Saturday, May 23, 2009

Proposal: Luck

Timed out. Passed with 12 :for: and 2 :against: , with 7 supporting the optional rule, meaning that it too passes. BTW, I am going to assume that Qwazukee intended for luck to be tracked in the GNDT.—Wakukee

Adminned at 25 May 2009 08:41:12 UTC

Create a new Dynastic Rule entitled “Luck” with the following text:

Each Contestant has a Luck score, representing the amount of natural luck that Contestant has in their life. Each Contestant’s Luck starts at zero.

Create a new Dynastic Rule entitled “Go Fish” with the following text:

When a Contestant’s Location is set to ‘Lounge’, as a weekly action, that Contestant may play the card game ‘Go Fish’. The Contestant makes a post to the blog entitled ‘Y’s Go Fish’ where Y is the name of that Contestant. In the post, the Contestant includes one and only one number from 1 to 13, inclusive. Each Contestant may make a comment to the post once with a For icon symbolising that they have ‘Gone Fishing’. Upon making the comment, that Contestant rolls DICE13 in the GNDT. If that Contestant rolls the same number that is in the post, that Contestant increases their own Luck by 1. When the number of For votes reaches Quorum, the Contestant who played ‘Go Fish’ may increase their Fame by 1.

If at least half of the counted votes on this proposal included the text “It’s better to be lucky than . . . not,” then create a new Dynastic Rule entitled “Putting Luck to Good Use” with the following text:

A Contestant may “Press My Luck” at any time by decrementing their own Luck by 1, so long as this does not reduce their Luck below 0. When the Contestant decides to “Press My Luck,” they may treat any one of their own DICE rolls as if they had rolled 1 more or less than they actually did. Whenever they do this, the Contestant must make a Story Post explaining the miraculous event that took place, which somewhere describes what the DICE roll was and what it is now being treated as. The Contestant may not change the new DICE value once the Story Post has been made.

Note that the Press My Luck cannot stack, and the DICE roll can only be treated as 1 different no matter how many Luck are spent.



05-23-2009 04:16:38 UTC

Explicit Author for

It’s better to be lucky than . . . not.


05-23-2009 04:29:55 UTC

imperial It’s better to be lucky than . . . not.


05-23-2009 05:03:05 UTC

for Not sure about the extra optional rule, though.


05-23-2009 05:08:51 UTC



05-23-2009 10:28:22 UTC

against How does Press My Luck not stack? If using it is “as if you had rolled” another number, subsequent Luck-Pressing will just act innocently on that number.

Ienpw III:

05-23-2009 11:32:53 UTC

for It’s better to be luck than… not


05-23-2009 12:04:43 UTC

2 reasons, Kevan. Firstly, the Press My Luck only applies to the original DICE roll; the Rule references not a changed DICE, but one that has been rolled. Secondly, because I thought this might be disputed, I added the last sentence. This specifically states that the new value cannot be changed (by any means) after the required Story Post has been made. This specific rule overrides the rule that would normally allow one to Press My Luck. Thus, no stacking can occur.


05-23-2009 12:05:32 UTC

yuri, if you want the Press My Luck part, you’re going to have to vote again with the letter “y” included. . . .


05-23-2009 12:39:51 UTC

I would assume the phrase “as if you had rolled” means that it’s an entirely seamless retroactive effect.

And I don’t think the last sentence quite covers it; the player has to make a blog post “whenever they do this”, but that can be read as “after having done so”, so there’s enough room to change it twice.

Not that this is a big deal - multiple rerolls seems fine, if you’ve built up the luck for it.


05-23-2009 12:54:05 UTC

No matter how many times they could theoretically perform this, they would have changed the original DICE roll by 1. At that point, the blog post must be made, and then the DICE result can never be changed again. I still don’t see the issue; maybe I’m misintepresting what you said? Although I agree that it’s not a huge issue.

Since you’re still against, I assume you have some other issue with the Proposal?


05-23-2009 13:38:44 UTC


Ienpw III:

05-23-2009 13:45:46 UTC

It’s better to be lucky than… not for


05-23-2009 17:18:09 UTC

imperial It’s better to be lucky than… not.


05-23-2009 19:35:36 UTC

imperial but I don’t support the optional rider.


05-23-2009 19:55:18 UTC

for There seems to be a general mechanic developing here: something you can do that other contestants can take advantage of, and you gain from it if enough contestants try to take advantage from it. I don’t mind the sub-proposal, but won’t bump its sub-vote in this comment because I don’t mind not having it either.


05-23-2009 21:45:58 UTC



05-24-2009 02:38:44 UTC

for It’s better to be lucky than . . . not


05-24-2009 20:22:12 UTC

It’s better to be lucky than… not.



05-24-2009 22:17:37 UTC

Passing 12-2, with 7 in support of the use for Luck.


05-25-2009 01:26:15 UTC

for Voting for Group think


05-25-2009 01:29:10 UTC

Lol arth, you’ve already voted on this one. You can still vote for the optional rule, though. : )


05-25-2009 03:59:21 UTC

The rider is on the fence; I’m waiting to see if anyone else has an opinion on it.


05-25-2009 05:05:12 UTC

Make that 11-2, with 6 in support. yuri doesn’t count twice.


05-25-2009 15:36:49 UTC

for It’s better to be lucky than . . . not