Item: A bag of marbles
Effect: When A bag of marbles is transferred from the possession of one Survivor to another, the Survivor who previously possessed A bag of marbles has Lost Their Marbles. A Survivor who has Lost Their Marbles loses 2 Sanity points.
A Survivor who has Lost Their Marbles loses 2 Sanity points.
It’s not very clear.
Which one? A random survivor that has Lost his marbles a month ago?
When? Once per week, as soon as they Lose their Marbles? As soon as someone else Loses his?
I see the intent, but it’s not clear.
I think it’s perfectly clear.
When Item is transferred from Survivor A to Survivor B, Survivor A is in the state of having “lost their marbles” - Which was the point of the capitals. If a Survivor is in the state of having “lost their marbles”, then they lose 2 sanity (points).
As only 2 Survivors are mentioned, and the word “previously” is used as well as “the”, it picks out a single Survivor, who, out of the 2 Survivors, had the marbles first.
Since I used the word “When”, it clearly means at the time the transfer takes place, said Survivor is in that state. Any Survivor who has been in that state loses 2 sanity.
(Doc) - I admit ‘points’ is never used, but we use ‘Sanity’ and ‘Sanity level’ interchangeably, so I don’t see why ‘Sanity points’. ‘Point’ can mean ‘A stage or level’, so I don’t think it matters.
[Prince] The two main problems are that you never say when a Survivor ceases to have Lost Their Marbles, and that you don’t specify that “A Survivor who has Lost Their Marbles loses 2 Sanity points” should happen as soon as he Loses His Marbles.
Well, it never ceases. If I lose an object, even if I find it again later, I still lost it. You’ll notice that the rule doesn’t prevent a Survivor from losing their marbles more than once. Indeed, unless we add some rules for the removal of objects, then lots of people will Lose Their Marbles over the course of the game. Perhaps ‘state’ is misleading. Maybe I just mean ‘event’.
If you have Lost Your Marbles, then you lose 2 Sanity points, simple as that. If you don’t apply it then I’m sure another Survivor will. We don’t have a problem with instantaneous changes to the gamestate taking place over time as it takes time to log it in the GNDT. So as long as a Survivor reduces the Sanity accordingly after the event, then I don’t think we need to specify *when* it happens.
Yes I see you got the point. As you wrote it, it may be either a state or an event, leaning to state, since you used past tense. If you make clear it is an event, it should be ok. Otherwise, you could take the Marbles from bateleur and then make me lose 1 SP since I Lost My Marbles a week ago.
A possible solution:
the Survivor who previously possessed A bag of marbles has Lost Their Marbles and loses 2 Sanity.
The problem is that “A Survivor who has Lost Their Marbles loses 2 Sanity points.” is past tense - when we hit that sentence, it’s ambiguous as to who that survivor is. It could be the Survivor from the previous sentence, but it could (just as plausibly) be any Survivor who has Lost Their Marbles in the past.
Okay, if we grant the principle is sound, is anyone up for reproposing? - I can’t do so again today.
This isn’t a proposal, it’s an Idea Post - if I cast a vote other than “FOR”, there is no way it can enact without me changing that vote.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
CoV, that second sentence is a bit detached.
BellEt: