Friday, May 17, 2013

Proposal: Fun with Buildings

Times out and Fails 1-3 -Larrytheturtle

Adminned at 19 May 2013 00:15:19 UTC

In the rule “Buildings”:
Amend the line that reads:

A Noble’s Influence for a type of Building is B+2E+3D, where B, E, and D are the number of Buildings of that type that they have built within Baronies, Earldoms, and Dukedoms, respectively.

to read:

A Noble’s Influence for a type of Building is B+2E+3D+S, where B, E, and D are the number of Buildings of that type that they have built within Baronies, Earldoms, and Dukedoms, respectively. S is outside factors that increase a buildings influence, including hosting a tournament. A noble may, at any time, spend 5 Dignity to increase the influence of on of their buildings by 1 (thus increasing S for that building).

In the subrules to “Buildings”:
Append to Cities:

A Noble with a City Influence of at least 4 also gains (CI - 3) to their total progress each time time advances, where CI is the noble’s City Influence.

Append to Church:

The Noble (P) with the highest church influence, may, once per two time advancements, make any single legal game action a Mandated actions, allowing all nobles, including (P) one time advancement to attempt to complete this Mandated action or suffer the dignity cost of 5 dignity. The (P) is responsible for deducting the appropriate dignity from all offending nobles. If (P) loses their status of having highest Church Influence, any current Mandated action becomes no longer mandated. If no Nobles take a Mandated action (not including P), all of P’s churches are destroyed and P loses 10 dignity.

(a) I wanted to allow other methods for gaining influence. (b) I wanted to give cities and churches and influence perk. (c) because mandated actions seem like a fun (and maybe annoying) idea. Note that mandates can include voting for a proposal, requiring nobles to write proposals, to take the crown, to declare feud, etc. I actually find this ability really amusing. It’s not overpowered, because of the relatively low cost of 5 dignity for not taking a mandated action and the high cost of making an unpopular mandate, but it allows for interesting dynamics, which could be fun.

posted by kikar at 17 May 2013 05:43:18 UTC Comments (6)

Comments

redtara: they/them

17-05-2013 14:39:56 UTC

against Seems easy to mandate players to do something legal but impossible, forcing everyone to lose 5 dignity.

kikar:

17-05-2013 15:26:51 UTC

Yes, but if you do that, you lose your churches and 10 dignity. Although, if I were to rewrite the rule, I might implement a wealth or influence cost to making such a mandate. I just realized that that would probably be a good thing…

redtara: they/them

17-05-2013 15:46:34 UTC

You can just get one accomplice to help you out. I could create a proposal that says “The Nobles known as Ienpw III and kikar receive 1000 wealth each,” and then make voting FOR that proposal a mandated action.

RaichuKFM: she/her

17-05-2013 16:27:59 UTC

against Per Ienpw III.

kikar:

17-05-2013 16:30:38 UTC

Yes, you could. and you would be in your right to do so. I’m actually okay with that. As people still have a choice to vote AGAINST that proposal, it’s fully legitimate. Also, I could decide that it’s in my best interest to mess you up by voting against that proposal. Additionally, people could vote FOR and then change their votes (Fulfilling the letter of the mandate, and not the spirit). Finally, that proposal could be vetoed, allowing all players to vote FOR it, while still allowing the proposal to have no effect.

I understand the general concern that this could become broken. I honestly don’t think it’s powerful enough to do that. If something really becomes an issue, someone can try to take mandate power away from an abusing player by gaining more church influence from them or organizing a boycott.

Clucky: he/him

17-05-2013 18:49:46 UTC

against