same rule replace “any Heir who is also a Parliamentarian may respond to it indicating their support or opposition to any Existing Business” with
any Heir who is also a Parliamentarian may respond to it indicating their support (using a FOR voting icon) or opposition (using an AGAINST voting icon) to any Existing Business
In “Resolving a meeting” add
To determine if more Parliamentarians support or oppose a piece of Existing Business, calculate the number of Parliamentarians who are Heirs and expressed support to the piece of Existing Business in the meeting post. If the Existing Business is Somewhat Popular, add 1 to this total. If it is Popular, add 3 and if it is Wildy Popular Add 5. This is it’s Total Support. Then calculate the number of Parliamentarians who are Heirs and expressed opposition to the piece of Existing Business in the meeting post. If the Existing Business is Somewhat Unpopular, add 1 to this total. If it is Unpopular, add 3 and if it is Wildy Unpopular Add 5. This is it’s Total Opposition. Finally, compare the Total Support against the Total Opposition—if it is higher, more Parliamentarians support it. Otherwise, more Parliamentarians oppose it.
It was pointed out that right now, the status of parliament can change after the support threshold has been revealed. There also are concerns around non-heirs being able to actually meet the requirements to be a Parliamentarian
So thinking we should just remove the 120 threshold and instead just have it so that some issues need to overcome a 5 vote threshold, some 3, some 1, some are flat, and then others start off with 1/3/5 votes of support.
Popular, 7-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 21:36:24 UTC
In “Tyngwall”, replace “a Parliamentarian must have one of the Astute, Menacing, Ambitious, Charismatic, or Knavish Features” with:-
a Parliamentarian must have one or more of the Astute, Menacing, Ambitious, Charismatic, or Knavish Features
This was raised as an ambiguity in comments on Black Rod, but never clarified as to what interpretation we would actually play it under.
Timed out, 3-2. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 07 Dec 2023 16:18:49 UTC
Add a new subrule under the rule “Succession”, titled “Assassination”, with the following content:
Each Heir is either Relaxed or Vigilant, defaulting to Relaxed. This state is publicly tracked. As a daily action, a Heir may change their state from Relaxed to Vigilant or vice versa and increase their Stress by one. A Heir’s Stress is a publicly tracked number defaulting to zero. As a Daily Communal Action, a Heir or the Old King should Update Stress. When an Heir Updates Stress, they increase the Stress of each Vigilant Heir by one unless that Heir became Vigilant that day, and decrease the Stress of each Relaxed Heir by one unless that Heir became Relaxed that day.
As an Act of Subterfuge, a Heir may, as a weekly action, Assassinate, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
*Choose a number between 0 and 30, known as Concentration.
*Increase the Stress of the Heir performing this action by the value of Concentration.
*Choose a Heir who is not the Heir performing this action and is not Vigilant.
*Nominate a Successor for the targeted Heir, following the steps described under the rule “Successors” except for the step “Lose 4 Reputation”
*Lose 4 reputation
*Roll DICE30. If the result is greater than Concentration, the perpetrator is caught and executed, and they must Nominate a Successor for themselves and lose additional 4 reputation.
In the end of the rule “Transition of Power” add:
For the purposes of this rule, a Heir’s Claim’s strength is considered to be the value written for that Claim’s strength in the ruleset minus that Heir’s Stress.
Now there’s a cost as well as a possibility to get caught. I tried to make it so that it’s not always clear what is the best choice. I’m not completely sure about the numbers, though - all suggestions are welcome.
Reached quorum 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 07 Dec 2023 13:46:49 UTC
In the rule “Transition of Power”, after the text “When the Old King becomes Perished,”, add the following text:
if it has not yet been done this dynasty, any Heir or the Old King may perform the Legitimize atomic action, which is to perform the Appraise atomic action for every Claim. When the Legitimize action is complete,
In the same rule, add a subrule named “Health of the King” containing the following text:
There is a publicly tracked integer named Old King’s Health that defaults to 200 and a publicly tracked number named Old King’s Stress that can range from 5 to 10 inclusive and defaults to 5. If the Old King is Ill, as a Daily Communal Action, any Heir or the Old King should subtract the Old King’s Stress from the Old King’s Health and then set the Old King’s Stress to 5. If the Old King’s Health is 0 or less, the Old King is no longer Ill and becomes Perished.
