Thursday, January 21, 2010

Proposal: A third delivery of Roles

Vetoed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 24 Jan 2010 08:06:59 UTC

Part 1:
Remove “Laborer” from the list of valid Roles in the ruleset.

Part 2:
Add the following text to “Functions of Roles” (with the entry for each Role in that subrule, including the new ones added by operation of this proposal, being alphabetized for easy reference):

Athlete.  The Athlete has a remarkable facility to recover from injury.  If at any time the Athlete becomes Wounded, the Athlete may change his state from Wounded to Asleep.

Gangster.  The Gangster is a notorious break-in artist.  The Gangster, if not Dormant, may ignore any prohibition on entering a particular Room that would otherwise be applicable as a result of a Crisis or the exercise of another Role’s special power by operation of the “Functions of Roles” subrule.

Jeweler.  The Jeweler has an eye for small detail.  If the Jeweler is in a room in which a Dark Action occurred within the past 24 hours, then there is a 50% chance that the Executor will provide information to the Jeweler specifying the Dark Action that occurred in that room and the Guest who took the action; in that case, there is a 50% chance that the information provided by the Executor will be accurate and a 50% chance that the information will be false (with the Executor determining the outcomes of these percentages in whatever manner the Executor deems suitable).

Professor.  The Professor has made a career out of formulating and testing hypotheses.  As a weekly action, the Professor may contact the Executor by telegram, stating that he is theorizing, such telegram shall contain exactly one declarative statement with respect to no more than one Guest (such as “Guest X hast the lowest absolute relation to Lord Cartlesham”, or “Guest X performed the attack that wounded a guest in the Library last night”) to which the Executor shall privately reply by repeating the declarative statement and including either the word “TRUE” or “FALSE”.  Such TRUE or FALSE reply by the Executor shall be an accurate characterization of the truth or falsity of the statement 66% of the time (with the Executor determining the outcome of this percentage in whatever manner the Executor deems suitable).

Curator.  The curator is a careful observer of his surroundings.  If the Curator is in a particular room when the lights were switched from on to off, and is in that same room the next time the lights are switched from off to on, the Executor shall privately notify the Curator whether any Dark Actions took place in that room while the lights were off (whether or not any Noise was heard).  The Executor shall, with respect to any such Dark Action, also provide information to the Curator as to the identity of the Guest whom the Curator suspects of having taken that Dark Action; in that case, there is a 50% chance that the information provided by the Executor will be accurate and a 50% chance that the information will be false.

Inventor.  The Inventor is a genius capable of constructing useful items.  As a weekly action, the Inventor may contact the Executor by private telegram, stating that he is inventing, and stating with as much specificity as possible the attributes of the invention that he wishes to create.  Following the receipt of that private telegram, the Executor shall determine whether or not the attempt to invent was successful (with success occurring on 50% of invention attempts, and the Executor determining the outcome of this percentage in whatever manner the Executor deems suitable.  If the Executor determines that the invention attempt was successful, the Executor shall post a blog post specifying the gamestate effects of the existence of the invention and, if applicable, the rooms and/or Guests (or the manner of determining the rooms and or Guests) experience such gamestate effects; such gamestate effects shall be determined by the Executor in his sole and absolute discretion, with the Executor being encouraged to refer to the Inventor’s telegram for guidance.  No Invention may change or alter the effect of any Core Rule.

Housewife.  The Housewife has a voracious appetite for gossip. Once every 48 hours, the Housewife may contact the Executor by private telegram, stating that she is gossiping. Folowing the receipt of that private telegram, the Executor must privately truthfully reply to the Housewife, naming two Guests specified by the Executor in the Executor’s discretion and stating which of them has the lower degree of relation to Lord Cartlesham.

Chauffeur.  The Chauffeur’s job is personal transportation.  As a daily action, and whether or not the lights are on, if the Chauffeur is in “Room A” and is not prohibited from voluntarily moving to “Room B”, the Chauffeur may move from Room A to Room B and may simultaneously change the location of exactly one other Guest who is in Room A to Room B (even if that other Guest is Dormant or is otherwise prohibited from moving to Room B).

