From a diff against the ruleset, your changes here are:

1. Renaming Bounties to “Requests for Mechanic”
2. Recommending that the Emperor vote for proposals that address the Request
3. Replacing the dynastically defined Payout with one that the Emperor defines in the Request

1 seems too specific, as it’s not always going to be a request for a mechanic. It might be a fix, or some flavour, or adding more items to a list.

2 seems redundant and mildly risky: if the Emperor asks for a way to slow down the tree-growing mechanic and someone proposes “start a metadynasty” or “repeal all core rules”, the Emperor is encouraged to support that.

3 I’m not sure about. It can’t realistically be abused (it’s nothing an Emperor can’t propose to do anyway), but there’s some risk of Emperor blindness in having them pick the reward each time, rather than the group agreeing on one.

1 is exactly the reason why this proposal is called Ludonarrative Dissonance - I think it is trying to fit into too many roles and at the end it get underused as a helping tool.

I think the additional uses of Bounties can fit dynastically.

2 is yes but it is a should; I feel like should is the mild push and there is the obvious “you aren’t solving anything by starting a meta / repeal all core”.

I’m honestly unsure about 3 - if it is something a emperor is tooling I feel like they should be given the tool to decide; they can always define a dynastic rule that says “when a RfM is enacted, for all truck who wrote those proposal do xyz” but I feel like there could be a additional plug that says to trigger them.

Oh, wait, 3 is actually completely abusable, because Requests aren’t proposals, they’re just posts: players can’t do anything in response to an unpopular or malicious one. A capricious Emperor can post a Request for Mechanic saying “I think the game should be more interesting, the reward for this is winning the dynasty”, and instantly hand that out to anyone.

The same thing is there to a lesser extent with Emperor blindness. They might casually offer some arbitrary resource reward without realising that it would be overpowered to do so. They could even hand it out to someone before the full playerbase had been able to give feedback on that.

To my ear there is more dissonance in an Emperor posting a “Request for Mechanic” that was asking for flavour text, or a repeal, or new items in a list, as these aren’t mechanics. “Bounty” seems like the right word, to me. One dictionary definition is “A reward, inducement, or payment, especially one given by a government for acts deemed beneficial to the state”.

Yup; but for what we can see; Bounty is always used in the sense of we are trying to get to a predefined point but it is dissonant with the fact that it is not pushing you on any formal, defined path. Maybe “Request for Input”?

I see the issue with 3 now; yup.

ngl, i feel more inclined to fully repeal bounties

Same as Darknight. I’d be happier if the concept was simply applied per dynasty that needed it, as it doesn’t get used that much anyway to require a common “template”.

[Chiiika] The full quote from the same dictionary is ”...such as killing predatory animals, growing certain crops, starting certain industries, or enlisting for military service”. That fits within the usage at BlogNomic, for me. If the government offers to pay me a bounty for every cobra I kill, it isn’t pushing for any particular method of killing.