If the Old King is Ill, any time an Heir gains or loses a Claim through any dynastic action, the Old King’s Stress should be increased by 1 for each Claim gained or lost as a result of completing that dynastic action, setting the Old King’s Stress to 10 if it would be increased beyond 10.
Here’s a bounded range for the dynasty to end, dependent somewhat on player activity through gain/loss of Claims. The worst case scenario is if at least 5 Claims are gained or lost every Day (unlikely), in which case the dynasty will end in 20 days. If no Claims are ever gained or lost (also unlikely), the dynasty will end in 40 days. More likely, Claims will be gained or lost in 1s and 2s with the occassional higher burst, resulting in closer to 30 days left in the dynasty after this would be enacted, but still adjustable through player action.
Thematically, this is the Old King worrying about who the next Heir will be and getting Stressed every time a Claim is gained or lost and the landscape among Heirs changes.
Timed out 4 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 07 Dec 2023 13:44:48 UTC
To “Attributes”, add a paragraph:-
An Heir whose Forename is Nameless may not take any dynastic actions outside of this rule and its subrules.
Add a subrule to “Claims” called “Patriarchy” with a Strength of 10, a Condition of “Have a Forename from the Masculine list” and the Minor status.
Maybe time to force players to choose a name. And adding a mild reason to choose a masculine one, since there’s no reason at all to right now.
Timed out, 3-2 with 2 DEFs. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 06 Dec 2023 22:40:55 UTC
Replace the first two paragraphs of “Claims” with:
Claims are defined as subrules of this rule. Claims should be contained between the templates {{Flair top|Claim box}} and {{Flair bottom}}; if one is not, any Heir may edit the ruleset to add the flair.
Each claim has
* a type (Minor, Irremediable, or Standard, defaulting to Standard)
* a nonnegative integer value for Strength
* one or more Conditions
* a disown listEach Heir may hold zero or more Claims; this is publicly tracked. An Heir whose name is on the Disown list for a Claim is never considered to meet that Claim’s conditions.
In “Marriage”, after the sentence that begins “Where a subrule of this rule begins with Prospect,” add
Prospects should be contained between the templates {{Flair top|Prospect box}} and {{Flair bottom}}; if one is not, any Heir may edit the ruleset to add the flair.
In “Tyngwall”, move the sentence “A Meeting of the Tyngwall takes place each Sunday at noon, to shape the future of the Kingdom.” to immediately before the sentence that begins “Each Meeting of the Tyngwall”. Add section headings to make subrules of “Tyngwall” as follows:
* Subrule “Parliamentarians”: From “The Tyngwall is made up of 120 Parliamentarians…” to “...Barons and landholders in the Kingdom.”
* Subrule “Meetings”: From “A Meeting of the Tyngwall takes place…” to “...non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.”
No gameplay changes, just some flair and copyedits to keep things organized. Examples of flairs and other changes can be seen here: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=User:Zack/Sandbox&oldid=25041
Timed out, 5-1 with 1 DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 06 Dec 2023 22:33:53 UTC
Add the following to “Estates”
Each Estate may have one or more Tracts. Each Tract has name which is flavor text and a function. As a weekly atomic action for a given estate, the Palatine of that Estate may apply the function of each tract in that estate. The name of each Tract belonging to each estate is publicly tracked.
The list of Tracts are in the table below
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Function
|-
| Bank || The Palatine of this estate gains a Wealth resource.
|-
| Meeting House || The Palatine of this estate gains an Alliances resource.
|-
| Fairgrounds || The Palatine of this estate gains a Popularity resource.
|-
| Church || The Palatine of this estate gains a Religion resource.
|-
| Barracks || The Palatine of this estate gains a Military resource.
|}If an Estate has no tracts, the Palatine of that Estate may add a Tract of their choice to it
Reached Quorum, 6-0 with 1 DEF and Old King voting FOR. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 23:09:16 UTC
In “Tyngwall” replace
Two pieces of New Business that those non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.
with
Two proposals for pieces of New Business, each proposed by a different non-Heir Parliamentarians.
