Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Proposal: Potion Fix

Passes 7-0-3. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 13 Jun 2010 09:23:22 UTC

This Proposal only has further effect if there is a “Potions” Rule.
Change the paragraphs in the “Potions” Rule that begin with “There is also one other…” and “An Unidentified Potion’s…” to

There is also one potion not on the Basic Potion table: the Unidentified Potion.  When an Unidentified Potion is added to an @‘s inventory, let N be the result of a DICEX roll, where X is the number of items in the Basic Potion table.  If the Nth Potion in the Basic Potion table is on that @‘s Discovery List, that @ gains that Nth Potion and loses the Unidentified Potion.

An Unidentified Potion’s Primary Effect is “Let N be the result of a DICEX roll, where X is the number of items in the Basic Potion Table that are not on your Discovery List.  Carry out the Primary Effect of the Nth item in the Basic Potion Table that is not on your Discovery List, and add that selected Nth item to your Discovery List.”

Whenever some positive number M items on the Basic Potion Table are added to an @‘s Discovery List, for each Unidentified Potion in that @‘s inventory, let N be the result of a DICEX roll, where X is the number of items on the Basic Potion Table that were not on that @‘s Discovery List immediately before the addition of the M items.  If N is less than or equal to M, that Unidentified Potion changes into the Nth item of the M items that were added to the @‘s Discovery List.

If, somehow, an @ has an Unidentified Potion in its inventory for some positive amount of time, but all items on the Basic Potion Table are in its Discovery List, delete that Unidentified Potion from the @‘s inventory and then give that @ a Potion of Water.  This paragraph does not prevent an Unidentified Potion that is added to the @‘s inventory from existing long enough to be replaced by a random potion as described earlier in this Rule.

.
In the Basic Potion Table, move the Potion of Water to the first position of the table.

P1: If you already know some potions, you might get the known potion _instead_ of the UP.
P2: Quaffing a UP gives a random effect from _among those that you don’t know about_
P3: When you do identify a potion, you might find that some of the UPs you were carrying were of the same type.
P4: Hopefully, this never comes up.  Water is also moved to the top, just in case.

Comments

Bucky:

09-06-2010 23:04:39 UTC

for

scshunt:

09-06-2010 23:07:10 UTC

for

Klisz:

09-06-2010 23:35:59 UTC

imperial giant proposal

Galdyn:

10-06-2010 02:14:59 UTC

for

lilomar:

10-06-2010 03:32:27 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

10-06-2010 07:13:18 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

10-06-2010 07:44:51 UTC

Idle objection: the wording on the dice rolls seems somewhat ambiguous. “The result of a DICEX roll” could refer to any DICEY roll with Y=X that happens to have been made in the past. A player could roll twenty dice before quaffing a potion and always get the best effect.

Hix:

10-06-2010 16:20:04 UTC

Well, it’s the rules themselves that LET something equal the result of a roll, not a specific person.  There may be a slight ambiguity on a technical level, but it is consistent with everyday English usage:  the rule calls for a new roll to be made on behalf of the Gamestate.

Also, in general, we haven’t required that the Rules always say “make a DICE roll and do such-and-such with the result”.  Sometimes we just say things like “A new monster has 2DICE6 hit points”, with the understanding that a fresh 2DICE6 must be rolled specifically for this purpose, and that it can’t simply be chosen from among previous 2DICE6 rolls.

Purplebeard:

10-06-2010 19:06:31 UTC

I’m not sure I agree with you there. “2DICE6 hit points” obviously implies that a fresh 2DICE6 has to be rolled for that purpose, I won’t argue with that. “The result of a 2DICE6 roll” is more ambiguous to me, since it doesn’t specify which 2DICE6 roll should be chosen. It’s the ‘a’ that worries me.

This is just a technical objection, of course. If the general consensus is that your interpretation is the obvious one (and I think I’m slightly inclined to agree with you there) there won’t be a problem. I’m just saying it’s not perfectly unambiguous, and could be scammed (or attempted to be) in the future.

Qwazukee:

11-06-2010 05:15:25 UTC

imperial

ais523:

11-06-2010 17:37:33 UTC

for

Put:

11-06-2010 18:53:34 UTC

imperial