Thursday, July 07, 2016

Story Post: Objection: Military

Upheld 3-1.  -Bucky

Adminned at 12 Jul 2016 00:31:56 UTC

I have received a map to ruleset 55, rule 2.3 (including all subrules), “Military.” Your humble Editor objects on the grounds that it is not of the True Ruleset nature, but in addition to that, it would add a great deal of complexity (not to mention GNDT column width) to a ballooning gamestate. Let us find small, elegant rules that may be stitched into our collective fabric instead.



07-07-2016 17:07:49 UTC



07-07-2016 17:50:54 UTC

against It certainly is inelegant, but why is it “unacceptable”?


07-07-2016 18:40:03 UTC

I don’t think it fits with the style of game we are setting up here. Also, it would add an unnecessary level of complexity to an already complex game. THAT is why it is unacceptable cance “Unacceptable”.


07-07-2016 18:40:45 UTC



07-07-2016 21:54:07 UTC

COME ON! Let’s see what good your DETERMINATION is against THIS!


Clucky: he/him

07-07-2016 23:29:03 UTC

This adds two more GNDT column, but most interesting rules will either add a column or reference something that we need to make a column for, so I don’t think that is a problem unique to this rule.

Furthermore, it reused a stat energy) rather than adding a new one, so that too arguably cuts down on the complexity it ads compared to another random rule.

There is certainly a bit of complexity introduced by the list of organizations, adding foreign terms like “Crew Size” and “Technology score” but they are harmless for now and we could wholesale replace that organization list at a later point.

RaichuKFM: she/her

07-07-2016 23:53:54 UTC

Determi-what now?

I’m with Clucky on this one; I’m leaning a bit more towards the objection than not, but not particularly strongly.


08-07-2016 01:28:52 UTC

for I don’t feel that strongly but I’m in favor of letting Brendan choose what he wants as long as he keeps it within reason.