Monday, February 29, 2016

Proposal: One for Everyone!

Vetoed. — Quirck

My vote in that comment was the last icon, the against, not the veto; still, it fails due to quorum against, 1-5. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 01 Mar 2016 22:56:52 UTC

Create a new rule “Titles” with the following text:

An Orc may hold Titles which are symbols of their prowess and have varying effects on the gamestate. Titles are tracked in the GNDT. Each Title may be held by only one Orc at any time. The available Titles are:
• Warlord: The Warlord may, as a periodic action, gain 1 Warrior if they do not currently have the highest number of warriors among all Orcs.
• Collier: The Collier may, as a periodic action, gain 1 Miner if they do not currently have the highest number of Miners among all Orcs.
• Taskmaster: The Taskmaster receives 1 additional spoil per 2 Miner whenever Time Advances.
• Browbeater: The Browbeater may, as a periodic action, set their Clan Bond to any other Orc and set that Orcs Clan Bond to the Browbeater.
• Workaholic: The Workaholic may, as a periodic action, choose any periodic action they could normally preform and preform that action as though they had not already done so that period.
• Adventurer: For any Quest the Adventure is a Rider on, the result of the DICE roll is increased by 1 for the purposes of determining success or failure.

An Orc may claim a Title by paying 5 Warriors if their Warriors are greater than the number of Warriors of the Orc who currently possesses the Title. When an Orc claims a Title it is added to their Titles and removed from any other Orc’s Titles.
Any Orc that has at least 5 Titles has Achieved Victory. Any Title held by no Orc when Time Advances is randomly assigned to the Orc listed in this rule who as the fewest current titles, in the event of a tie the Title should be assigned randomly via a DICE roll in the GNDT. If an Orc becomes idle remove their name from this rule and if an Orc unidles add their name to this rule. The Orc Larrytheturtle : Brendan : Cheshire : Moonroof : Pigheadedgnu : Quirck




29-02-2016 05:27:38 UTC

The last part is so that Raichu doesn’t get one and also that a Title held by an Orc who goes idle is assigned to someone who presumably is doing the worst or at least not well. Attempting to create an alternative win as well if people prefer.


29-02-2016 05:28:18 UTC

If people do prefer this win I’ll self kill the other proposal, just let me know.

quirck: he/him

29-02-2016 11:55:19 UTC

for Raichu can idle/unidle to appear in the list :) Maybe we can change it to “The Overlord cannot hold Titles” if it is important


29-02-2016 15:45:52 UTC

Let me illustrate a possible situation.
Orc A has 7 Warriors. Orc B has 6 Warriors and a title.
Orc A spends five Warriors to take the title from Orc B.
Orc A now has 2 Warriors and a title. Orc B has 6 Warriors.
Now Orc B can spend 5 Warriors to take the title right back.
This this what you intended?


29-02-2016 19:31:53 UTC

I intended them to be difficult to take and maintain. If you like the rest but not that part I would suggest pass and amend be the course of action since it’s just a small part and I doubt anyone will have enough warriors to take a title soon.

RaichuKFM: she/her

29-02-2016 21:16:52 UTC

for I’m not really intending to idle in my own Dynasty, promise.


29-02-2016 21:51:14 UTC

If anyone votes for this we can enact it in time for the next Advancing of Time.

Kevan: he/him

29-02-2016 22:27:52 UTC

I have unidled. Quorum rises to 5.

against because this is a core rules scam. (“a word only refers to the name of an Orc if it is explicitly stated that it refers to an Orc’s name”, and Larry is the only named Orc in this conspicuously elaborately-worded victory mechanic.)


29-02-2016 22:28:20 UTC

Sure, I’ll vote for

Could be fun.

Kevan: he/him

29-02-2016 22:30:43 UTC

Well, that was close.

quirck: he/him

29-02-2016 22:56:53 UTC

against per Kevan

RaichuKFM: she/her

29-02-2016 23:27:25 UTC

Eh. I should probably change my vote, but, well, this is hilarious, and it’s my Dynasty. Which, gameplaywise, has been… seeming kinda off to me?

The way people seem to want to go with it is weirdly reminiscent of, well, it’s been grindy and emphasizing rich get richer mechanics over some kind of competitive combative ones? Which is weirdly reminiscent of what seems to be the archetypical bad BlogNomic gameplay?

Honestly almost hilariously contra my stated intentions for this Dynasty. I don’t know how much of this actually reflects on me this time, weirdly? It’s… odd.

But, as I lack any real aversion to core rules scams that are actually clever, and can’t rightly say I’d be upset at my Dynasty ending like this, since it… seems to be heading in an oddly probably unfun direction, at least from what I think I know of how these things work,

I’m not going to vote against, or veto? More or less, my rationale is that if this passes with the scam out in the open, it’s pretty obvious that people don’t want to play out the rest of this thing, to nip a “Repeal all rules and start a new Metadynasty” or slow grindfest ending in the bud.

And if that’s the case, I honestly couldn’t say I’d mind.

