Friday, May 03, 2024

Proposal: Do Not Pass Go

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 04 May 2024 15:01:34 UTC

Remove “At any time a Thief may take an action known as Selling, to remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.” from “Possessions”.

Remove “Every time a Thief Sells a Possession” and all text after it from “Notoriety”.

Add a subrule to “Possession” called “Selling”, with the following text:-

A Thief may perform the following atomic action of Selling, at any time:-

* Remove a Possession from their own inventory
* Gain Florins equal to that Possession’s value
* Gain Notoriety equal to the number of Florins gained in the previous step
* If their Notoriety is above zero, roll DICEX, where X is 50 minus their Notoriety: if the result of the roll is 1 or lower, then they are Caught and 50% of their Florins, rounded up, are distributed evenly amongst all other Thieves, with any remaining Florins lost

Cleaning up and clarifying the timing of the scattered sale clauses.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

03-05-2024 14:41:45 UTC

Is “DICE0” a legal dice roll? I think it is: you roll 0 dice and get a result of 0, but I wanted to make sure it counted as a dice roll for the purpose of having completed the action.

Kevan: he/him

03-05-2024 14:50:43 UTC

I don’t remember whether the dice roller handles it correctly, but the ruleset explicitly says that “Any situation which would require a roll of DiceX when X is zero or lower always yields a value of 0 unless stated otherwise.”

JonathanDark: he/him

03-05-2024 14:59:52 UTC

Thanks, I couldn’t find that for some reason. I was looking at the “Random Generators” section and hadn’t considered the “Numbers and Variables” section, plus I searched for “random” and not “DICEX”

Clucky: he/him

03-05-2024 15:25:51 UTC

this doesn’t work if https://blognomic.com/archive/notorious_b_u_g passes as the text will read “At any time a Thief may take an *atomic* action known as Selling by performing the following steps:

Clucky: he/him

03-05-2024 15:27:12 UTC

Also when writing that proposal, it occured to me that removing the possession first and then trying to talk about its value might create some sort of unidefinied reference error where its value no longer exists once its removed. Hence why I made removal the last step in mine

Kevan: he/him

03-05-2024 16:03:51 UTC

against Withdrawn as redundant to B-U-G, which I was misremembering.