We did get get a little bogged down in complex atomic actions there; that feels like the first dynasty in a while where players were repeatedly making mistakes with them and ending up locked as a result, and it makes sense that that would limit activity to all but the most confident players. I suggested in passing that we should maybe have shifted the burden of the complex creation actions onto the Computer (so that a Pathfinder could just post “I head out from the Acari Hills to see what I can find!” and the Computer would - maybe during the next Sunrise - do the rolls and add the stuff), and in retrospect should probably have actually proposed that. Will certainly bear that in mind for future dynasties.

Was a bit of a shame to see the endgame coming down to pure timing, that Derrick could still have made it to the Haniver for an equally valid win, if they’d reacted quickly enough.

I feel like the complex generation of landscape slowed us down: it was difficult to roll up new terrain. It was also somewhat difficult to update the gamestate after we’d done so.

We also took too long to add gamestate asymetry. Once we had bases, we saw a flurry of activity, but we underestimated it and the game ended soon afterwards.

I like the idea of resetting games after they’re figured out, but that’s not really in our culture in the moment. I feel like as soon as we had an interesting game with dynamic play it ended.

Maybe for the next dynasty we formalise that - have an early proposal that’s basically “three weeks from now, blank all gamestate values and initialise all players as if new”

Blanking is probably a bit much, as it would be saying that there wasn’t any point (beyond public-spirited playtesting) in taking game actions.

Might be interesting to play two acts, the first as regular BlogNomic and then a second with the same rules but blanked stats. And either have the final victory reflecting both acts somehow, or let the winner of the first carry a small bit of gamestate forward as a prize.

I’m cool with resetting for the sake of trying new stuff.

Gg everyone

I noticed the dynasty launch and was curious about the theme, but by the time I got myself together to look at what was happening, everyone’s pent-up proposal energy seemed to have created a blizzard that I couldn’t quite see through. I’m planning on unidling for this dynasty; a two-act structure sounds interesting.

“Blanking [...] would be saying that there wasn’t any point (beyond public-spirited playtesting) in taking game actions”
underestimates the use in already being familiar with the game actions. I would take the game actions so that I could hit the ground running after the reset.

Personally, the thing which was missing for a good amount of time (and substantially a good reason why I fell behind in keeping up with the dynasty) was the absence of a goal for which to aim.  I’m tempted to say that I’d probably more inclined to like dynasties with predetermined win conditions (which can still change as the dynasty evolve), but I have no experience with them while many of you do and have highlighted some problems with them, so idk.

A two-act structure would actually help with that, I think, Bais—players often shy from voting in victory conditions in the first couple of weeks, but if the condition only triggers after some kind of reset, it would make consensus on goals more feasible.