Wednesday, July 07, 2021

Proposal: Systematic Scouring

Timed out and failed, 4-5. Josh

Adminned at 09 Jul 2021 17:54:11 UTC

If “Get Smart, Richardo” was enacted, revert its effects.

Add a new section to the list of Features:

Richardo remembers going north. (+1)
Richardo remembers going east. (+1)
Richardo remembers going south. (+1)
Richardo remembers going west. (+1)

Delete the paragraph starting “If a feature says an exit is blocked” from that rule.

Reformat the rule “Features” so that every definition of a Feature starts with a bullet point (without changing the meaning).

In the rule “Richardo’s Journey”, change the bullet point that starts “Secretly randomly select a Lit room” into the following bullet points:

  • Create a list of Lit rooms orthogonally adjacent to Richardo’s current location (or a list of all Lit Rooms, if Richardo has just used a Secret Passage Map). Remove the following rooms from the list, in this order, except that a removal is skipped if it would cause the list to become empty, and/or if a Feature forces Richardo to move to a room that would be removed:
    • Orthogonally adjacent rooms in the direction of an exit from Richardo’s current room that is blocked (due to a Feature);
    • Daunting rooms;
    • Richardo’s previous location;
    • Orthogonally adjacent rooms in a direction that Richardo remembers going in from his current room (due to a Feature).
  • Remove all Memory features from Richardo’s current room.
  • Secretly randomly select a room from the created list (unless a Treasure or Feature specifies some other way to select from the list, in which case follow its directions instead). Richardo enters that room: it becomes Richardo’s new current location. If this moved Richardo to an orthogonally adjacent room, add a Memory feature to the room Richardo left, specifying which direction he left it in.

Update all references to “that room” in the subsequent five bullet points to say “the selected room” instead.

If Josh is interested in making the dynasty less random, this is my own suggestion – it causes Richardo to tend to go in directions he hasn’t gone recently, thus reducing the randomness in Richardo’s movement over time. Memories are tracked using Features, mostly to save horizontal on the sidebar (which is already struggling in that regard); I don’t think it’ll ever make sense to buy these, given how temporary they are (and how blocking the exit is just a more powerful way to do the same thing), but they need a positive cost to stop people giving Richardo a sense of deja vu for free.

I also fixed the interactions between the various “you can’t/must go this way” features, explicitly explaining how to resolve cases where Richardo is being pulled in multiple directions.

This is intended as a competitor to “Get Smart, Richardo”; the two aren’t really compatible.


lemon: she/her

08-07-2021 03:55:06 UTC

both this & josh’s movement rework proposal are a bit programmy in a way that makes them hard to evaluate for me, but that also means it’ll be interesting to see how they turn out! this one has a plus that reducing randomness is prolly smart rn & prioritization lists are very neat and tidy


Clucky: he/him

08-07-2021 04:14:24 UTC

imperial  not really a big fan of the “undo that other proposal” mechanics.

Lulu: she/her

08-07-2021 04:44:38 UTC


lemon: she/her

08-07-2021 06:42:03 UTC

@clucky the two proposals r incompatible, so it’s sort of necessary i feel like

Kevan: City he/him

08-07-2021 07:25:47 UTC


Clucky: he/him

08-07-2021 15:30:32 UTC

@lemon then its better to go with “if this other proposal passes, this proposal does nothing” than forcing your proposal as the the winner

Janet: she/her

08-07-2021 15:43:27 UTC


Josh: he/they

08-07-2021 16:51:24 UTC



08-07-2021 17:22:55 UTC

@Clucky: I thought about that, but given the way the queue enacts, doing this makes more sense. If you use a “this proposal does nothing” clause, then people who like the first proposal but prefer the second have to vote the first proposal down in order to get the second to pass. If you use a “revert its effects” clause, though, people don’t have to vote down the first proposal in the hope that the second will pass, and once the first proposal passes or fails, can then vote on the second proposal based on what it’s changing.

So this version just gives more flexibility for voters with no downsides, as far as I can tell.

Raven1207: he/they

08-07-2021 18:19:28 UTC


Brendan: he/him

08-07-2021 18:57:33 UTC


lemon: she/her

09-07-2021 00:06:00 UTC

maybe repropose w/o the memory mechanic? we could still at least use some sort of reform here

lemon: she/her

09-07-2021 00:17:26 UTC

i think i’ll do that actually? i hope that wouldn’t be too rude!