Monday, January 13, 2020

Proposal: Deep pockets

Reached quorum 4 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 14 Jan 2020 15:52:14 UTC

In the rule entitled Artefacts, change the paragraph that begins “An Artefact’s Location may be either a Place, an Individual, or Unknown”, to read as follows:

An Artefact’s Location may be either a Place, an Individual, a Collector’s Collection, or Unknown. If an Artefact’s Location is an Individual, it is said to be carried by that Individual, and all Individuals should, for the purposes of its effect or any actions taken, consider its Location to be the Location of the Individual who is carrying it. If an Individual shares a Location with an Artefact that is not being carried by another Individual, they may pick it up by setting its Location to themselves. If an Individual is carrying an Artefact, they may drop it by setting its Location to their own Location. An Individual may be carrying no more than two artefacts at any time.

Change the text of the rule entitled Collections to read as follows:

Each Individual with the Pursuit of Collector has a Collection.  As a daily action, a Collector may put an Artefact that they are carrying into their Collection by changing its Location to read “x’s Collection”, where x is their own name. Artefacts in Collections are never considered to share a Location with any other Individuals or Artefacts. Collectors may reclaim Artefacts from their Collection as a daily action by Focusing.

As a Daily Action, a Collector may add one Soul Damage Token to every Collector whose Collection contains fewer items than their own.

Add the following three Artefacts to the ruleset as sub-rules to the rule Artefacts:

Lunchbox:

Description: A small child’s lunchbox, decorated with Pokémon colours. Dented, with the colours starting to wear off.
Location: The Containment Facility
Protocol: If a Researcher has the means to destroy this Artefact then they must do so within 24 hours of having gained the capability to do so.
Effect: A Collector carrying the Lunchbox may, as a daily action, Focus to carry out the Effect of an Artefact in their Collection as if the were carrying it.

The Left Shoe:

Description: A patent leather brogue, tan, EU 42 / US 9.5. Brand new, not broken in.
Location: Norwich
Protocol: None
Effect: The Individual carrying the Left Shoe may Focus to throw it. Once the Left Shoe has been thrown, the Individual who threw it should randomly select a Place (including Unknown, the Warp, and all Collectors’ Collections). The Left Shoe’s Location is set to that Place. Any other Artefacts at that Place are then also relocated to Places at random.

The Right Shoe:

Description: A plimsol in pale blue. EU 38 / US 7.5. Sole is worn through at the toe.
Location: Unknown
Protocol: None
Effect: If ever the Left Shoe and the Right Shoe are in the same Location, any Individual may remove both Artefacts from the ruleset.

Comments

Kevan:

01-13-2020 14:34:59 UTC

imperial Some concern as Director that the Lunchbox Protocol could put everyone out of a job.

Josh:

01-13-2020 14:56:50 UTC

Creates new jobs though.

Is there a way of destroying artefacts at the moment? Beside the pencil.

Kevan:

01-13-2020 15:08:40 UTC

I think the Pencil is the only way to do it, but there are a lot of subtle situations where you have to get hold of the Pencil at any cost if you possibly can to avoid being fired for not trying. I’m not sure how far that spreads out - if the Pencil is lost in the Warp, is it a sacking offence not to stand hopefully at the Portal at 23:59 on Sunday?

Seems fun to see where this goes, anyway.

(You can also destroy an Artefact by proposal, of course, but I don’t think the Lunchbox Protocol covers that, since an individual Researcher couldn’t do it alone.)

Kevan:

01-13-2020 15:16:21 UTC

And ah, actually the Portal isn’t random, so that probably would be a sacking offence. But what about failing to use the Switchcomb on a rival who is carrying the Pencil and the Strong Gin, since doing so has a 50/50 chance of giving you the Pencil?

Josh:

01-13-2020 15:22:26 UTC

I think the lunchbox protocol only kicks in when a Researcher “gain(s) the capability” to destroy it - it doesn’t mandate that the Researcher do everything that they can to gain that capability, only what they do once they have done so. I’m not sure that I would agree that the Researcher is in breach if they’re stood next to the pencil but choose not to pick it up - only once they have done so and not used it.

Kevan:

01-13-2020 15:51:16 UTC

I’m not really sure where the line gets drawn there. Does your picked-up Pencil situation assume that the player is also standing in the same Location as the Lunchbox? If they have to move to Jerez to reach the Lunchbox, do they no longer have the “capability”?

Maybe the protocol needs to be a more boring “A Researcher who obtains the Pencil must erase the Lunchbox within 24 hours if its Location is known.”, but I greatly enjoy the idea of pressuring players to achieve a particular goal if they ever possibly can, however opaque or dangerous the steps.

Looking at the gamestate, this issue will come up immediately, as Cuddlebeam arguably has the “capability” to destroy the Lunchbox by travelling to the Containment Facility, using the Marble to obtain the Pencil, and using the Pencil to erase the Lunchbox.

Brendan:

01-13-2020 15:56:34 UTC

for

Cuddlebeam:

01-13-2020 17:48:08 UTC

against

I have 3 Artefacts and the rule says there is a max of 2. What happens?

I also dont enjoy that it seems like Im going to get fucked by this proposal. Is Bampam fair game?

Josh:

01-13-2020 20:17:17 UTC

What is bampam?

I don’t think you’re going to get fucked by this proposal. Worst case scenario - you have to drop one of the currently-useless artefacts in Containment. I should have added a clause forcing you to drop one at random though; that was sloppy drafting.

Cuddlebeam:

01-13-2020 20:28:17 UTC

I mean, the Marble issue

Bampam is “Benefit a Majority, Punish a Minority”. I feel like a punished minority because of the Marble thing.

Josh:

01-13-2020 20:42:18 UTC

Oh I see.

I don’t agree with Kevan’s interpretation re the Marble but I’m looking forward to what promises to be an interesting CfJ.

card:

01-14-2020 15:48:08 UTC

for