Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Proposal: Proposal: Pie Tin Defense

Quorums 1-6. — Quirck

Adminned at 16 Aug 2012 01:03:27 UTC

If the proposal titled “Bakers of the Round Table” failed, this proposal does nothing.

Add the following as a 3rd paragraph to the “Holy War” subrule:

If the Target is hit in the face by a pie in this way and they possess 1 or more Empty pies, then instead of the Target’s Hits being increased by 1, their number of Empty pies is decreased by 1, as they used the (now ruined) empty pie tin to defend the attack.

If the Holy War really gets on and Hits start mattering, this could add an interesting dynamic.  First, there’s the strategic choice of stockpiling Empties versus upgrading to attacking Cream pies (or other pies, of course).  And also, if a player zealously upgrades pies or has recently been attacked, they’re then more vulnerable to further hits.

Comments

GreyWithAnE:

14-08-2012 08:20:38 UTC

Sorry for the double “Proposal.”  I didn’t realize the Category automatically adds it to the title.

quirck: he/him

14-08-2012 08:23:14 UTC

...and they used the empty pie tin to catch the flying cream pie and can now throw it back >:D

It seems to be an easy way to defend, though. Unless people cooperate to shower someone with pies, it’s hard to break through empty pies.

Cpt_Koen:

14-08-2012 11:56:14 UTC

against I agree with everything quirck said :)

Bucky:

14-08-2012 13:51:56 UTC

imperial

Clucky: he/him

14-08-2012 14:03:26 UTC

against I don’t think getting hit with a pie should actually be a bad thing. It should just be a thing.

quirck: he/him

14-08-2012 14:52:00 UTC

against

GreyWithAnE:

14-08-2012 19:22:08 UTC

for Wouldn’t encouraging people to shower someone with pies be the whole point? :)  In game systems, I’ve found defense is usually designed to be easier than offense.  Of course, maybe we take a more aggressive look ‘round these parts.

Maybe I just find the of Pie Tin Shields too appealing.  If this were all up to me, we’d probably have a victory condition of building a full suit of armor out of pie tins, then going to kill a dragon (or perhaps an evil yeast monster).

Clucky: he/him

14-08-2012 19:43:44 UTC

The issue is that this makes it clear that getting hit with pies is bad. Its better for you to lose an empty pie than get hit. You don’t even get a choice.

I’d rather have getting hit with pies being more neutral. Like “oh look I got hit with a pie” and it effects the game, but it isn’t necessarily good or bad. That keeps the game more friendly. Like, maybe if there were “Shield Pies” that could stop you from getting it I’d support the proposal because then you need to make a choice of “I don’t want to get hit with a pie so I’m going defense” rather than “I don’t care if I get hit with a pie, but someone targeting me could make me lose all my empty stockpiles”

GreyWithAnE:

14-08-2012 19:59:07 UTC

I thought about giving a choice to defend or implementing Shield Pies, but I thought this would be the simplest way to implement some sort of defensive mechanic (without forcing extra actions for the players or introducing the analysis-paralysis of “do I make a shield pie?”).

If this did get passed, we should probably have non-pie actions to the game, so that people don’t end up screwed with 0 Empties, though.  And since you’re the Simon, you’ve got more authorial voice in this anyway.  Maybe you are not crazy about non-pie actions.

Clucky: he/him

14-08-2012 20:44:59 UTC

Sure its simpler, but it operates with the assumption that being hit with a cream pie is so bad that every baker would rather lose an empty pie. I’m really don’t like that assumption.

Murphy:

15-08-2012 20:26:43 UTC

against

agree, should be based on Shield Pies

moonroof:

15-08-2012 22:08:39 UTC

imperial