and replace
Once, after midnight on the Wednesday and before midnight on the Saturday of that week
with
Once, before midnight on the Wednesday of that week
A couple of changes here
First, making it so that the items proposed by non-heirs are actually proposed
Second, instead of having Vovix have to get the items in the second half of the week (and cause weird timing issues that we’ve already run into) it makes far more sense to declare the information in the first half of the week so that people have time to respond to it. Right now, its best for Parliamentarian to wait and see what the non-heirs are doing. So we should either make that information revealed after all their choices have been made, or make sure everyone has a couple of days to respond, rather than just leaving this weird 12 hour window that isn’t great for people in certain timezones.
Timed out 5-4. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 06 Dec 2023 16:18:14 UTC
Treat Vovix’s comment on https://blognomic.com/archive/tyngwall_december_3_2023 as if it had been posted before midnight Saturday December 2 2023.
There was some misunderstanding by Vovix that they had to make the comment before midnight on Saturday in order to meet the requirements of the rules on Tyngwall. Given that Vovix is the Old King, is not an adversarial Emperor, and had no ulterior motive for this, there’s no reason to hold up the Tyngwall for a simple misunderstanding.
Withdrawn. Failed by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 23:07:50 UTC
In the rule “Transition of Power”, add a subrule named “Health of the King” containing the following text:
There is a publicly tracked integer named Old King’s Health that defaults to 600. If the Old King is Ill, as a Daily Communal Action, any Heir or the Old King should subtract 1 from the Old King’s Health and then randomly roll DICE600. If the result of this dice roll is larger than the Old King’s Health, the Old King is no longer Ill and becomes Perished.
If the proposal “Domesday” was enacted, in the rule “Transition of Power”, after the text “When the Old King becomes Perished,”, add the following text:
if it has not yet been done this dynasty, any Heir or the Old King may perform the Legitimize atomic action, which is to perform the Appraise atomic action for every Claim. When the Legitimize action is complete,
This gives on average about 25 days, and at most 50 days, until the Old King is Perished. It’s not as dramatic as Josh’s proposal, but the chance of the dynasty ending scales about the same over time and doesn’t rely on how many Heirs perform a specific action.
I also added some text to trigger Appraise for all Claims right after the Old King becomes Perished and before the winner is determined so that the gamestate is up-to-date at that point.
Reached Quorum 6-0 with 1 DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 23:06:02 UTC
In “Claims”, replace “all considered to have the Claim). If more than one Heir has any given Claim” with:-
all considered to have the Claim) and the Claim is considered to be Contested. If more than one Heir has any given Contested Claim
Per comments on Claimato, we don’t need to tiebreak-divide all the Claims, just the tied ones.
Timed out, 6-2. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 19:51:37 UTC
Add the following to the end of the rule Claims:
In the case of any Claim whose Criteria contains a superlative (eg ‘highest’, ‘lowest’, ‘longest’ etc) that superlate is considered non-exclusive (i.e. if two or more Heirs are tied for its Criteria they are all considered to have the Claim). If more than one Heir has any given Claim, the Strength of that Claim for the purposes of all other rules (excluding subrules to this rule) is considered to be its Strength (as listed in the subrules to this rule) divided by the number of Heirs who hold it, rounded down.
Timed out / withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 17:08:45 UTC
If the proposal “Shoving Aside” was enacted, this proposal has no effect.
Add a new subrule under the rule “Succession”, titled “Assassination”, with the following content:
As an Act of Subterfude, a Heir may, as an weekly action, Assassinate, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
*Choose a Heir who is not the Heir performing this action and is not Vigilant.
*Nominate a Successor for the targeted Heir, following the steps described under the rule “Successors”.Each Heir is either Relaxed or Vigilant, defaulting to Relaxed. This state is publicly tracked. As a daily action, a Heir may change their state from Relaxed to Vigilant or vise versa and increase their Stress by one. A Heir’s Stress is a publicly tracked number defaulting to zero. As a Daily Communal Action, an Heir may Update Stress. When an Heir Updates Stress, they increase the Stress of each Vigilant Heir by 1 unless that Heir became Vigilant that day, and decrease the Stress of each Relaxed Heir by 1 unless that Heir became Relaxed that day.
