Saturday, October 17, 2009

Proposal: Putting Teams to Good Use

Self-killed.  -2 to Yuri_dragon_17. -Bucky

Adminned at 19 Oct 2009 09:45:41 UTC

Add a new rule, “Games”:

As a weekly action, the Game Master (GM) may start a Game by making a story post with the word Game in the title. The story post must contain at least one Win Condition, and may contain Game Rules:
* Game Rules (optional): These rules must be treated as if they were Dynastic Rules for the duration of the Game, except that all other rules take precedence over them.
* Win Conditions: These describe how to win the Game.
The Game rules cannot state that players may achieve victory.
Once the Game has started, all players who are not the Game Master’s teammates may play the Game, and must follow the Game Rules (The GM’s teammates are not considered players for the purposes of a Game. When one team has achieved all of the Win Conditions, they win the game, and all players on that team are awarded 15 points.
Every Monday at 00:00:01, the Game Master must roll DICEX where X is the number of players in the GNDT (excluding themselves). A player who is not the GM whose position in the GNDT matches the rolled number becomes the Game Master.

Comments

Klisz:

10-17-2009 18:22:35 UTC

for , but who’s the initial GM?

Kevan:

10-17-2009 18:43:17 UTC

against Being able to write Dynastic Rule at whim will always be exploitable for victory, no matter how many safety clauses you try to bolt onto it. (eg. “Game Rule #1: As a daily action, Kevan may replace the words ‘The Game rules cannot state that players’ with ‘Kevan’ throughout the ruleset.”)

Klisz:

10-17-2009 18:44:28 UTC

...I just lost the Game.

Klisz:

10-17-2009 18:45:52 UTC

Also, I am still FOR, per Kevan.

Oze:

10-17-2009 20:02:47 UTC

against

Bucky:

10-17-2009 21:13:14 UTC

against as the Game Master effectively wins the dynasty as soon as they start the game.

Klisz:

10-17-2009 21:21:49 UTC

...er, Bucky, this isn’t the GM proposal…

Klisz:

10-17-2009 21:22:06 UTC

Wait, yes it is. Never mind.

Darknight:

10-17-2009 21:55:15 UTC

against

Ienpw III:

10-17-2009 23:08:00 UTC

S/K per kevan against

Ienpw III:

10-17-2009 23:10:20 UTC

If I reproposed it with a sentence saying that one cannot modify the ruleset as a result of game rules, would you vote for ?

Oranjer:

10-19-2009 03:30:32 UTC

for I would, of course.

ais523:

10-19-2009 07:55:13 UTC

against Breaks ruleset security. (BlogNomic doesn’t have a lot, but it needs what it has…)

Kevan:

10-19-2009 09:51:27 UTC

[Yuri] It shouldn’t be allowed to modify gamestate either, otherwise the GM could give themselves a million points and idle every other player.

Really, there’s no need to go down the “These rules must be treated as if they were Dynastic Rules” path. You just want a Game that spits out a “Player X or Team X has one” value.

Kevan:

10-19-2009 12:36:21 UTC

“Has won”, rather.

Josh:

10-19-2009 13:19:24 UTC

against

arthexis:

10-19-2009 13:38:20 UTC

Is this proposal self-killed, or is it still going? I ask because yuri voted for after voting against

Josh:

10-19-2009 15:30:12 UTC

S-k’s can’t be retracted, so it’s dead.