In short, I don’t mind if the Dynasty ends this way, because I’m a little leery of the gameplay; if the consensus is to keep going, I’ll try to come up with some better Proposals.

(I’ve been feeling this way about the gameplay for a while, this was really just an excuse to say as much.)


29-02-2016 23:30:57 UTC

Honestly I wouldn’t have tried this if the game were going good and seemed to be fun and not a grindy optimization fest.


01-03-2016 00:58:21 UTC

If the scam is what I think it is, I don’t really know if it works at all. Still, I’m not changing my vote either. Too many proposals getting vetoed in a row; for some reason, this theme is moving really slowly.

Brendan: he/him

01-03-2016 06:37:08 UTC


Brendan: he/him

01-03-2016 06:39:07 UTC

I showed up a little late and didn’t really get a grasp on your stated goals for the dynasty, RaichuKFM; can I ask you to reiterate them?


01-03-2016 06:55:04 UTC

“Once, the teeming hosts of our kind were perched to take all the world, to claim all that was ours by right. But the dark one who had joined our kind together by force was cast down, and our armies laid low, scattered to the hills.

There we still wait, warring amongst ourselves, none raising the might to bring us together. But all know that this shall not last… We will rise once more.”

That’s the ascension address in it’s entirety so take it as you will. My understanding is that he want a competitive and combat heavy game. I think the idea was to have combat as the primary mechanic of the dynasty but everyone keeps showing aversion to direct combat but no one has really proposed an alternative and he isn’t sure where to take it instead?

I wouldn’t have really tired to pull a core rule scam if the dynasty was booming but since everyone was seeming to favor a different style of dynasty I felt that it may be best to reset before it experiences the heat death that most of the other super grindy dynasties I’ve been a part of experienced.


01-03-2016 07:26:31 UTC

Also, the direct combat system would fix the whole fact that no one is really gonna be able to catch me currently? As is 3 Time Advances from now I will have 127 Miners which is just getting silly? and it only gets worse from there since getting more Miners is basically an exponential growth. Currently there is no reason to buy Warriors as Quests are highly unlikely to ever pay of in the long run due to their incredibly risky nature.

Kevan: he/him

01-03-2016 09:36:23 UTC

[Cheshire] The scam is the combination of this proposal’s “Any Title held by no Orc when Time Advances is randomly assigned to the Orc listed in this rule who as the fewest current titles” and the obscure appendix rule that “a word only refers to the name of an Orc if it is explicitly stated that it refers to an Orc’s name”. When Time Advances, the only Orc legally listed in Larrytheturtle’s rule will be “The Orc Larrytheturtle”.


01-03-2016 17:26:33 UTC

[Kevan] I understand what the idea is, but, wouldn’t the definition of “Orc” in the main game rules take priority? I guess you’d know more about it than me though.


01-03-2016 17:27:07 UTC

Either way, I’ll change my vote to against since someone created a fixed up version.


01-03-2016 18:15:29 UTC

[Cheshire] The issue at hand wouldn’t be the definition of Orcs. Using you as an example, the issue is weather the word “Cheshire” appearing in the ruleset would refer to you. Say we were in an Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland themed dynasty and people invented a mechanic involving the Cheshire Cat in some way, there could be issues involving weather the word “Cheshire” in this mechanic referred to you or not. Of course it would depend on the actual wording of the mechanic but one could imagine this issue arising. The easiest fix is to make a rule saying that a word only refers to the Orc if it explicitly states that it does.

When the rule was made or if anyone ever pulled of some scam based on that idea I’m not sure. Kevan might know? If your interested on the subject you could look through dynastic histories in the wiki but I’m not that interested or dedicated.

Secondly, in terms of what would take priority if there were a conflict between the two rules, the appendix takes priority over all rules.

Hope that helps.

RaichuKFM: she/her

01-03-2016 21:57:00 UTC

Well, things are looking up, gamewise.

Brendan: Larry mostly got it right; though, the bit of “my stated intentions” specifically referred to the flavor text of my AA, which, I think I removed before posting, actually. It was to the effect of avoiding the pitfalls some of my prior Dynasties have tended to fall into, and fostering some interesting, competitive gameplay. Forgot I hadn’t actually posted that, whoops.

Also, Cheshire, the key is that the list is “The Orc Larrytheturtle” and then “Brendan : Cheshire : Moonroof : Pigheadedgnu : Quirck”. The “The Orc” prefix was necessary to make it refer to a name, due to the appendix. Thus, every title would be given to Larrytheturtle (the only Orc in the list), he’d have more than five, and win.

Also, “Too many proposals getting vetoed in a row”? I haven’t vetoed one? Veto specifically refers to this veto thing I can do, reserved mainly for dangerous proposals (like this one!) that shouldn’t pass, but were on track to.

In this case, since Kevan’s unidle blocked the fast pass, there was time for regular votes, and it was unnecessary. Speaking of which,  against.


01-03-2016 22:14:49 UTC

I meant failed, not vetoed. Mistake in phrasing there.