Not a fan of my Mastermind getting a unilateral veto for any Heist Actions I would like to perform. Will most likely be against this

If that’s the only sticking point, I can remove that. I was concerned about the case where, when the Mastermind was ready to process Heist Actions, the situation had changed such that the Mastermind might need to resolve the actions in a different order.

It would be unfortunate if the Participants had planned for a scenario and then the other team made changes that require adjustment to the plan, but the Mastermind’s hands were tied by the requests. Maybe that’s an acceptable risk to putting in orders ahead of time?

Ok, I removed the bit about the Mastermind being able to change the ordering of Heist Actions.

I kept the part about the Mastermind being able to stop resolving further Heist Actions mainly because if one of them fails, processing the rest might not make any sense if they are dependent on each one passing (which is highly likely).

I also made sure that deferring further Heist Actions is only allowed when one of them fails, which is the scenario I mentioned above. A successful Heist Action should allow the next one to be processed immediately.

Is there any harm in having both as options? Sometimes you want to use the heist action quickly (such as granting roles, or doing setup steps) so that the cooldown comes faster, while other times you want a coordinated barrage.

Probably no harm. I removed the “failed” bit. We will see if that’s giving too much power to the Mastermind for Habanero’s liking.

I prefer this to the “No Pressure” solution.

per the concern I mentioned earlier. If I’m attempting to retire for victory (in some hypothetical future world where you need to retire to win), what’s stopping my Mastermind from simply refusing to resolve my Heist Action because they’re working with someone else? In general I don’t think letting the Mastermind decide whether your action goes through or not is a good idea. This also breaks stealing other people’s consciousnesses (why would a Mastermind on the opposing team process a heist action that’s against their interests?)

I’d support this in addition to, rather than replacing, normally done Heist Actions though.

@Habanero, would you accept a patch instead? I noticed you didn’t vote for “No Pressure” either, meaning that if it were up to you, there would be no solution to the issue that the current mechanics require competitive teams to all be online and ready to execute Heist Actions in near-realtime.

I think this is a real problem with the dynastic pacing that requires some sort of solution, otherwise burnout will lead to more people dropping. If not this, and not the 4-hour block between Heist Actions of “No Pressure”, then what?

I think the ideal solution would be this, plus you can still do heist actions normally if you want. I’m ok with No Pressure though and will probably vote for that one eventually

Also, I don’t think that leaving the normally done Heist Actions in place will be satisfactory. A competitive team will simply opt for that and perform their actions in real time, while the other team might try for Virtual Actions and get left behind. Once it’s determined to be the optimal solution, we’re back where we started with no improvement in the pacing.

Two points regarding your issues:

1) “what’s stopping my Mastermind from simply refusing to resolve my Heist Action” - there are other ways a Mastermind can mess with your ability to achieve victory already. The “Oversight” rule allowing a Mastermind to revert the Heist Action of someone on their Team has been there for quite some time now with no complaints. If you really want to shut down this possibility, there’s a lot more to do than vote this Proposal down.

2) No one has used Stealing Consciousness at all yet. If this is a mechanic that we truly want to keep viable, we could figure out a patch to let it continue working. I don’t think it’s a sufficient reason alone to reject the whole idea.

Right, but I can declare victory immediately after retiring and before the Mastermind in question gets a chance to revert my retirement. I just think a unilateral veto is really against all of our non-Mastermind interests here, and Oversight’s “a Mastermind can revert a one Heist Action from their team by spending their own Heist Action, and also you can stop them from doing this by corrupting the rule with a single Tools of the Trade of your own” is significantly less power in the hands of Masterminds than “a Mastermind may without limitation reject any and all Heist Actions from their team without even giving those actions a chance to see the light of day”.

The victory example and the consciousness stealing are just two out of infinitely many ways this could screw us over and consolidate power in the Masterminds (I understand they can’t win, but they still are active players in the dynastic game with interests of their own).

It feels like it might be a good idea to add something to the Coregency rule that the Masterminds should act in the best interests of their Team over their own interests, or something to that effect. Still doesn’t address the conscious stealing, and honestly I’d just get rid of that one since the route to Targets has not required it.

I think players should be able to a) act directly or b) act via either Mastermind as a virtual action (presumably with fixes so that players can only reorder their actions if they’re on the same team). That said, I think that can be done in a follow-up proposal (but due to the way the queue works, it doesn’t make much sense to write it until we get a good idea of whether this is passing or failing).

In favour of my own version. Trying to keep both sides happy won’t work since there’s legitimate upsides and downsides to immediate actions compared to delayed actions.

It seems more productive to just let people pick which one they prefer on a per-action basis, with delayed actions having significant enough upsides that it should be essentially seen as the default.

I do like your version, thank you for that. I think I’ll leave this up just in case people wind up liking it more, but I have a feeling yours will be more acceptable.

But truly appreciate the labor of writing this up, it’s not a bad idea at all.

Thanks for the kind words! Part of my enjoyment of BlogNomic is crafting Proposals, so it’s never a bad thing for me, even when they fail. That’s why I’m usually quick to withdraw when I see that I’ve missed the mark.

Most of my pushback is me just trying to figure out where I went wrong and what I’m missing when assessing what will be acceptable to other people. It’s never going to be perfect, and I know that.

Speaking of which, withdrawn.