Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Proposal: Gone Swimming

popular 3-2-1 with 1 unresolved def

Adminned at 02 Aug 2019 05:24:47 UTC

Make a rule named “Deep-Sea Diving”, as follows:

A Captain may go Diving, as a Maritime action, by rolling a random integer, N, in the range 1-3. On a roll of 1 or a 2, they receive 1 treasure. Then that Captain can’t take any Maritime actions for the next N minus 1 Watches after the current one.

Treasures are tracked in the GNDT, as a number, in a column marked “Treasures”.

This is another proposal from my niece. I’ve adjusted it from the original: “It’s swimming, so we roll a 1-10 die, and if it’s lower than 5 you get a treasure. If it’s 5, nothing happens. (You can say what the disadvantages are for above 5.) Then you have to wait that many hours.”

I can already think of a couple of ways to build upon the idea, if it passes.



31-07-2019 06:32:19 UTC

I like this idea, but isn’t the penalty for diving a bit harsh? What about if you dive, you can’t do any other maritime actions in the current watch?

Kevan: City he/him

31-07-2019 07:54:01 UTC

against Individuals diving for treasure doesn’t seem compatible with the idea of deep sea battleships and submarines.

derrick: he/him

31-07-2019 13:20:32 UTC


But yeah, battleships performing salvage feels a little weird.


31-07-2019 17:06:49 UTC

[Farsight] Well, I wanted a ship to be vulnerable as the (only) penalty for doing the diving action. Current Watch only would mean you could wait until the end of the Watch to do it, and be pretty much safe. If you trust your neighbors in firing range, you can still get away with it for a while.


01-08-2019 11:44:07 UTC

for I like it. And it’s not so off theme, perhaps an armed ship sometimes goes off watch to protect an expedition. I’d want to lower the penalty later, as being locked out of the game for 6+ days would be un-fun.


01-08-2019 15:51:36 UTC



01-08-2019 15:54:50 UTC

i feel like A) the penalty is too harsh, and B) you either get rewarded twice (treasure and short waiting time) OR you get punished twice (no treasure and long waiting time). perhaps if that was swapped round or something i’d be more for this, but as it is i would vote against.  against

(BTW, was i unidled?)

Kevan: City he/him

01-08-2019 16:19:14 UTC

[ubq323] Sidebar says not. I didn’t see the request, and looking at it other admins could be forgiven for having misread it as being a continuation of Cuddlebeam’s unclear/joke request (they were unidle already at the time).

You’re now unidled and quorum remains 7. Looks like this is your first vote of the dynasty, so nothing’s been enacted illegally off the back of invalid votes before this one.