This’ll never work.

It’ll be a bit of a challenge to find usable ones because rules often refer to mechanics defined in other rules of that dynasty, and are often a big chunk of loosely connected paragraphs. But it wouldn’t take much amendment to make that process easier.

[Kevan] Perhaps a rule from the earlier stages of a dynasty would be less interconnected in this sense (though also less developed overall); one could pick any version, since the proposal doesn’t refer specifically to “final rulesets”.

I think this would be fun but could be unnecessarily limiting, so I’ll plant myself here for now.

I like the idea, but it has a major tracking issue: most past dynastic rules are going to require us to use the GNDT to track things, and those which refer to wiki pages will require us to edit the wiki page that was used to track the relevant part of the past gamestate.

As a side effect, I think this implies that if someone played in one of the relevant past dynasties, their gamestate values will be initialised to the value that they had at the end of the dynasty in question, which gives a huge advantage to older players.

The last time I saw a mechanic like this used (I can’t remember whether it at was BlogNomic or some other nomic), the issue was solved by automatically replacing all tracked gamestate variables in the imported rules with a single frankenvariable that worked for all of them. That’s probably going to make it even harder to produce good gameplay, but maybe we could reduce everything to two or three frankenvariables and have something that works.

(Also, this needs to distinguish between the final ruleset of a dynasty, and the record of the final ruleset of a dynasty. You probably care about the latter, as it’s much easier to discover than the former.)

ais523: deferring to the emperor does nothing here.

This idea deserves a full dynasty with a proper emperor to guide it.

Even during a metadynasty, it’s a way to express no opinion (or a conflicted opinion), isn’t it?

I actually like the idea. But as has been pointed out, there have been a number of dynasties in a row that have been a little weird and this would probably continue the streak. So I think just doing something a little lighter would be best for now and we can revisit this idea later.

Cool idea. With modifications, perhaps the ability to replace some things in the rule so they fit with the current ruleset, I could see a great dynasty with this mechanic.