In the end of the rule “Transition of Power” add:
For the purposes of this rule, a Heir’s Claim’s strength is considered to be the value written for that Claim’s strength in the ruleset minus the Heir’s Stress.
A deterministic alternative for assassination
Timed out and failed, 1-4 with 2 unresolved DEFs. Josh
Adminned at 05 Dec 2023 16:36:08 UTC
Add the following as a new dynastic rule, called Time Passes, with the following text:
The Year is a publicly tracked integer, which starts at 687 and can never be decreased.
As a weekly action, each Heir may Pass Time, which is an Atomic Action with the following steps:
* Increase the Year by 5. Roll DICE2000; if the result is less than the current Year minus 687, set the Old King’s status to Perished.
* For each Heir, increase their Age by 5 and their Reputation by 1.
* For each Estate, decrease its Prestige by 1.
In the rule Attributes, add the following to the end of the first paragraph:
If an Heir’s Age is ever 75 or greater, the only dynastic action they can legally take is Nominating a Successor.
Add the following to the end of the rule Estates:
At any time, an Heir may spend one Resource to increase the Prestige of the Estate of which they are the Palatine by 3, or by 5 if they have the Beneficial Aspect associated with the spent Resource.
In the rule Successors, add the following to the end of the second bullet point:
and remove themselves from the Disown list of any Claims
Exceeded Quorum, 7-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 04 Dec 2023 20:54:22 UTC
If “Jumping Straight into Marriage” failed, this proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
Add the following subrules to Marriage:
Prospect True Love:
Description: Marrying for love can make you a better person, but alas, it’s considered political suicide.
Requirements: Since the most recent time you joined the dynasty or nominated a Successor (whichever is most recent), you must not have Married.
Benefit: For the purposes of all rules except “Features” and “Marriage” (and its subrules), you are considered to have no Flaws. You cannot perform Acts of Subterfuge.
Prospect Land Owner:
Description: They might not be noble, but they’re wealthy and respected.
Requirements: One of your Estates must have a Prestige which is higher than the median Estate Prestige.
Alimony: Set the Palatine of one of your Estates to the Old King. If you are the Palatine of an Estate, reduce its prestige by 3.
Gift: You may create an Estate by choosing a name for it, setting yourself to be the Palatine, and setting its prestige to DICE5.
Prospect Politician:
Description: There’s more than one way to get your say in the Tyngwall, though you may end up overshadowed.
Requirements:
Benefit: You are considered to be a Parliamentarian, irrespective of any criteria you do not meet. When you would gain reputation from gaining a Claim from the Appraise any Claim action, you instead gain 0 reputation.
Alimony: Your flaw becomes Impoverished, and you lose all Wealth from your resources.
If the proposal Domesday did not pass, remove “from the Appraise any Claim action” from the rule Prospect Politician.
If my other proposal fails, I’ll repropose this to work with whichever version of the marriage rules we end up with.
Reached Quorum, 6-1 with 1 DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 04 Dec 2023 20:47:32 UTC
If the proposal Arranged Marriage passed, this proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
Remove the text “If an Heir is Married to a Prospect, no other Heir may have their Spouse set to the name of that Prospect.” from the rule Marriage, “The list of Prospects is as follows:” from that rule, and append to that rule:
Marriage is a weekly action that can only be performed by an Heir whose Spouse is None. Divorce is a weekly action that can only be performed when an Heir has a Spouse other than None.
Where a subrule of this rule begins with Prospect, the remainder of that rule’s title is the Vocation of that prospect, and the body of that rule contains the rest of that Prospect’s details.
Everywhere in the rule Marriage that the word Name appears, replace it with Vocation.
In the rule Faithful, replace its Condition with:
Since the most recent time you joined the dynasty or nominated a Successor (whichever is most recent), you must not have performed the Divorce action.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 04 Dec 2023 20:23:16 UTC
In “Claims”, replace “An Heir who meets the conditions for a Claim is considered to have gained that claim until such a time as they no longer meet those conditions.” with:-
Each Heir may hold zero or more Claims; this is publicly tracked.
