Saturday, April 03, 2021

Proposal: Favours

Times out and passes 4-1. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 05 Apr 2021 14:06:39 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, called “Granting Favours”:

A Contender can at any time grant any Spectator who has given them at least one peg a Favour. Favours are resources unique to the individual who granted them (referred to as the Favour’s ‘lender’), but a given Player cannot hold more than five Favours at a time regardless of their lenders. Favours have a ripeness, which defaults to unripe. When an Ascension Address is posted, all ripe Favours disappear and then all unripe Favours become ripe.
A Player may at any time choose to release any or all of the Favours they hold, losing them and gaining nothing in return. If a Dealer Passes the Mantle, any existing Favour for which they are the lender is turned into a Favour for which the new Dealer is the lender.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, called “Claiming Favours”:

A Player who has a ripe Favour may at any time claim it to gain a benefit based on the status of that Favour’s lender:
- If the lender is the Dealer, the claiming Player immediately gains a single point of any resource of their choosing that is described only in the Dynastic Rules (except for a Favour). Any details the gained resource has apart from quantity are chosen by the Dealer, who should be generous if possible.
- If the lender is an active Player who is not the Dealer, the lender must immediately give to the claiming Player (even if it could not normally be transferred) a single point of any resource of the claiming Player’s choosing, so long as it is described only in the Dynastic Rules and the lender has at least one point of that resource to give.
- If the lender is idle, the claiming Player immediately gains an unripe favour with the lender as its lender.
Then, the claimed Favour is lost.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, called “Lasting Favours”:

The rules titled “Granting Favours”, “Claiming Favours”, and “Lasting Favours” cannot be repealed between Dynasties, and are automatically kept when an Ascension Address is made regardless of whether the Ascension Address lists them specifically. If the wiki page used to track the gamestate is changed, the Dealer must copy any section relating to the tracking of Favours from the old wiki page to the new wiki page.

here’s an idea!! in this dynasty, the intent is that Favours can serve as both a reason for Spectators to give their pegs to the Contenders (reason the contenders will want that open for discussion?) and a reason for them to care about who wins the Crown Match itself. in the future, maybe they can be modified to serve other purposes!


Clucky: HE/HIM

03-04-2021 16:10:14 UTC


dynasties should be isolated. things like “the claiming Player immediately gains a single point of any resource of their choosing that is described only in the Dynastic Rules” greatly limit what someone can do in a future dynasty. We’ve had dynasties in the past where you have things like crowns that are hard to come by and you only need like three of them to win. If favors were a thing, you could just cash them in for crowns and break the dynasty.


03-04-2021 16:40:10 UTC

It’s an interesting idea. The Crown thing wouldn’t happen - we’d have to be extremely careless to enact a rule of “3 Crowns to win” if we all knew that someone had three ripe Favours in their top pocket. We’d most likely just scale all gamestate values up by a factor of ten or a hundred.

Brendan: HE/HIM

03-04-2021 17:48:25 UTC

I’m interested in this, and I think it might be best to patch it into the special case rules.  for

Josh: HE/HIM

03-04-2021 17:52:24 UTC

So for the first fifty dynasties or so we had a persistent variable that didn’t reset from dynasty to dynasty, which got renamed in the AA. This feels like going back to that and I’m here for it; let’s mandate that we all have to have blogs again, why not?


Clucky: HE/HIM

04-04-2021 00:42:51 UTC

@Kevan but that is forcing people to structure one dynasty based on what happened in a previous dynasty. we shouldn’t have to bend dynasties around this rule

And its not just crowns that a broken. you couldn’t do a “assign {6, 5, 4} to your strength, dex, and con” mechanic because the rule specifically allows you to transfer non transferable stats.

