Sunday, January 17, 2010

Proposal: Shadow Actions

Self-killed -Darth

Adminned at 18 Jan 2010 11:00:17 UTC

Add a new rule called “Shadow Actions” to the ruleset, with the following text:

Some Guests have shadow actions. These actions can be taken by the Guests by contacting the Executor and informing him of the action to do.
Unless otherwise noted, these actions can only be done if the Guest is non-Dormant, the lights are off and he is in the room he wants to do the action in. These actions don’t change anything in the GNDT, but are their effects are tracked by the Executor.
Such Shadow Actions are:

If most of the EVC’s to this proposal contain the phrase “Hide and seek”, add the following to the list of Shadow Actions:

Guests may move to any other room on their floor.

Phrase “Darkness kills” in most EVC’s -> add:

Any Servant or Tradesman may, as a daily action, go up or down a floor in the direction of a Generator Switch.

Phrase “Just as planned, detective edition” in most EVC’s -> add:

As a weekly action, the Detective may set up a trap in a room. If the murderer tries to kill in that room and the light wasn’t switched on since the trap was set, he is restrained.

Phrase “Just as planned, murderer edition” in most EVC’s, but not “Daily catch problems” in most EVC’s -> add:

As a weekly action, the Murderer may set up a trap in a room. If any Guest enters that room and the light wasn’t switched on since the trap was set, the enterer is restrained.

Phrase “Daily catch problems” in most EVC’s -> add the same as above but with ‘weekly’ replaced with ‘daily’.

Wasn’t really confident, so only added things in EVC clauses.
I didn’t include killings, as we don’t have a weapons system yet, but it seems like we will (and I’m also afraid to die ;P)
The trap mechanisms could be elaborated on later, also we could add an ‘...if he has a trap…’ clause.

On an unrelated note I believe the rule of not repeating oneself should be in action in the ruleset… anyone else want a rule that states that “unless otherwise noted, doing any actions defined in the dynasty rules requires the following: being non-dormant(, etc.)”?
Also, we could re-organize the non-Shadow actions as “Light Actions” or some other name to categorize them.

Comments

Uvthenfuv:

17-01-2010 20:35:33 UTC

Edited it five seconds after adding to add a missing sentence, really hoping no one saw it during that time, sorry.
Next time I should triple-check it instead of double…

Darknight: he/him

17-01-2010 20:57:04 UTC

Gonna wait to see what others think.

Uvthenfuv:

17-01-2010 21:04:19 UTC

Isn’t voting about what single minds think?
Of course the result is determined by the most, but fundamentally I think voting shouldn’t be about walking after the others.

(Of course if you meant ‘Tl;dr, what do you guys think?’ it’s another question)

alethiophile:

17-01-2010 21:14:26 UTC

I like the idea of shadow actions; some of these I wonder about (what, pray, is a ‘Generator Switch’?).
for
Hide and seek.
Just as planned, murderer edition.
I am not voting for the others because a. ‘Generator Switch’ is not defined, unless I’m missing something; and b. a trap that only goes off if one specific person kills someone seems a bit of a stretch, more so than one that simply goes off if anyone enters.

spikebrennan:

17-01-2010 21:22:03 UTC

against
Too many conditionals in this proposal; I can’t tell what I’m voting on.  Propose the core mechanic first; bells and whistles can come later.

Roujo: he/him

17-01-2010 21:22:49 UTC

for
Just as planned, murderer edition.

About the first EVC clause, we already have this defined in the ruleset (Rule 2.8.1 “Movement”, second paragraph), so I don’t think we need another one.

Purplebeard:

17-01-2010 21:26:22 UTC

against How many EVCs is ‘most’? You should specify (I assume you meant ‘at least half’).

Also, you shouldn’t use abbreviations like -> in proposals.

Good ideas otherwise, though I’d prefer the traps had an expiration date. I particularly fancy the idea of the murderer trapping himself on purpose to confuse the other guests, which I would definitely consider if I was the murderer.

Which I’m not.

Purplebeard:

17-01-2010 21:29:06 UTC

Oh wait, the traps do have an expiration date. Never mind about that.

Dustin:

17-01-2010 21:55:50 UTC

against As per Purplebeard

digibomber:

17-01-2010 23:14:10 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

17-01-2010 23:37:48 UTC

against COV

redtara: they/them

17-01-2010 23:51:21 UTC

against per Purplebeard but Do Like.

yabbaguy:

18-01-2010 00:11:38 UTC

against, but => is a shorthand symbol for if-then, but it has to be a double arrow.

Thrawn:

18-01-2010 00:15:50 UTC

for
Darkness Kills
Just as planned, Detective edition
Just as planned, Murderer edition

Roujo: he/him

18-01-2010 00:18:52 UTC

against CoV per Purplebeard, but as Ienpw said: the ideas are really nice. =)

Roujo: he/him

18-01-2010 00:19:13 UTC

And per Spike, I just realized

Klisz:

18-01-2010 00:35:54 UTC

against  per Purplebeard; though I like the ideas.

alethiophile:

18-01-2010 01:03:51 UTC

against per Purplebeard (CoV). Please repropose; I like this.

Aquafraternally Yours:

18-01-2010 01:51:26 UTC

against  Yeah, I like the general idea, but it definitely needs some work.  Repropose and I’m totally with you.  Good work!

Excalabur:

18-01-2010 03:47:55 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

18-01-2010 11:27:38 UTC

against Per Spikebrennan.

Hix:

18-01-2010 16:08:29 UTC

against I don’t approve of all 2^3*3=24 possible outcomes of this proposal.

Oze:

18-01-2010 16:14:37 UTC

against

Uvthenfuv:

18-01-2010 16:55:25 UTC

against  - Oh well, S/K for speed. Next time I’ll try to write it properly ; )