Replace “An Heir whose name is on the Disown list for a Claim may not gain, hold or otherwise have any right to that Claim.” with:-
An Heir whose name is on the Disown list for a Claim is never considered to meet that Claim’s conditions.
Add to the end of that rule:-
Any any time, an Heir or the Old King may Appraise any Claim, as an atomic action:
* Each Heir who meets the Claim’s conditions and doesn’t already hold that Claim begins to hold it, and (if it is a Standard Claim) gains 4 Reputation
* Each Heir who does not meet the Claim’s conditions and holds that Claim ceases to hold it, and (if it is a Standard or Irremediable Claim) loses 4 Reputation
Remove the paragraph beginning “Whenever an Heir begins meeting the conditions of” from the rule “Reputation”.
Remove all Claims from all Heirs. Then, for each Claim, each Heir who meets its conditions starts holding it.
Nailing down some of the foggier gamestate: currently if a player takes any gamestate-modifying action at all, they’re expected to check and make a call on whether that would modify the status of anybody’s Claim. If it does, they’re implicitly expected to update those players’ Reputations - but if they fail to, or wrongly decide that they don’t have to, the Reputation values are still considered platonically updated.
If two players disagree about whether an Heir holds a Claim, this disagreement is only noted implicitly in the wiki history of whether a Reputation value was altered at a particular moment in time (as may be the case here where Clucky removed Reputation from Petronilla for her estate no longer having the “highest” prestige - but the highest prestige is 10, and two Estates both have that high value).
This tracks all Claims, and makes the Reputation change part of the action of checking them.
Timed out, 1-2 with 2 DEFs. Failed by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 04 Dec 2023 18:23:58 UTC
In the rule “Marriage” add a subrule named “Intent to Marry” with the following text:
A blog post with the Story Post category where the title of the post begins with the text “Intent to Marry: ” followed by the name of a Prospect to which no Heir is Married is known as an Intent to Marry. A Propsect in an Intent to Marry may not be the Prospect in another Intent to Marry within a 96-hour period. A Dowry is a number associated with an Intent to Marry, with a default value of 0.
If an Heir with a Spouse set to None has not done so within the past 48 hours, they may make an Intent to Marry with the name of the Prospect they want to have as their Spouse, provided that they meet the Requirements of that Prospect. This Heir becomes the Intended for that Intent to Marry.
Within 48 hours after an Intent to Marry has been posted, any Heir whose Spouse is set to None and who meets the Requirements for the Prospect of that Intent to Marry may comment on that Intent to Marry with the text “I challenge this marriage with a Reputation of X”, where X is a positive number between 1 and that Heir’s Reputation at the time of the commment and X is larger than the current Dowry for that Intent to Marry. If such a comment is made, the Dowry for that Intent to Marry is set to X, and the Heir making this comment becomes the Intended for that Intent to Marry. Any comment meeting this requirement is known as a Challenge for that Intent to Marry.
If at least 48 hours have passed after an Intent to Marry has been posted, and it has not yet been done for that Intent to Marry, the Intended for that Intent to Marry should perform the Arranged Marriage action, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
* For each Heir posting at least one valid Challenge for that Intent to Marry, determine the highest value of Reputation mentioned among that Heir’s Challenges in that Intent to Marry and subtract this value from their Reputation.
* Perform the Marriage atomic action with the Prospect of that Intent to Marry as the Prospect being chosen for the Marriage atomic action.If the Intended for an Intent to Marry does not perform the Arranged Marriage action within 96 hours after the posting of that Intent to Marry, that Intended is known as a Cad. If it has not yet been done to a specific Cad in this dynasty, any Heir may perform the Punish Cad action by subtracting 4 from that Cad’s Reputation. A Cad may never post an Intent to Marry nor comment on an Intent to Marry.
If we start having Prospects with Benefits and Gifts, there will be an unfair advantage for Heirs who happen to be online to first notice the list of Prospects and can snag the most favourable one. This rule gives a 48-hour window for other Heirs to compete for the right to marry a particular Prospect if they so choose.
I also tried to make sure that an Heir can’t just block Prospects by creating a bunch of Intent to Marry posts or by not following through with the Marriage atomic action. They have 48 hours to act or they lose their right to marry.