Musician.  The Musician has uncommonly keen hearing.  If the Musician is in a particular Room and a Dark Action occurs in or with respect to that Room that may make a noise, then the Musician hears that noise; additionally, in that event, the Executor shall provide information to the Musician as to what Guest the Musician suspects of having taken the Dark Action that made that noise; this information is accurate 50% of the time (with the Executor determining the outcome of this percentage in whatever manner the Executor deems suitable).

Spiritualist.  The Spiritualist has the astonishing facility to speak with the dead.  If the Spiritualist is in a room with a dead Guest and the lights are out, the Spiritualist may, once every 96 hours, notify the Executor that the Spiritualist is conducting a seance, whereupon: (1) the Executor shall privately notify the dead Guest that the Spiritualist is trying to contact him from beyond the veil, and requesting that the dead Guest deliver a message to notify the Executor what information, if any, the dead Guest chooses to deliver to the Spiritualist.  The Executor may, in his discretion, provide to the dead Guest true or false information regarding the circumstances of the dead Guest’s death, which the dead Guest may incorporate or omit from the dead Guest’s reply to the Spiritualist, as he chooses,  (2) the Executor shall, promptly after receiving from the dead Guest’s message to the Spiritualist, privately communicate the same to the Spiritualist.

Part 3: If more than half of the EVCs on this Proposal contain the phrase “Reinvent the inventor”, then delete the “Inventor” paragraph from Part 2.

 

This still leaves Diplomat, Secretary, Architect, Stonemason, Mechanic, Novelist and Bodyguard as not having defined powers, but I believe it covers the balance of the Roles that are actually held by Guests as of the time this Proposal is made.

Also, I am not going to try to pack it into this proposal, but this may be a good time to consider a mechanic analogous to this one from the prior Werewolf dynasty.

Comments

Keba:

21-01-2010 20:54:58 UTC

for Reinvent the inventor

Ornithopter:

21-01-2010 23:07:23 UTC

for Reinvent the inventor

Better to give then inventor a specific pre-made invention than to allow them to invent whatever with no ability for the executor to veto. (A machine gun! Nightvision goggles! A clone of myself, who will be killed instead of me! A helmet that lets me read minds, revealing the murderers’ identities!)

Roujo: he/him

21-01-2010 23:39:02 UTC

for Reinventing the inventor, per Ornithopter

spikebrennan:

21-01-2010 23:40:13 UTC

re-read the inventor text: basically, the inventor _suggests_ the powers of the invention, but it is solely up to the executor to determine what they actually are (meaning that it would be up to Kevan to tone down the powers so as not to break the dynasty, or to balance the powers vis-a-vis other powers).

Roujo: he/him

21-01-2010 23:42:04 UTC

for Oops! RoV, reinvent the inventor. (I didn’t want a “Typo or not typo” war start over my EVC if it ended up really close)

redtara: they/them

21-01-2010 23:45:53 UTC

for

Hix:

22-01-2010 00:15:37 UTC

against Let’s hope the Professor doesn’t know any coercive logic.

“The TRUE or FALSE reply to this to this telegram will be an accurate representation of the truth or falsity of this statement if and only if X” will always get the professor the useful answer to X.

Better yet is “The TRUE or FALSE reply to this telegram will be an accurate representation of the truth or falsity of this statement if and only if: the answer to this telegram is FALSE or the Executor performs action Y”

Ornithopter:

22-01-2010 00:27:40 UTC

Yeah, it’s not quite as bad as I thought, but not enough to change my vote. Plus, I’m kind of soured on giving the Executor “sole and absolute discretion” over anything after the last dynasty ended with a call by Darknight that even Kevan admitted was questionable, but which couldn’t actually be questioned.

Ornithopter:

22-01-2010 00:44:38 UTC

Hix: Ignoring a coin toss not being a 66% chance, isn’t that statement equivalent to “If and only if Hix is the murder, a coin you flip will come up heads” and thus false regardless of whether you’re the murderer?

Klisz:

22-01-2010 01:40:00 UTC

for  @Hix: Uh… I can’t comprehend that logic. If he gives me the incorrect answer, he can choose whatever answer I want without me knowing, right?

