Proposal: Hi, roller [Core]
Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 29 Jul 2020 10:04:16 UTC
Amend this: “A Gambler should not roll dice that are clearly associated with a particular action in the Ruleset, but with the intention to not use these rolled values to the best of their ability to resolve that action. A Gambler must use their own name in the Dice Roller, when rolling dice.” to:
A Gambler should not roll dice that are clearly associated with a particular action in the Ruleset, but with the intention to not use these rolled values to the best of their ability to resolve that action. A Gambler must use their own name in the Dice Roller and, if applicable, state and set all of their choices that would condition such a roll and its immediate result, when rolling dice.
Because of the Slack convo thing. Basically, you (possibly, maybe) could roll to steal Points and then later choose who you would apply such a roll to. This aims to fix that.
Comments
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: HE/THEY
Raven1207: HE/HIM
Jumble:
Kevan: HE/HIM
This should be a “should” rather than a “must”, like every other sentence in Fair Play. Invalidating any die roll that involved a choice but didn’t spell it out (even one where it was extremely obvious from context what was meant) risks tripping the game up in the future.
The possible scam in the Distraction rule (selecting a number in step 2, and then illegally changing your mind about that number at step 5, and lying about it if challenged) is more about deliberately breaking a rule in a way that players can’t prove. If step 4 had just been “roll DICE20” and step 5 compared the result to earlier choices, the problem would (if it’s not covered by “This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic; all Gamblers shall obey it.”) still be there, even under this proposed amendment.
Cuddlebeam:
Ah, the “must” is a good point.
sk
Raven1207: HE/HIM