Sunday, January 01, 2023

Proposal: Praying to the RNG

Withdrawn -SingularByte

Adminned at 02 Jan 2023 20:49:31 UTC

If the proposal Deuce failed, apply its stated changes to the ruleset and then apply the changes of the proposal Double Deuce to the ruleset whether or not that was previously enacted.
If the proposal Deuce was enacted and the proposal Double Deuce failed, apply the proposal Double Deuce’s changes to the ruleset.

Remove the following text from the ruleset. “For each Fragment generated as part of this process, the Narrator should secretly generate a random number between 1 and 3; if the result is 1 then that Fragment is moved to a secretly randomly selected room occupied by, or adjacent to a room occupied by, a Lucky Explorer.”

If one of the following sentences exists in the ruleset, ‘Select three different Items defined by subrules of the rule “Items”, at random, and place each one in a random Room.’ or ‘Once per turn, up to three Items defined by subrules of this rule may be added to any Rooms by the Narrator, as a Supernatural Action.’ then append to it:

If a non-fragment item would be created in this way in a room that does not have an Explorer in it, but there there is at least one Lucky Explorer in a room that is connected to it via a Connection, then the item is placed in the room of one of those Lucky Explorers, chosen at random, and the Explorer whose Lucky advantage caused this is stated by the Narrator. If that Explorer attempts to Grab that item in the next Mansion Phase, they are considered to be Fast for the attempt.

Now Lucky Explorers get dibs on non-fragment items that would appear in empty adjacent rooms. Still a good perk, but not something that can win the game by itself.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

01-01-2023 20:17:30 UTC

I didn’t realize that you can retroactively enact failed Proposals with another Proposal. Neat trick!

Josh: he/they

01-01-2023 20:27:49 UTC

If Deuce fails then Double Deuce could be enacted, have no effect, and then not be implemented by this proposal. I’d change it to “If the Proposal Deuce failed, enact it, and then apply the effect of Proposal: Double Deuce.”

Bucky:

01-01-2023 20:33:53 UTC

Enacting a proposal that previously failed is legal, but it doesn’t automatically apply the proposal’s gamestate changes, it just flips the enacted/failed/pending status.

Bucky:

01-01-2023 20:38:19 UTC

Never mind, it’s illegal per 4.2.1 - “An official blog post that has the status of Enacted or Failed cannot change categories, except that a votable matter’s illegal resolution may be overturned.”

Bucky:

01-01-2023 20:39:56 UTC

My bad, I was thinking of an old version of the ruleset. You can, however, say something like “perform the gamestate changes described in the proposal Deuce”.

Josh: he/they

01-01-2023 20:41:00 UTC

@Bucky Not sure that’s correct:

When a Proposal is Enacted, its stated effects are immediately applied in full; the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correct any gamestate-tracking entities, as specified in the Proposal.

SingularByte: he/him

01-01-2023 20:42:08 UTC

Either way, I’ve applied both requested changes now. It now applies the changes of the proposal instead of enacting and deals with the double deuce issue.

Bucky:

02-01-2023 07:20:41 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

02-01-2023 08:34:30 UTC

for

Habanero:

02-01-2023 19:14:19 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

02-01-2023 20:00:40 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

02-01-2023 20:03:41 UTC

The “For each Fragment generated as part of this process” text being removed here has since been amended to “For each Fragment generated during the Reveal of Consequences”, so Lucky players will still get Fragments.

against

Kevan: City he/him

02-01-2023 20:05:57 UTC

Meaning that this proposal is just improving Luckiness by creating an additional attract-other-items ability.

Darknight: he/him

02-01-2023 20:12:09 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

02-01-2023 20:41:46 UTC

against  CoV

SingularByte: he/him

02-01-2023 20:47:50 UTC

Withdrawn against