Saturday, April 10, 2021

Proposal: Solo Effort (Special Case)

Reached quorum 6 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan. Uses the wrong brackets but “is preceded or followed immediately by an unambiguous statement of which section of the ruleset it takes place”.

Adminned at 12 Apr 2021 09:38:30 UTC

Add a new special case rule called “No Collaboration” which by default is inactive, is currently inactive, and has the following text

If “Dynastic Distance” is also active, the Dealer is not considered a Player for the purposes of this rule.

Players may not privately communicate with each other about dynastic gameplay and strategy, including actions during the dynasty the Players have taken or plan to take, or private declarations of alliance or support. Private communications are considered to be anything that another average player could reasonably be privy to, and include any discussion on platforms other than the wiki, blog, or slack; discussions on those platforms that are obscured (such as an old blog thread, or a slack channel other than #curretndynasty or #general); or any form of private communication. Players may not use third party proxies to facilitate communication. Idle Players (or people who are not yet Players) also face the same restrictions if they intend to become a active Player during the course of the dynasty. Voteable matters which change non-dynastic rules are not privy to this rule, and players may private discuss their merits so long as the discussion is not about the dynasty specifics.

If “The Traitor” is also active, the Dealer informing a Player that they are the Traitor is still allowed.

A mentor and mentee may still privately converse with each other, but should keep their conservations away from discussion specific gameplay strategy.

If information which was not allowed to be discussed is still privately discussed, the players who were part of the conversation should make a post to the blog disclosing what information was discussed as their earliest convenience.

Trying to cut down on the power of cabals by forcing all discussions about the dynasty out into the open


Bucky: Proprietor

10-04-2021 23:37:01 UTC

I guess I’m supposed to broker a cabal as an idle Player?

Clucky: he/him

10-04-2021 23:48:18 UTC

“Players may not use third party proxies to facilitate communication.”


11-04-2021 03:25:00 UTC

against how do you even enforce this

lemon: she/her

11-04-2021 03:39:01 UTC

@ jumble i mean to be fair almost all rules of all games are enforced by of social contract first & foremost, so this would be much the same?

that said i would be sad to see this activated a lot because scheming is very fun. but if its default state is inactive & a dynasty leader has to choose to enable it, i guess its nice to enable people to have optios if they have a specific kind of vision for a dynasty

so a hestitant for from me

Clucky: he/him

11-04-2021 04:08:10 UTC

@jumble we’d enforce it the same way we enforce fair play rules: the mere existence of the rule would prevent the negative behavior from occurring 95% of the time, and the other 5% of the time we can examine the specifics of the infraction and determine the path forward when and if it happens.

@lemon The thing with scheming is that its fun in moderation, but when every dynasty turns into “who can form the best cabal” we sometimes want a change of pace

Kevan: he/him

11-04-2021 11:23:49 UTC

“Private communications are considered to be anything that another average player could reasonably be privy to” is missing a negative somewhere.

I’m not sure I see smoky backroom cabals as a problem: they add some intrigue and tension to the game that wouldn’t otherwise be there. The sudden revelation of a secret conspiracy is always more enjoyable than public “hi, I need someone to pass me five tokens, can offer 3% of mantle” brokering, to me.

The possibility of cabals even spices up a dynasty when nothing is actually happening, when players jump at shadows and worry about why exactly a player just did something unusual, and who they might be working with. Turning on all the lights risks revealing a largely empty room.

Are secret cabals really a problem? What’s a dynasty that’s been spoiled by them, and how much would this have changed that?

Josh: he/him

11-04-2021 11:32:28 UTC

I think the issue is more that they’ve become the default in a way that’s a little stultifying.

Kevan: he/him

11-04-2021 15:26:59 UTC

The public “4% of mantle to anyone who can pass me three grommets” stuff casts a much larger shadow, to me, but maybe I’ve not seen some of the cabal activity lately.

Josh: he/him

11-04-2021 15:53:21 UTC

To the best of my knowledge, five of the eight non-Emperor players ended this dynasty in cabals.

Josh: he/him

11-04-2021 15:53:57 UTC

All of which is to say,  for but I think wording will need to be tightened as we go.

Clucky: he/him

11-04-2021 16:06:11 UTC

I feel like private cabals can leave some players feeling left out if they never get to be in the cabals.

There are also dynasty ideas that just don’t work if you allow cabals (things like “everyone secretly do X, now try and figure out who did what”)

Kevan: he/him

11-04-2021 16:34:02 UTC

I’d expect public cabals to generate that same feeling, perhaps even more acutely, if whichever players are being left out at the moment were now visibly being picked last for the team (or not being picked at all).

Would be an interesting constraint for a dynasty, though.



11-04-2021 19:24:07 UTC



11-04-2021 20:40:45 UTC