BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

What’s the main idea behind sharing the info here? Is it to act as a power boost to new Katastrophes so they don’t get randomly defeated by traps and/or malfeasances that they’re not aware of, when a Katastrophe meant to be a legitimate threat?

Also, is it intentional that you can only learn of malfeasances that you actively discover rather than ones you create by requesting a room with them as a supernatural action?

Sorry, that last bit should be “is it intentional that you can only learn of malfeasances that other Posessed actively discovered, and not ones they created by requesting a room with them as a supernatural action”.

It is a mild buff to the Possessed status, reflecting what I perceive to be the likely direction of travel (i.e. that the Possessed explorer ends up being prohibited from achieving victory), and it therefore being more narratively satisfying for it to be a powerful but cursed role to have.

It’s also a mild new-player catch-up mechanic, as late-game Kats will have more knowledge through the Korpus than early-game Kats will.

Not an intentional omission, no.

Hm, I don’t see the rule named “Katastrophe”...

Oh boy

That feels too much to handwave away as a typo

Does this then create an empty rule called Katastrophe for itself to sit under?

I’m inclined to think that it doesn’t. It should’ve explicitly created a new empty rule then. And adding a subrule to a nonexistent rule is a step that cannot be applied immediately. But I’m not sure and can’t find similar cases in the past to appeal to

I can’t see a way to read “Add a subrule to the rule Katastrophe” as also creating that non-existent rule. Other variations on its wording might allow it, but the reference to “the rule” seems too specific.

BlogNomic in no way runs on precedent, but here’s some for curiosity’s sake. If an amendment is explicitly proposed to be attached to something, and if that something doesn’t exist at the point of enactment, we generally say that the attachment fails rather than bringing the target back into existence for it. Will always depend on how we happen to word things, though - a looser “create a rule as a subrule of Katastrophe” could have arguably flown here.

I’ve put a cfj up to resolve this sensibly, in any case.