BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

This seems fine to me.

To be clear; this proposal seems fine, or the existing DICE3 seems fine? If it’s the latter, then I’ll just repurpose this proposal slot for something else.

The proposal seems fine. However, I’m not massively bothered by the DICE3; the proposal is an improvement on the current situation, but only a minor/marginal one, so if you have another use for the slot you might be able to get more value from it.

Ok, I repurposed my proposal to try another Heist definition. We’ll see how this goes.

Isn’t this just a downgrade from tools of the trade, which also allows adding and removing characters but without the restriction of only adding one that you’ve previously removed?

It’s to let you add more than one character at a time, and perhaps a more favorable one later. I’m open to tweaking it though to make it more useful.

My other attempts at a Heist Action that would let you manipulate multiple characters at once were considered too powerful, so I’m trying to feel out the appropriate level of power with this one.

Maybe the max Stash should be 3 characters? Or maybe you can remove 1 or 2 characters at a time? I’m flexible as to what would make it different enough from Tools of the Trade to be a valuable Heist Action in its own right without being too powerful.

I changed it to allow removing one or two characters. Going to bed.

Sorry, only just checking this again now. I think the main thing I’m feeling is that there needs to be more diversity than just adding and removing characters. If a heist is already in that game space, there’s less reason to have another with basically the same role.

For example, let’s say you’re wanting to remove a character. Is there any point in using tools of the trade to remove it when you could just stash it instead?

On the flip side, if you want to add a character, sure you can spend a week gaining characters to add at once, but it’s going to be faster and easier to just round up a couple of players to just add them all via tools of the trade.

While a stash could exist, it needs to have some notable differences beyond just being a variant of an existing ability.

One of my favourite things about you as a player, JD, is that you’re constantly trying to innovate and push forward the ruleset.

If it seems like I’m dropping a lot of AGAINST votes on your proposals it’s not because I dislike either the ideas or the ambition, it’s just a reflection of my own sense that the ruleset is moving very quickly and even I am losing grip on what it says and what players can do.

With only one successful heist in the bank, and not yet having myself been in a position to really take the dynastic mechanics out for a run, I’m going conservative in my approach to evaluating ruleset changes. Sorry. 

@Josh: no worries, I don’t take these things personally. I try to suggest new things partially to give more dynastic options but also as something to do while teams are plotting in secret.

Also, in this dynasty in particular, the rule text itself is a resource to be harvested, so the seeds you plant now might be fruitful later.

I appreciate the DEFs and FORs, but it’s not enough, and I’m not that much invested in the idea to just leave it in the queue. No problem, as I said before.

Withdrawn.