Friday, January 29, 2010

Proposal: The father you never knew

Times out 12-7 - Darth

Adminned at 30 Jan 2010 21:38:59 UTC

Create a subrule of rule 2.5 Bloodlines entitled “Illegitimate Child” which reads:

One of the Guests may be Lord Cartlesham’s illegitimate child. The identity of the illegitimate child is not tracked publicly, and is initially known only by the Executor. For the purposes of determining who will become Heir, the illegitimate child’s degree of relation is 1.

If at any point there is no illegitimate child, the Executor may privately select a random Guest from the third of Guests (rounded up) with the highest degree of relation to be the illegitimate child.

Add to rule 2.5.1 Genealogy:

As a weekly action, if a non-Dormant Guest is alone in the Attic and the Lights are On, they may privately notify the Executor they are searching through Lord Cartlesham’s old things. The Executor must then secretly chose a random whole number between 1 and 20 using a method of his choice. If the number chosen is 1, the Executor shall privately notify them of the identity of the illegitimate child.

Change “the Executor may privately assign a randomly-selected degree to that Guest” in rule 2.5 Bloodline to read “the Executor may privately assign a randomly-selected degree greater than 1 to that Guest”.

If there is a Guest with a degree of relation of 1 or two or more Guests with consecutive degrees of relation the lowest of which is 1, add 1 to all of their degrees of relation.

Comments

Klisz:

29-01-2010 03:42:43 UTC

for

alethiophile:

29-01-2010 03:46:03 UTC

imperial
I’m not sure we really need a whole new game mechanic right now.

Thrawn:

29-01-2010 04:07:58 UTC

for

Rodlen:

29-01-2010 04:26:05 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

29-01-2010 04:58:04 UTC

imperial

TrumanCapote:

29-01-2010 05:00:09 UTC

for

digibomber:

29-01-2010 05:58:39 UTC

against

Excalabur:

29-01-2010 07:03:24 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

29-01-2010 11:01:37 UTC

for Although changing a random guest’s relation value could affect past or current research into genealogy.

redtara: they/them

29-01-2010 11:45:46 UTC

for

Keba:

29-01-2010 11:56:14 UTC

imperial so for

ais523:

29-01-2010 12:24:23 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

29-01-2010 14:21:40 UTC

for

Uvthenfuv:

29-01-2010 14:55:26 UTC

against Poor fella is going to get killed off fast either way…

Uvthenfuv:

29-01-2010 15:00:33 UTC

but we could still have something like “...searching through Lord Cartlesham’s old things. The Executor… (5%) ...shall privately notify them of the identity of the guest with the lowest degree of relation.” ...actually, if that doesn’t get proposed and I don’t forget about it, it could be a nice juice of information… ... ...for the murderers. Which could give them away. Oh well, let’s forget that then…

Oze:

29-01-2010 17:22:35 UTC

for

Ornithopter:

29-01-2010 18:23:17 UTC

Kevan: It only changes their relation value for the purposes of the victory condition. Genealogy still gives the old number. Unless you meant the bit moving people back a spot to clear out position 1, which might be minorly confusing, but I didn’t know how to deal with it. Requiring you to tell anyone who’d previously done Genealogy that revealed the numerical degree of relation on one of them that they’d moved back a spot would give away information if they were a number other than 1 beforehand.

Kevan: he/him

29-01-2010 18:36:48 UTC

No, my mistake, I assumed you were setting somebody’s value to 1. This makes it seem less interesting, then, if it’s just “a secretly random person will automatically win the victory condition check” and there’s no way to find out who except through a grind action. The current degree-of-relation victory mechanism is random, but players at least have a few ways to establish who might win that.

against CoV.

Klisz:

29-01-2010 21:54:48 UTC

CoV against  per Kevan.

Thrawn:

30-01-2010 04:45:25 UTC

against

Put:

30-01-2010 16:28:09 UTC

imperial

NonnoNaz:

30-01-2010 17:49:52 UTC

I trust in last Kevan’s opinion: automatic win condition is no-no. So my vote is against

Qwazukee:

31-01-2010 02:28:39 UTC

against