Wednesday, April 23, 2025

Proposal: Second Chances

In the rule “Guards and Burglars”, insert the following text as the second paragraph:

Each Agent has a Protecting and Thieving, which are both publicly tracked numbers that default to 0 (unless otherwise specified in other rules).

In the same rule, replace the bulleted list with the following text:

* If there are more Burglars than Guards, make them a Guard and increase their Protecting by 1
* If there are more Guards than Burglars, make them a Burglar and increase their Thieving by 1
* If there are as exactly many Guards as Burglars:
** If their Thieving is greater than their Protecting, make them a Guard and increase their Protecting by 1
** If their Protecting is greater than their Thieving, make them a Burglar and increase their Thieving by 1
** If neither of the above are true, make them either a Guard or a Burglar in a secrely random manner, then increase their Protecting by 1 if they were made a Guard or their Thieving by 1 if they were made a Burglar

In the rule “Guards and Burglars”, add a subrule named “Career History” with the following text:

The default values for Protecting and Thieving are defined per Agent as follows:

* ais523: 2 Protecting, 0 Thieving
* Clucky: 2 Protecting, 0 Thieving
* Darknight: 2 Protecting, 0 Thieving
* DoomedIdeas: 1 Protecting, 1 Thieving
* JonathanDark: 0 Protecting, 2 Thieving
* lendunistus: 1 Protecting, 1 Thieving
* qenya: 1 Protecting, 1 Thieving
* SingularByte: 0 Protecting, 2 Thieving
* Trapdoorspyder: 1 Protecting, 1 Thieving

Fixed the increase amount this time from “Always the Bridesmaid, Never the Bride” comments

Comments

Kevan: Concierge he/him

23-04-2025 18:19:20 UTC

Trapdoorspyder was correct about Shadow weirdness, in their comment on the previous iteration of this: the “Set the Protecting and Thieving of each Agent to the following” clause will do nothing if we’re still in the Planning phase when this enacts, as those terms will not be defined by the live ruleset.

Clucky: he/him

23-04-2025 18:33:45 UTC

won’t this result in people getting stuck on the same team round after round?

Clucky: he/him

23-04-2025 18:35:01 UTC

I guess only kinda as you still break the first time by more guards or burglars. so if dk gets picked first they become a burgular but if I’m picked next I’m still a guard again

JonathanDark: he/him

23-04-2025 18:39:09 UTC

I think I fixed the shadow rule issue.

To Clucky’s point, it should even out in the long run. Taking the example:

* If Darknight gets picked first they become a Burglar
* If Clucky gets picked next they become a Guard again
* If ais523 gets picked next they become a Burglar
* If DoomedIdeas gets picked next they become a Guard again

So it should reasonably shake up the team members and over time each person will likely (but not guaranteed) wind up being a Guard at least once and a Burglar at least once.

ais523:

23-04-2025 18:40:35 UTC

I think this works, because the order in which the choices are made is randomized, so half the players (at random) end up on the team they were on less often and the other half are assigned to random teams (based on which team the player chosen before them had been on more often).

ais523:

23-04-2025 18:40:57 UTC

(I think it works for randomisation, that is – I haven’t looked at the shadow weirdness.)

SingularByte: he/him

23-04-2025 20:16:56 UTC

for

DoomedIdeas: he/him

23-04-2025 21:17:53 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

23-04-2025 21:20:56 UTC

for

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.