Friday, June 04, 2010

Proposal: Combat

Passes 8-4. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 07 Jun 2010 01:02:58 UTC

Add a new rule titled “Stats and Weapons”, with the following text:

Each @ has a number called HP, and a number called Max HP. They are together tracked the GNDT column “HP”, which should display “X (Y)”, where X is the @ in question’s HP and Y is the @ in question’s Max HP. Each @ starts with an HP and Max HP of 10.

There exist Weapons, which are a type of item. A Weapon can be ranged or melee, and has an amount of Damage, which is two integers (a number of Dice and a number of Sides). If an @ carries a weapon, they may be wielding it.

Add a new rule titled “Dungeon”:

Each @ has a number called Dungeon Level (tracked in the GNDT), defaulting to 1. As a weekly action, an @ may attempt to Find the Stairs; to do this, they roll DICE6 in the GNDT. The attempt is successful if they have defeated X or more monsters, where X is the result of that die roll, since their Dungeon Level last changed. If the attempt is successful, they increase their Dungeon Level by 1.

Add a new rule titled “Monsters”, with the following text:

A Monster is a type of game entity; each one has a number of HP and an amount of Damage, which is two integers (a number of Dice and a number of Sides).

An active Encounter exists while at least one Monster exists. The RNG can create a Monster at any time; this either creates a new active Encounter, or adds Monsters to any existing active Encounter. When creating an Encounter, the RNG must detail the Monsters in it in a Story Post with [Encounter] in its title; new Monsters added to an existing Encounter must be detailed in comments to its associated Story Post, and the comments to that post should also be used by @s to track which Monsters are still alive, along with the current stats for each. If all Monsters in an Encounter cease to exist, the Encounter stops being an Encounter. Each Encounter has a Floor, which is any integer, and is set by the RNG.

An Encounter can be Ranged or Melee. An encounter starts out ranged but becomes melee if it exists for 24 hours.

Add a new rule called “Combat”:

As a daily action, an @ may Fight one Monster, or an @. If the @ is not wielding a weapon, they must roll 1DICE2 in the GNDT. If the @ is wielding a weapon, they must roll XDICEY in the GNDT where X is the number of Dice for their weapon, and Y is the number of Sides for their weapon. The result of the die roll (whichever is used) is the Damage Dealt. An @ may not Fight a Monster in a Ranged Encounter unless they are wielding a ranged weapon, and may not Fight a Monster in a Melee Encounter if they are wielding a ranged weapon. An @ may not Fight a Monster in an Encounter whose Floor is different than their Dungeon Level.

When an @ fights something, after rolling damage dealt, they decrease the HP of whatever they fought by the damage dealt. If the HP of a monster goes below 1, they cease to exist. If the HP of an @ goes below 1, they die.

After an @ fights a Monster, the Monster fights back; the Monster fights the @ who fought them. The RNG shall role XDICEY in the GNDT where X is the Monster’s Dice and Y is the Monster’s Sides, and decreases the @‘s HP by the result.

Finally, an actual proPosal.

Comments

lilomar:

04-06-2010 17:05:24 UTC

for

Hix:

04-06-2010 17:11:23 UTC

Icky daily grinds, and the proposal tries to do a whole lot of stuff that I don’t necessarily agree with. against

Put:

04-06-2010 17:14:49 UTC

for

h2g2guy:

04-06-2010 19:51:27 UTC

against

IMO, this should be split into several proposals.

Also, you seem to be able to fight without a weapon.  However, there are only 2 types of encounters, and both require weapons!  How does that work?

Finally, without a Melee weapon, you can be stuck without hope if you don’t finish an enounter in 24 hours.  Since you can only fight a maximum of 2 times in such a time frame, that means teamwork from everyone, which is not good for a game that requires 1 winner.  Actually, it can work, but that is a much different game than I envision here.

lilomar:

04-06-2010 19:58:47 UTC

@h2g2guy: can you cite the relevant sentences for your second paragraph? I don’t think I follow you.

The first sentence of your third paragraph depends on the first, so withholding comment there as well.

