BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

.  I believe precedent is that using a non-standard mapping is fine as long as you make it clear before rolling the die what the mapping is.

I completely agree with Bucky.

Your interpretation “correspond can mean, if wished” is not at all consistent with the wording “the Dynasty that corresponds”, which supposes there is only one possible Dynasty.

I agree morally, Bucky, but I don’t think your argument is supported by the ruleset.

Given that it was a window whose final digits started with zero and ended with nine, a ten-as-zero reading of a D10 doesn’t seem unreasonable.

It is the custom of BlogNomic to defy our own custom whenever hilarious or scam-worthy. Custom does not make the obvious reading of a rule the right one. And as Kevan pointed out, ten-as-zero D10 is an entirely imaginable reading. Had Klisz’s first window jump,  the first window jump of all, been using that interpretation, would all subsequent “standard” rolls been invalidated? In fact, if a mapping must be declared if non-standard, Klisz’s jump did not have any declared mapping nor was there any standard for this kind of roll prior to him, meaning his roll cannot be used to establish a standard, nor can any subsequent roll, being as they did not declare a standard either.

I must reluctantly vote .

And yes, I know I’m disagreeing with myself in the DoV. Such is Nomic.

So you both agree that it is OK to roll the die first, and then disregard its result by “choosing a mapping”?

I’m surprised nobody’s ever done this in the first 99 dynasties…

Usually the wording is tighter.

To be fair I think there’s only so far “choosing a mapping” can go. I don’t think I could come up with ten-to-the-power-of-ten systematic frameworks to deliver the desired result.

Nope, I just agree that in this particular case a mapping of “10→70, 1→71, 2→72 ... 8→78, 9→79” isn’t unreasonable, given that with physical ten-sided dice “10” and “0” are interchangeable.

I agree with Bucky.

I understand correspondence between 70-79 and 1-10 as 70 corresponds to 1, 79 to 10. What would one have done if he had wished to go to a one-digit Dynasty? There is no Dynasty 0, so he would have chosen the 1-10 interval. So I think that a natural mapping is “1→71, 2→72 ... 8→78, 9→79, 10→80”. Though the word “sequentially” may clarify the matter, I’d prefer to have a formula like [chosen base number] + DICE10

If I can’t read a rule as “place (an asterisk besides the name of the dynasty)”, Josh can’t choose how the correspondence works after he rolls. (Choosing an unusual correspondence before rolling would have been fine.)

CoV. I find myself disagreeing with whatever position I take.

[quirck] Not saying that it makes sense in all contexts, just that if you have a bunch of ten numbers in front of you that end with each of ten digits, treating the die roll as a physical D10 isn’t unreasonable.

We don’t know whether Josh chose the correspondence before or after rolling.