I really don’t feel like we’re at the point of allowing any player to end the dynasty as a daily action.

I’ll DEF on this as I feel that’s the right thing to do when discussing endgame mechanics while Emperor, but I do think that this dynasty isn’t quite in a place where I think a chop is a desirable outcome. I’d support it more if you had to be Retired in order to do the action.

That’s sensible. Adjusted per Josh.

I also need some convincing that a Chop is the right thing to do at this point.

I haven’t seen “weekly action and daily communal action” before, but I think it works rules-wise?

I think that this may be too likely to work, on the basis that you can try it multiple times. (For example, a 1 in 3 chance – 8 Triumphs – becomes better than 50-50 if you can try it twice.) Two players with 4 Triumphs each can try this four times in a row, on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, gaining a better than 75% chance for one of them to win. This makes me suspect that with the current numbers, it will cause the game to devolve into small pools spamming victory attempts as soon as they manage to retire, something that could probably be fixed by making the Payout Points smaller or increasing the size of the dice.

But I agree with JonathanDark that giving a way for pooling to, in effect, do a mantle roll is probably not a good fit for this dynasty. We’ve spent many dynasties trying to get rid of everything that could potentially be traded for pool participation, in an attempt to avoid the series of “pool and mantle-roll” endings that plagued BlogNomic semi-recently. Even so, players have been creative in trying to find things to trade for pools (e.g. the reason this dynasty is a coregency is that Josh and Habanero added coregency rules to have something to trade a pool for, and the resulting rule ended up triggering by accident when I scammed a win). We may now have reached the point at which “add a pooling reward by proposal” is the best remaining non-dynasty-specific option, and that makes me more inclined to vote against proposals that attempt to add one.

As politely as I can put this: ais, did you consider comparing the proposal to your own explicit bounty criteria before focusing on whether it seemed too achievable by some arbitrary and unstated metric? Small pools of players having comparatively good odds versus large pools is specifically relevant to the last bullet in your bounty post.

As far as dynastic fit goes, this proposal puts into ludic terms the idea of one conspirator getting away from a risky veteran-led heist with all the loot. That’s a classic heist story trope. I’m mystified by the idea that it is not sufficiently thematic.

I don’t agree with the suppositions behind your dice math, by the way. This proposal doesn’t remove the Retired requirement for declaring victory. You’re proposing that these two 4-Triumph players are either both successfully Retired already—which is a very expensive and risky action in terms of time and Triumphs, and which no one has even attempted yet—or only one of them is retired, in which case the other would still have to successfully retire after winning the Chop in order to declare victory. With 4 Triumphs, at 1-in-20 odds, and which can only be attempted as yet another Heist Action. Victory is nowhere near anyone’s reach.

(At 4-in-20 odds, rather.)

I have proposed an alternative for the bounty.

@Brendan: My last bullet point was about pools versus solo, not about large pools versus small pools.

I agree that the numbers here scale in the right sort of way – my concern is about the absolute size of them, not the way in which they scale.