BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I made this into a proposal for you; you need to go into the “categories” tab and select “proposal”.

, though the last paragraph is redundant (updating the GNDT to account for the true gamestate is standard practice).

Not the GNDT, please.  You really want to have to type or copy/paste your full inventory every time you want to make a small change?  And it will get cluttered.

CoV   per Hix; we really ought to put this on the wiki. (I’m only vetoing it so that it can get processed relatively soon.)

@Darth: despite my efforts, we don’t have the fast veto at the moment. This would have been a perfect opportunity to use it…

Thanks for the (procedural) veto.

My only concern with the last paragraph is that, by a strict reading of 1.1 and 1.7, @s may only change the GNDT (what a name!) or other Gamestate-tracking mechanisms by explicit permission.

“Any @ may update any @‘s data via the GNDT, whenever the Ruleset permits it.”

This is the sentence you refer to, if I’m not mistaken. However, what it means in its spirit as opposed to its letter is that players may update the GNDT to reflect the actual gamestate at any time.

@Narya: “A GNDT update that does not perform a rules-defined action does not alter the gamestate; @s should not alter the GNDT except to correct it to match the actual gamestate (in the case that the two somehow end up different), or to perform an action.” You need explicit permission to change the GNDT to change the gamestate (which makes sense, it would be ridiculous if players could change the gamestate arbitrarily without the ruleset permitting it); but you have permission there (and in the previous para) to change it to match the gamestate in the case that the two somehow end up different. (Normally, there’d be, say, a rule that let you pay 20 zorkmids to buy a scroll of identify; to do so, you could modify the GNDT to reduce your zorkmids by 20 and add a scroll to your items column. You’d need explicit rules permission to do that, but after doing so the GNDT would be correct, no need for another rule to let you change it.)

@Darth Cliche: I agree that this seems to be the intent.  If I were bold, I would have proposed to change that section to make that more explicit. But since I’m just starting, I thought it would be easier to add text to my proposal that would make it play nicely with even a conservative interpretations of 1.1 and 1.7.

@ais523: In my strict interpretation, the portion you quoted forbids @s from making certain changes but does not explicitly authorize other changes; thus “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset” from 1.1 seems to forbid changes.  I was trying to work around that.

“@s should not alter the GNDT except to correct it to match the actual gamestate (in the case that the two somehow end up different), or to perform an action”

This very strongly implies that A) @s /can/ edit the GNDT to match the actual gamestate, and B) “the actual gamestate” shows that the GNDT is not part of the gamestate.

Nice job noticing that near-loophole, though; I’ll propose a fix.

I always find it rather humbling when someone who is new to BN to see things like this loophole when those who’ve been playing for ages had no clue that there was a loophole to begin with lol. Well done.