Mm, I like this, but isn’t it going to accelerate the rate at which new rooms are made rather significantly?

How so? The rules say that the Narrator “may” expose a Secret Passage. Granted, I was proliferating new rooms frequently early on, but I had always planned to slow things down over time, if for no other reason than to keep the map manageable.

True, but you’re going to get a lot more requests, when moving off the edge of the map becomes the default move in most circumstances.

I’m not arguing against it, mind; just thinking about how it will work in practice.

If you want to argue that, you might as well propose a per-turn limit on the “Expose a Secret Passage” action.

Honestly to me, it feels kinda strange to glue these two actions together without any way to search normally since it almost feels like finding malfeasances is made to be a consolation prize.

If you could also choose to search without peeking, that would feel more logical.

Also, you might want to put whether or not the disclosure is public or private since it’s not specified.

@Bucky I know you like to see the world through a conflictual lens but I’m not arguing anything.

I’m just modelling out how people would behave of critical information were hidden behind an action with no other opportunity cost.

I’m not completely against a limit on secret passages but that’s not the scope of this proposal, which is, just to reiterate, one that I am broadly in favour of.

  As stated above, it feels weird to gate the finding of malfeasances behind an unrelated action, at least without some other way of accomplishing the same result. For one thing, it means that a room like the hallway can *never* be checked for malfeasances due to having a room in every direction.

A dedicated search action would be better, though.

@quirck: what’s the combo of “against” and “deferential” in the same comment mean? Is that a valid vote?

Now it sure is, after your vote DEF is a valid FOR.

The comment’s vote is whichever voting icon is last.