Klisz:

22-01-2010 01:50:03 UTC

*whatever answer he wants. Sorry.

There:

22-01-2010 02:48:24 UTC

for

tecslicer:

22-01-2010 02:50:24 UTC

imperial

Ornithopter:

22-01-2010 02:52:55 UTC

I’ve been googling around about coercive logic a bit, and I don’t think it can deal with the answer randomly being a lie 1/3 of the time. Does anyone have a counterexample?

spikebrennan:

22-01-2010 03:08:56 UTC

I had never heard of coercive logic- fascinating. Does it require a situation where the party who is answering “true” or “false” can be compelled to take an action (beyond answering the statement), which isn’t the case here?

I knew I could count on Hix to come up with a creative way to exploit this. Thank Buddha that you’re just the jeweler.

redtara: they/them

22-01-2010 03:17:52 UTC

What’s coercive logic?

Nausved:

22-01-2010 03:31:15 UTC

What if the inventor’s inventions were limited to any one function granted to one of the other Roles?

Of course, this would still put the inventor at a distinct advantage over the other Roles, as she could change her ability weekly, while everyone else is stuck with a single ability. (Not that *I* mind, of course, but I figure the rest of you might.)

As an alternative, what if the inventor’s inventions were limited to any one function of any Role with the “Dead” status? For example, if the physician dies, the inventor could invent a healing elixir—so that the ability to heal Wounded guests doesn’t disappear from the game.

Ornithopter:

22-01-2010 03:41:41 UTC

Nausved pointed out to me earlier that coercive logic doesn’t need to be able to deal with the random falsehood, it just needs to ask the same question repeatedly until it gets a true answer. “You will tell me this is false or reveal the identities of both murderers” gets the identity of the murderers sooner or later. Or would, if the Executor were allowed to do anything other than say TRUE and FALSE.

As is, it just falls into the same grey area as “This statement is false”, which isn’t really an exploit, which I guess means the Executor’s forced to count that statement toward the 34% whose answers don’t accurately characterize their truth. Vaguely exploitable, but it can be patched faster than a weekly action can be repeated.

Klisz:

22-01-2010 04:05:08 UTC

@Ienpw: Essentially, forcing someone to either lie or perform some action using a simple question. An example is “Will you either answer no to this question or give me five bucks?” In this case, if he says yes and doesn’t give you five bucks, he’s lying because he did neither of answering no to the question or giving you five bucks. If he says no, he’s lying because he said no. The only way for him to tell the truth is to say yes and give you five bucks.

digibomber:

22-01-2010 05:17:37 UTC

against

TrumanCapote:

22-01-2010 05:34:13 UTC

against

Oh, what the hell.

for

Darknight: he/him

22-01-2010 06:01:27 UTC

for Reinvent the inventor

ais523:

22-01-2010 11:03:20 UTC

@spikebrennan: coercive logic only works in a situation where someone is compelled to truthfully declare something either true or false. It fails if they’re allowed to lie or ignore the question. (Unfortunately, it can succeed if they’re /forced/ to either lie or tell the truth.)

Uvthenfuv:

22-01-2010 17:31:29 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

23-01-2010 10:21:58 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

23-01-2010 19:12:25 UTC

against reinvent the inventor

Kevan: he/him

23-01-2010 19:38:07 UTC

veto Will justify momentarily, since this has timed out.

Kevan: he/him

23-01-2010 20:16:17 UTC

So, a hesitant veto, a bit late, but not too late.

The Jeweler ability is a bit broken in that I’d have to spam him for a solid 24 hours with 50% truth and 50% lies, after any Dark Action. And although this is a theme-heavy dynasty, potential rules-lawyering from (or on behalf of) the Professor in the window between this proposal enacting and the patch enacting could end the dynasty, which would be a shame.

(Trivially, the Jeweler and Curator abilities would be a bit easier to process - and remember - if they were tweaked to trigger upon the Dark Action itself. Without changing them too much, the Jeweler could have a double chance of hearing each Dark Action sound and be given a maybe-incorrect name for the perpetrator; the Curator could hear all Dark Actions, if he hasn’t moved since the lights went out, and also get a maybe-incorrect name.)