Tuesday, April 08, 2025

Proposal: Loot Grabbin’

Popular, 8-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 09 Apr 2025 20:52:17 UTC

If the proposal “Treasure” Passed, this proposal does nothing

Create a new subrule of the rule “The Hotel”, titled “Valuables”:

There are Spots which contain Artifacts, which are publicly tracked on the gamestate page as a list. If there are no Spots which currently contain Artifacts, the Concierge may take the atomic action titled “Scattering Valuables” which is as follows:
* Secretly randomly determine a number between 2 and 4 inclusive.
* Select that many Spots and add them to the list of rooms which contain artifacts.
** Selected Spots may not be any Spots which contained artifacts prior to the previous Breaking In action.

Add the following as an additional step to the “Breaking In” atomic action, as a third substep of the first item in the action:

** For each Burglar who is the only Agent at a Spot which contains an Artifact, remove that Spot from the list of rooms which contains an Artifact.


If the proposal “A measure of Competence” passed, also add the following, appended to the end of the second-to-last bullet point of the “Breaking In” atomic action:

and increase the Burglar’s Reputed Infamy by 4 for each Spot that was removed from the list of Spots which contain Artifacts as a result of that Burglar

Add the following as a final step in the “Breaking In” atomic Action:

* Remove all Spots from the list of Spots which contain Artifacts, then perform the “Scattering Valuables” atomic action.

If the proposal “The Way In” enacted, add the following as another sub-bullet point for the second step in the “Scattering Valuables” atomic action:

** Selected Spots may not be any Spots which are listed as Points of Ingress, nor may they be adjacent to any such Spots, and they may not be the Grounds.

If the proposal “Be prepared. Be very prepared” passed, append the following sentence to the subrule “The Back Door”:

A Spot which contains an Artifact may not be selected in this manner.

 

 

Adding some goals for the Robbers to complete while wandering about.

Comments

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

08-04-2025 18:32:37 UTC

Ah apologies Clucky - I should have refreshed the page before posting this. If yours turns out popular I’ll vote against this

Clucky: he/him

08-04-2025 18:35:07 UTC

haha great minds think alike now people get to pick which idea they prefer!

Or maybe edit this to focus on the scattering valuables side of things, as mine doesn’t cover that?

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

08-04-2025 18:41:00 UTC

I’ll have an opportunity in about an hour to add a clause for if yours passes

DoomedIdeas: he/him

08-04-2025 18:47:24 UTC

The sentences “remove that Spot from the list of rooms which contains a Spot” and “for each Spot the was removed from the list of Spots” require some correction, but at the moment I have no other qualms with this proposal.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

08-04-2025 19:28:10 UTC

I’ve edited! Rather than add a whole separate section for treasure distribution under Clucky’s proposal, I’ve just set up this one to do nothing if it passes so that a fully fledged proposal to handle that can be put in place instead.

JonathanDark: he/him

08-04-2025 23:26:35 UTC

I like Clucky’s version better, no offense.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

08-04-2025 23:34:57 UTC

I respect it!

ais523:

09-04-2025 02:22:41 UTC

for

JonathanDark: he/him

09-04-2025 04:32:54 UTC

The interesting thing about voting to have a competing proposal be revised is that the next proposal in the queue, this one, could be enacted first, leaving it pointless to revise the one before it. In this case, enacting this “Loot Grabbin” would make it pointless to revise “Treasure”.

DoomedIdeas: he/him

09-04-2025 04:37:10 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

09-04-2025 05:36:42 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

09-04-2025 08:20:05 UTC

for

qenya: she/they

09-04-2025 09:54:05 UTC

for

Kevan: Concierge he/him

09-04-2025 10:25:11 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

09-04-2025 12:36:51 UTC

for