Another massive problem is that it means that people who, either due to lack of time or lack of interest in this particular theme, are suddenly at a disadvantage in the next dynasty. We moved away from stats that persist from dynasty to dynasty for a good reason. This would further entrench long term players ability to be successful because they would always have more favors they can cash in and get a leg up.

lemonfanta: SHE/HER

04-04-2021 01:24:27 UTC

@ clucky you *could* do that kind of mechanic, u would just have to balance it with Favours in mind!

and i mean, as it stands, it’s only going to be possible to gain favours via this dynasty’s rules, so it would have to be another proposal and another whole conversation to give the rule any staying power beyond the v next dynasty :0

Clucky: HE/HIM

04-04-2021 01:36:55 UTC

the “If the lender is idle, the claiming Player immediately gains an unripe favour with the lender as its lender.” clause already allows favors to leech into the next dynasty.

this could maybe work as a special case rule. But we shouldn’t have a rule talking about “Contenders” and “Pegs” and “Spectators” bleeding into the next dynasty. And Emperors should be able to declare favour does nothing in their dynasty. And we should fix the current weirdness with how favor interacts with idle players (in the current form even if your idle, your favors still ripen and then die on the vine), and overall I’d personally just rather avoid the idea altogether because I think each dynasty should be its own isolated game.


04-04-2021 13:29:35 UTC

This should be a Special Case rule, and maybe it is worth revisiting the old persistent variable idea instead, to save us from the inevitable workarounds of either multiplying up all game variables or adding “this can’t be gained through Favour” clauses.

People being at a disadvantage for sitting inactively through the previous dynasty may not be an entirely bad thing, if it encourages people to be active instead, or to idle when they’re genuinely not playing.

for to take the general metadynastic idea forward: could be interesting to see how much this changes the share-of-mantle endgames.

Clucky: HE/HIM

04-04-2021 15:09:45 UTC


the problem isn’t people who are non-idle but also non-active. its exactly the “idle when they’re genuinely not playing” crowd that gets screwed over by this proposal. If Bucky returns next dynasty, they’ll still be at a disadvantage because suddenly other people have this “favor” concept that they were unable to earn due to not being able to play in the current dynasty.


04-04-2021 16:52:48 UTC

Yeah, if we’re going back to a persistent variable we’d want some fair way to set new players’ values for that stat, including those unidling from past dynasties. Still needs work.

Clucky: HE/HIM

04-04-2021 17:09:41 UTC

and that’s really part of my concern. the idea still needs work

could we come up with some balanced way to formalize the concept of collecting favors in one dynasty and cashing them in another? I guess? It already happens informally. I’m not sure its even a good thing that it happens informally. But I wouldn’t be completely opposed to at least trying that out.

this current implementation just has a lot of big concerns. in addition to the stuff I’ve already pointed out (putting new/returning players at a distadvantage, having references to stuff like “pegs” that will persist across the dynasty), we’re this to pass, my strategy would have to switch from “get 30 Magistrelli, hope I win two of the championship games and that no funny business happens with pegs” to “give up on winning this dynasty. stop playing games of Giolitti so that I don’t cross the 30 Magistrelli mark as if I do cross it, there is a 50/50 chance I still lose but wind up owing a bunch of favors next dynasty where as if I don’t cross it, I can ensure I have favors with both the emperor and one of the other players next dynasty, giving me a leg up there” (or maybe go for the win, and then just idle out the next couple of dynasties if I lose so I’m not playing them at a disadvantage)

lemonfanta: SHE/HER

04-04-2021 20:52:51 UTC

@clucky that all seems little extreme!! i mean, i’m new here, but is it standard to act like Victory-Maximizing AIs? is it not fun to like, keep playing even if ur in a tough spot (or even just a slight disadvantage) and see if u can manage to win?

i promise im not dunking on u im just like, confused by those conclusions!!

Clucky: HE/HIM

05-04-2021 00:03:11 UTC

Its not about victory maximzing. its just about me being able to play dynasties without other players having leverage over me.

If I owed someone else a favor, they would have leverage over me for the next dynasty.

If I wind up over 30 magistrelli, there is a good chance I would wind up owing multiple other people a favor

Hence I just wouldn’t try to get over 30 magistrelli


05-04-2021 10:31:02 UTC

If you win as a result of buying Pegs through Favours, though, the leverage is irrelevant as you’re running the next dynasty instead of playing it. And you can still choose to buy Pegs in exchange for regular no-win-no-fee shares of the mantle pass.