However, 1-requireing teamwork to win a game where there is only one winner can be awesome, it can encourage back-stabbing, alliance forging and breaking, etc. 2-who said that there can only be one winner? there can only be one @ to successfully declare victory, but multiple @s can achieve victory, in which case, it becomes a race to post a DoV.

Hix:

04-06-2010 20:03:43 UTC

“in which case, it becomes a race to post a DoV”

NOT FUN

h2g2guy:

04-06-2010 20:19:21 UTC

Ok.  So this seems to say to me that you can fight without a weapon:

“As a daily action, an @ may Fight one Monster, or an @. If the @ is not wielding a weapon, they must roll 1DICE2 in the GNDT.”

And regarding weapons for encounters:

“An @ may not Fight a Monster in a Ranged Encounter unless they are wielding a ranged weapon, and may not Fight a Monster in a Melee Encounter if they are wielding a ranged weapon.”

Whoops…yeah, that’s me jumping to conclusions.  Sorry.  I thought the second sentence said “unless they are wielding a melee weapon”. 

With that in mind, my 3rd paragraph is irrelevant, as smaller teams will work better with that understanding.

Now, as for the teamwork thing.  I agree with Hix, in that a race to post a DoV is not really the most fun way to win.  However, that has given me an idea for a proposal…

I’ll temporarily make a CoV to imperial .  Another CoV is probably coming, too.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 20:27:12 UTC

No, multiple people won’t be able to achieve victory in this dynasty (whoever offers the Amulet will win, and only one person can do that). There’ll only be a semblance of teamwork: everyone will be wanting to kill the monsters themselves so they can get down the stairs quickly and retrieve the Amulet; after someone has said Amulet everyone will be wanting to kill them.

h2g2guy:

04-06-2010 20:54:38 UTC

I get your point, but there are other possibilities.  Who’s to assume that that will be the only victory condition?  I know you are the RNG, but unless you plan on vetoing anything that says otherwise, it is very possible for there to be more than 1 victory condition, to my knowledge.

Reconsidering, teamwork is not such a bad idea.  And the whole concept of backstabbing does sound fun. 

Still absorbing this proposal, though.  It has yet to entirely sink in.

Freezerbird:

04-06-2010 20:58:02 UTC

“If an @ carries a weapon, they may be wielding it.”
“An @... may not Fight a Monster in a Melee Encounter if they are wielding a ranged weapon.”
Seems to me that if a player has in possession a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, they may wield either. However, if they are wielding the ranged weapon they can’t fight in a melee encounter. So how do I declare that I’m putting away the ranged weapon and getting out the melee weapon?

lilomar:

04-06-2010 21:01:38 UTC

I think that “may be wielding it” implies “may not be wielding it” (if it said “may wield it” that would be a different story) so without a sentence to the effect of “an @ may only wield one weapon at a time”, i believe you can wield (or not) any weapon you own, or a combination thereof, at will.

scshunt:

04-06-2010 22:16:54 UTC

against

There are still a couple of flaws in this proposal (such as guaranteed death if you bring a gun to a knife-fight) and I don’t want to do this every day.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 22:19:27 UTC

h2g2guy: Only one victory condition makes sense within the confines of the theme.

Darknight: he/him

05-06-2010 07:14:28 UTC

against

Put:

05-06-2010 19:27:07 UTC

@Darth, But you still won’t veto others I presume :P (or should I say D:)

Klisz:

05-06-2010 21:00:44 UTC

I won’t unless they’re so far off the mark that it hurts my brain trying to think of how they’re linked to NetHack.

Qwazukee:

06-06-2010 03:55:31 UTC

imperial

Aquafraternally Yours:

06-06-2010 06:03:54 UTC

for  It’s a start, and I’m all for moving forward, even if things aren’t 100% perfect.

h2g2guy:

06-06-2010 13:56:28 UTC

CoV for .  It seems like everything I had a problem with was, in essence, not a problem.

Galdyn:

07-06-2010 03:21:47 UTC

for

dbdougla:

07-06-2010 05:18:37 UTC

for