Thursday, January 30, 2025

Proposal: New Challengers

Withdrawn and failed -SingularByte

Adminned at 01 Feb 2025 07:14:30 UTC

Create a new rule Plans {I}

There exists Plans, which may be either Unready, Ready, In Progress, or Complete. This defaults to Complete but a starting value of Unready. Each Plan has a Duration, defaulting to 0 days, and a Size, defaulting to 0. Each Plan has a cost, which is the Duration multiplied by the Size. Each plan is owned by a Participant, known as a Rogue. No two Plans may share a Rogue, unless at least one of those two is Complete.

A Participant may create a Plan by making a Story Post stating that they’re making a Plan, and choosing values for its Duration and Size. The chosen size may at most be one less than quorum.

Participants may comment on an Unready plan, stating a number of Triumphs which may be any number from 0 to their current number of Triumphs. The Rogue is implicitly considered to have commented and stated their current tracked number of triumphs.

At any time, an Unready plan’s Rogue may comment on that Plan stating which Participants they Choose (including themselves), up to the chosen size. This is known as the Plan’s Team. When the Rogue does so, they subtract Triumphs from the chosen participants up to the stated number from that participant until the Cost is fully paid; the plan becomes Ready once this is done. It is not possible to choose Participants in this way if the cost cannot be fully paid in this way by that combination of chosen Participants.

When a Plan has been In Progress for a number of days equal to its Duration, it becomes Complete and any Participant may mark that Plan’s Team as having no Target. At any time, a Rogue may set the Duration of their In Progress Plan to 0 by removing the Targets from their Team.

If a Rogue who owns an In Progress Plan is the only member of their Team, they are able to spend two Triumphs to make the next Heist Action they take swift, and this swift action is not subject to the restriction in Focus {I} preventing consecutive Swift Actions.

For the purposes of the rules Roles, Guesses and Oversight, Rogues with In Progress Plans are considered Masterminds.


Add a bullet point to the bullet points in Teams and Targets:

* Remove all Targets from all Participants, except where those Participants have a Participant as their Target;
* Increase by 1 the Triumphs count of each Participant whose non-Participant Target appeared as a word in the ruletext immediately before this set of simultaneous actions was performed.
* For each Participant with a focus of * whose Target was lost in this way, set their focus to 0.
* For each Plan that is Ready, starting from the oldest, set the Target of each of the Rogue’s Team, to be equal to the name of that Rogue unless that Participant already has a Target. That Plan is now considered In Progress.

Currently, the main thing that likely stops people trying to win is the endless back and forth of Triumphs and team resets. This proposal is therefore to allow one person, or a small group, to request a pause to the action so they can try for a win if they have enough triumphs to bankroll the attempt. Of course, nothing stops others from joining a group for the same pause.

Comments

Brendan: he/him

30-01-2025 20:23:15 UTC

“Triumphs cannot be increased while any Plans are In Progress.”—So any player can lock everyone else out of completing a heist?

SingularByte: he/him

30-01-2025 20:43:45 UTC

Yeah, the point is to give people time to achieve a goal. If people can still score points and reset teams, it defeats the whole point of it.

Although, saying that, I might see if I can come up with a way of wording things so that the team in a plan is immune from regular team changes while allowing everyone else to play normally.

SingularByte: he/him

30-01-2025 20:49:41 UTC

Okay, modified now. People in a Plan are now simply immune to team changes until such time as they lose that plan at which point they can simply filter into an existing team.

ais523:

31-01-2025 04:39:21 UTC

Hmm, I think this might be overly susceptible to a form of pooling you might not have envisaged – the only thing that prevents two participants on different teams from working together to change the ruleset is the anti-snipe rules, so it is possible that a set of Participants could pool by each creating an independent, 1-Participant Plan and putting those plans into effect simultaneously (they would have to take care to avoid touching the same words as each other but a victory attempt is likely to touch multiple different rules in the ruleset).

Apart from that, I like it, and would probably vote for a version that avoids the separate-team-pooling scenario somehow.

SingularByte: he/him

31-01-2025 08:06:25 UTC

I’d be open to fixing that, but I’m trying to think of the best mechanism to do so. The most obvious one would be to remove the single-person advantage, but at the same time, that just encourages overt pooling and weakens solo players.

ais523:

31-01-2025 08:33:12 UTC

You could potentially limit it to one 1-player plan at a time, so that only one player gets the bonus.

SingularByte: he/him

31-01-2025 08:39:08 UTC

Possibly, but that still allows a larger team to just have one of their members split off to act solo.

I might just need to make plans have a flat cost and remove the solo advantage entirely so that there’s no real advantage to splitting teams. Sure it benefits from pooling, but that’s probably on-brand for a dynasty which is all about pooling actions anyway.

SingularByte: he/him

31-01-2025 08:46:57 UTC

I’m also aware that I messed up the bullet points, so that’ll be fixed when I make a second version.

Josh: he/they

31-01-2025 09:28:03 UTC

imperial Deferring to the players on this one.

Brendan: he/him

31-01-2025 16:36:35 UTC

against I don’t understand what the scam in this rule is yet, but please reach out on Discord if you want to enlighten me.

ais523:

31-01-2025 16:44:54 UTC

Hmm, perhaps it would be possible to simplify this via, instead of explicit Plans, allowing players to pay Triumphs to avoid losing their team assignment when a team scores (i.e. you can pay 1 Triumph in advance, and then for the next 24 hours, your target stays the same if you would otherwise lose it – and if you have a multi-day plan you can pay a Triumph every day to keep your target for longer)? I think that would end up with a similar effect, and would probably be much simpler to word correctly. (Although you could use that to guarantee a score, there isn’t any benefit in spending 1 Triumph to gain 1 Triumph.)

SingularByte: he/him

31-01-2025 16:45:13 UTC

It’s not a scam. The intent is more to give people time to actually do scams without having to endlessly battle against triumphs that reset the teams.

Whether it’s broken as written is a different matter (with the answer being yes, so if there’s interest, I’ll be cleaning up the wording).

ais523:

31-01-2025 16:59:10 UTC

against due to wording issues, but I am not against the principle.

Habanero:

31-01-2025 17:27:11 UTC

There’s a few problems here:

- It isn’t actually legal to set targets to player names because the only legal values are ones Masterminds have, which are always EFF words

- I don’t actually need to choose Participants who commented on my Plan, I can very well choose those who commented on another plan and drain the Triumphs they put out

- I can pick a Plan size to 0 and a very large duration and choose no one for the Plan, thus being a Rogue without a team (and get the Mastermind benefits)

- If a plan has been ongoing for a day and I set its duration to 0 prematurely, it arguably does not complete (since it’s ‘equal to its duration’, not ‘at least its duration’)

- It’s not clear that the Plan itself is the blog post (we’re supposed to ‘make a ‘Story Post stating that they’re making a Plan’ but this never actually says what the plan is). We could probably just handwave this one away because it’s obvious from context that the blog post is the Plan

I like the concept, but I’ll have to against because the implementation is so buggy. I’d support a simpler version

Raven1207: Monarchple he/they

31-01-2025 18:58:57 UTC

against

JonathanDark: he/him

31-01-2025 19:15:15 UTC

against for the scams/problems Habanero pointed out

SingularByte: he/him

31-01-2025 23:32:58 UTC

against  Withdrawn and simplified.