Tuesday, December 05, 2023

Proposal: Anon And On

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.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 11:42:10 UTC

I’ll vote against this with the Masculine rider.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-12-2023 14:17:43 UTC

Agree with Josh. The push to take a Forename is fine. The preference towards Masculine has already been rejected before by many players before in other Proposals, so trying to suggest it again seems like a bad idea that will sink an otherwise good Proposal. The question of “do players want to play an historically-accurate Masculine-dominated medieval setting, or do they want a more modern gender-neutral setting regardless of historical accuracy” has already been answered.

Kevan: he/him

05-12-2023 14:43:15 UTC

If I’m reading the ruleset correctly, the only thing that name-gender does right now is determine whether an Heir can sit on the Tyngwall; feminine-named Heirs can, masculine-named Heirs cannot. There is zero reason to choose a masculine name.

I’d disagree that this change created a preference towards Masculine. It raises the question of whether it’s better to be on the Tyngwall or to possess a minor Claim, and I don’t think the answer is clear cut. I was aiming for a small but interesting decision when choosing a name, rather than the current level of no decision at all.

If we want to continue with a dynasty where all characters have feminine names and vote down any benefits for having a masculine name, that’s fine with me, but we may as well repeal the masculine names list.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 14:58:45 UTC

Having a feminine name currently seems to benefit exactly none of the people who have one, while this proposal would lead to it becoming a direct victory point deficit, so I’m not sure that I buy that explanation.

Kevan: he/him

05-12-2023 15:04:51 UTC

Aren’t Cristiana and Hawys both on the Tyngwall? Or do you not see being on the Tyngwall as being any kind of benefit?

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 15:08:09 UTC

Ambiguous whether they are or not - we haven’t established whether the “one” is exclusive or not re traits - and neither have done anything on the Tyngwall to test it. But no, I don’t see being on the Tyngwall as being any kind of benefit at the moment.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 15:09:11 UTC

(I would like to see it become a benefit at some point, which is another reason why I’d oppose this kind of BAMPAM min-maxing.)

Kevan: he/him

05-12-2023 15:34:48 UTC

I’ve raised a CfJ to clarify the Trait count, I hadn’t realised we were playing on under ambiguous rules.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 16:01:41 UTC

against per the above

Desertfrog:

05-12-2023 17:38:17 UTC

for I think a claim with strength 10 doesn’t make masculine names too dominant, especially if tyngwall gets more power in the future (which I might quite possibly propose if no one else does so first)

SingularByte: he/him

05-12-2023 17:45:22 UTC

It feels more BAMPAM to leave feminine as the exclusively best option, since being on the Tyngwall is going to improve in power over time. It’s better to have at least some marginal reason to pick masculine.
for

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2023 17:52:47 UTC

@Desertfrg Please do! It’ll be instructive to notice who goes for this and against that when it inevitably fails

JonathanDark: he/him

05-12-2023 18:52:44 UTC

against

I feel like voting for this then dictates how the Tyngwall will be required to become more powerful.

If the Tyngwall does become more powerful, there’s several remedies that could be made available for who controls it and how much power they could wield with it. Because we’re not sure what that will look like yet, preemptively deciding on the balancing rule option is premature.

Clucky: he/him

05-12-2023 19:39:33 UTC

for