Thank you, I appreciate this, and also agree with the note; if it can’t be expressed clearly in a sentence then it’s probably not ideal for a game’s rules.

My vote could change though- I’m thinking about whether or not the value might just be what it sold for in the auction.

Just for my own use, the lowest value would be 35, the highest is 370, and the average value based on the current (if BB&B passes) house gen is ~109.

This kind of “every bedroom is worth the same no matter what house its in” is exactly what I was trying to avoid to the mechanism I proposed. I’m all for making the rules more readable but in that case let’s provide the equation and a plain English explanation of it. Something like “Bedrooms are worth one and a half times bathrooms, while special rooms are twice as much. The value of rooms also scales with the appeal of the house.”

For what it’s worth, I really struggled with the last dynasty’s mechanics as I have difficulties with spatial visualisation, but that’s just the nature of playing a game whose mechanics can be anything. It seems odd to declare anything more complex than single operations to be unsuitable for BN. People have accessibility issues across the board, so I’m not sure why there’s this idea that math uniquely should be restricted for accessibility purposes. I’ve repeatedly complained that the ruleset is overly long and those concerns have been repeatedly dismissed, but that’s a huge problem for accessibility that has repeatedly caused me issues as someone pedanticly snipes at me for some minor rules violation I didn’t notice. That kind of inaccessibility seems to be downright celebrated on here.

And lest anyone misconstrue what I’ve said in my regular life I’m pretty regularly running into accessibility barriers and my disabled colleagues and I have had to band together to get things changed, so I want it to be clear that I understand the barrier that’s been identified and I think we should take steps to address it, but I’m also not sure that the idea of a blanket rejection of math-based mechanics is a great solution considering how important math is to many game mechanics. And for what it’s worth I was checking my original proposal every quarter hour until the edit window expired and I was quite disappointed that specific feedback was not forthcoming.  I think there are probably other ways around this if we put the effort into looking for them. There are software tools that can help calculate the results of such equations (I have been using a scientific calculator app which allows me to directly enter it into the input window). We have the capacity to automatically compute such values in mediawiki as well, right? If the objection is, as it seems to be, that it’s not intuitive for everyone how changing the variables changes the result, could we make a little testing wiki page where people can experiment in a more hands on way?

per redtara (for some subset of per, not the whole thing)

[redtara] Bedrooms in Houses with high Condition and Appeal are worth more than those in others, under this proposal.

I suppose a plain English phrasing closer to your original would be “Each room and each point of Condition adds value equal to the Appeal of the house: Special Rooms are worth double, Bathrooms half.” - I’m filing down the different room values a bit, there, but it makes it easier to write a sentence. (It looks like considering Condition to work like a type of a room didn’t occur to either of us, you neglected to even mention it in your example translation.)

I think plain English is always the benchmark for whether something has too much cognitive load. If it becomes laborious to explain how a rule works (in text or conversationally), it’s also harder for a player to keep it in mind when playing the game.

No objection to providing both an equation and a plain English version of something, but I think we should always be optimising for a readable version of the latter, rather than balancing an equation without thinking about what the plain English reading of it would say.

I will add that the view that the ruleset is too long is a consensus view, rather than being dismissed; it’s just hard to reach agreement on how to cut it down.

Was looking for a way to simplify the equation (though I love a good equation) for Josh’s tastes, so GJ, Kevan.

Withdrawn as redundant, as Actuaries Unleashed has now failed.