Friday, November 03, 2006

Proposal: Maybe they’ll go away if I close my eyes…

7-1. Reached Quorum.—Chronos

Adminned at 04 Nov 2006 05:31:47 UTC

Create a subrule to “MY EYES! MY BRAIN!” called “Therapeutic Isolation” with text:

The outside world is a scary place.  Sometimes the only way to cope is to barricade yourself in a familiar place, curl up into a fetal position, shut your eyes, and try to relax—all while hoping that the voices that have been haunting you go away and/or don’t come back.

Each Student may occasionally attempt to relax by making a GNDT comment of “Relax DICE100”.  Let S be the Sanity of the Student making the attempt, and let L be the result of the DICE100 check.  If S+L is positive, the Student’s Sanity is set to (S+5)/2 (rounding up).  Otherwise, the Student has suffered horrific waking nightmares (again), and the Student’s Sanity is reduced by 6.

posted by Hix at 03 Nov 2006 18:09:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

03-11-2006 18:21:26 UTC

for What do you people think about moving the Sanity maximum to 50 (and multiplying all current Sanity by 10)? That would allow for more fine-grained manipulation.

Hix:

03-11-2006 18:46:54 UTC

I think the max of 5 is good, but I’m not vehemently opposed to the multiplication by 10.  I did design the numbers in this proposal with the maximum of 5 in mind—for a maximum of 50, I’d have made the DICE100 into a DICE1000, and Sanity would either be set to (S+50)/2 or reduced by 66.  With the max Sanity of 5, I kind of like the implication that a Sanity of -7, for example, represents a state of being lucid only 93% of the time (and the “maximum lucidity” is 105%).

Fine-grained manipulation may open more design space, but I think it would probably lead to the creation of abilities that cost “just a little bit” of sanity, making it too easy to avoid insanity.  As it is now, the smallest possible Sanity penalty already puts you 1/6 of the way to Insanity, which seems about right to me.

Bucky:

03-11-2006 20:47:20 UTC

for

Elias IX:

03-11-2006 22:16:38 UTC

against Perhaps I’m lazy, but I’m not inclined towards dice check procedures that involve more than two steps.

Hix:

03-11-2006 22:32:55 UTC

Fair enough, but it’s pretty easy to tell whether S+L>0 or not.

Thrawn:

03-11-2006 23:12:52 UTC

for

Rodney:

03-11-2006 23:23:11 UTC

for

Ornithopter:

03-11-2006 23:43:48 UTC

for
DICE100 seems a bit high to me, but I’m almost certainly wrong about that.

aran:

04-11-2006 11:34:28 UTC

for