One Adams reference is enough (although an actual Guide-themed dynasty would be fun).

Since this doesn’t specify what circumstances this roll might be in, anyone could simply post DICE42 an average of 42 times.

Uh oh. Good catch, Rodney. COV

  RoV per Rodney.

Is it legal to just roll over and over again if there is no column for which an integer is a legal value?

@dbdougla: Yes, that’s what Rodney just pointed out. (Even if there IS a column for which an integer is a legal value, you can still just keep rolling.)

@Darth Cliche.  I read Rodney’s comment, and what I am contending (and failed to make clear) is that since the GNDT tracks the game state, unless there is a value that is both supposed to be determined randomly, and which a player is explicitly allowed to roll for, it would be illegal to make rolls on the GNDT.

[dbdougla] Yes, the GNDT is often used to explicitly track gamestate, but the GNDT comments aren’t gamestate, because - per the glossary definition of “gamestate” - the ruleset doesn’t currently regulate GNDT comments or die-rolls in any way. (If there was a rule of “as a daily action, a player may roll DICE42”, then we couldn’t roll DICE42 at whim any more. Although we could roll DICE43 or any other number to our hearts’ content.)

i like the idea, but per other comments - the dice rolling needs to be regulated somehow

Nah I don’t mind just spamming DICE. We should have a Hitchhiker’s Guide Dynasty at some point.

Honestly spamming DICE may or may not be worth it depending on what {The Restaurant at the End of The Universe} is defined to be. If it gets defined as something bad than the spamming of DICE wouldn’t happen. So imo the lack of regulation on the dice only matters depending on what that is defined to be. But it could be a problem if the blognomicker who goes there would win (but i doubt that would pass).