Monday, November 20, 2017

Proposal: Cleanup time

2 days old and can’t be enacted failed by card

Adminned at 22 Nov 2017 21:10:38 UTC

Repeal “Face Actions”

Remove

The following comes from fragments (believed to be Folio 2) from The Fourth Orthocodex of G. Ray, Master Emeritus in Aeternum:

  Each pair of different affinities has its own Face Action; each with a shorthand Symbol:

  - Nature/Fire: Radiance (☀)
  - Nature/Water: Abundance (♾)
  - Water/Fire: Transition (♻)
  - Water/Void: Carving (❖) [*, +]
  - Fire/Void: Destruction (✖) [*]
  - Nature/Void: Opposition (◑) [*]

  [+] see Folio 7 for discussion on naming of this Face Action.
  [*] see Folio 9 for derivation of the symbology for these Face Actions.

The Fourth Orthocodex may be cited in brief as ‘R4’. Text from R4 is not considered to be rules that Tesserers obey, unless otherwise specified.

Remove

This footnote is considered by scholars to come from the Octocodex written by O. Sedecim, Second Corner. This is one of the few remaining fragments after O. Sedecim accidentally traveled through Interim. The following footnote is considered ruletext.

  A Tesser can perform Face Action by having the affinities that correspond to that Face Action participating and spending power equal to the number of affinities of the Face Action which don’t match the Tessers’ affinity. Participating affinities are the affinities of any Tessers that help in that action as well as the affinities of shards that participating Tessers possess; in case two or more Tessers perform a Face Action, they both pay this cost calculated with their own affinity.

The Octocodex may be cited in brief as ‘O8’. Text from O8 is not considered to be rules that Tesserers obey, unless otherwise specified.

These seem to be sort of useless when we have the spells being a lot more popular.

posted by card at 20 Nov 2017 14:28:00 UTC Comments (3)

Comments

Madrid:

20-11-2017 16:10:22 UTC

I dunno, I kinda still like these.

Madrid:

22-11-2017 12:13:37 UTC

against

Madrid:

22-11-2017 12:28:58 UTC

What I think might be happening is that there really isn’t much that is interesting about “Tesseracts”. The subjective context plays a (possibly deceivingly) important role in the creative process of making proposals. It’s easier to latch on more ideas onto a generic magic fantasy than it is to fourth dimensional space - which in the end is just geometry or a path graph and not that different from everything else we do anyways.

In the end, all we care about are the relationships of one thing with another when it comes to reading and making rules, I don’t mind Tesseracts, as mystical as they may be, to be anything better to sink my teeth into than something as conventional as usual magic fantasy.

I should probably copypasta this into the dynasty wiki entry later lol but yeah. Rule-making is pretty much like programming - the formal mechanics are blind to the subjective connotation. I feel like we could make mechanics just as complex as a pure-tesseract theme with just this Elemental Magic stuff we’ve got, but the Elemental Magic has a connotation that’s more intuitive to grasp and therefore quicker to comprehend, even if on a formal level, it’s just as complex as pretty much anything else.

I would love an eldritch geometry dynasty though. Maybe a “Hyperspace Big Brother” show lol. Still, it would have again the connotation of the show “Big Brother”, but the rooms and such could play into that space is 4th-dimensional. (And we could go cray cray and perhaps go 5th dimensional and upwards eventually).

But yeah, subjective connotation is very important in the creative ambit of playing nomic, I feel.