The Law appears to not do anything? It’s a publicly tracked number but you haven’t specified any way to change it nor anything that cares about it.

This rule allows us to continue heisting from jail, which a) seems like a good thing balance-wise but b) is weird flavour-wise.

Mutable rules can’t contain victory conditions. You could probably safely make that rule immutable (given that it’s guarding actions that change mutable variables, which could presumably be changed by other means).

I think this reveals an issue with the bullet-point list at the end of Teams and Targets—“any Participant… may perform the following actions” is not the same as “may perform all the following actions.” The “may” and the lack of “all” makes it easy to argue that you can pick and choose which you perform.

Is the only way to get out of being Jailed, under this proposal, via text-hacking?

I’ve changed “Escaping Justice” to be Immutable and changed the names to better fit the flavor of a Participant whose can still perform Heists while being On The Run.

The only way now to get out of being On The Run is to add a way to change that Mutable variable Running, which I am intentionally leaving up to someone else’s Proposal.

You could cut a bunch of words out of this by using Reputations.

The flavour change of Jailed to On The Run is good. I think that, as written, you can reset the entire list by idling, which probably isn’t intended (it’s a “list of participants”, if you idle, it’s no longer a list of participants). Reinitialisation probably doesn’t work, because the list isn’t personal gamestate, but I’m not sure. (Text-hacking does work because it’s explicitly defined as mutable.)

@Brendan: it says “may perform the following actions simultaneously” which certainly reads to me like you have to perform all of them. The “may” is that you may choose not to perform any, if you wish.

@Josh: I thought about using Reputations, but I didn’t want to make that become the dumping ground for all sorts of unrelated states. However, if that’s preferred for rule conciseness, I’m willing to make the edits.

I guess it would have the additional benefit of being manipulated (eventually) through the Reputations rule. I’m warming up to the idea of turning Running into another Reputation but would like to get a sense of support for it before making the edits.

As a loss-averse person in general, I’m planning to vote against this. Being randomly punished for trying to play the game, or even being randomly assigned to the same team as someone else who plays it, and needing to get a quorum of other players to agree with you just to have a mechanism of removing that punishment?  That sounds incredibly dispiriting.

Not a fan of push-your-luck games, or is it the fact that your risk is tied to the actions of your team, which cannot materially control?

I’ll think on how to remove the risk so that it’s only taken by those who actually performed Heists. I still think there’s some value in press-your-luck, deciding how successful you want to try to be before locking in your successes.

Alright, I reduced this down to some Characteristics and put the risk only on those who had successful Heist Actions, which resets each time you are Searched.

It’s still “you could be punished for playing the game” but honestly, in a theme of thieves pulling off Heists of the laws themselves, it just feels right. Sorry, Brendan.

The Searches need to happen after, rather than during, the scoring. Otherwise, you would have to perform two atomic actions simultaneously in order to score, which is not allowed. (That would also reduces the chance that a scoring attempt would fail due to processing the side effects incorrectly.)

Fixed, now it’s a separate action, performed by any one Participant against any other who fits the criteria, and reset on the selected Participant losing a target (keeping up with the latest in synchronization).