Monday, March 07, 2022

Proposal: I’m sad that I didn’t get to generate the Griefwalker Dynasty

Illegal; edited after a vote was cast. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 08 Mar 2022 21:14:07 UTC

Reword the sentence in the rule “Parallel BlogNomic” that reads “Randomly select one of the items generated by the Paralleliser (ignoring the text in bold, which simply replicates your initial input, and any item after the last comma) to be the generated item” to:

Choose any ten of the items generated by the Paralleliser (ignoring the text in bold, which simply replicates your initial input, and any item after the last comma); randomly select one of these choices to be the generated item.


Kevan: City he/him

07-03-2022 19:26:55 UTC

Randomly selecting four is going to make the dice roller very noisy, if the Learning action will now require a full eight lengthy text rolls. (Tricky ones, too, if the selected items have to be distinct and the second roll can’t include the first result, and so on.)

Someone said earlier that we may as well just pick the first entry, if we wanted something random - could this just be picking one of the first four, or something like that?

SingularByte: he/him

07-03-2022 19:44:29 UTC

I have mixed feelings about this one, but I’m going to give a tentative for
On one hand, there’s already a bit of an honour system to stop you regenerating the text over and over until you get a good selection so this might remove any temptation to do that.
On the other, this gives some level of control to the variance rather than leaving it up to fate which might be undesirable and the idea of picking which parallel dynasty you get might not match the flavour of the setting either.
What’s swaying me though is that it’s taking a whole Cresi action to do this anyway, so getting some marginal benefit to the choice isn’t too outlandish.

Incidentally in response to Kevan’s comment, there is actually a small difference between earlier and later generated lines - early ones tend to be very heavily affected by the inputs, while later ones are less affected but more likely to either get into repetitive loops or to stray completely off topic. It probably doesn’t matter if you’re only doing 200 tokens though.

Brendan: he/him

07-03-2022 19:47:52 UTC

My edit to this proposal has been rendered illegal retroactively by SingularByte’s vote (I made it at 19:46, his comment has a timestamp of 19:44).

SingularByte: he/him

07-03-2022 19:50:18 UTC

Ah, sorry about that.

Brendan: he/him

07-03-2022 19:54:07 UTC

It’s all right! Just one of the hiccups to coming back to the game after a long break.

Brendan: he/him

07-03-2022 19:59:22 UTC

(I’ll repropose this, but I’m happy to hear feedback on it if Josh or anyone else wants to consider the things Kevan or SingularByte raised.)

SingularByte: he/him

08-03-2022 17:30:13 UTC

Might it be worth limiting this to allow only distinct entries rather than allowing duplicates? Or at least limiting it to a small number of duplicates? I could imagine a world where you could force a specific emperor by choosing ten copies of the same person.

Brendan: he/him

08-03-2022 17:37:08 UTC

Yeah, that’s a good idea.