Friday, December 16, 2022

Proposal: The Persistence of Katastrophe

Enacted 8-0, to no effect. Josh

Adminned at 18 Dec 2022 18:01:37 UTC

Add a subrule to the rule Katastrophe, called Persistence, with the following text:

Certain facts, once learned by Katastrophe, remain with the spirit as it possesses different bodies.

When the ruleset defines a piece of Persistent Information, that information, when learned by an Explorer who is Possessed by Katastrophe, becomes part of the Katastrophe Korpus. The Katastrophe Korpus is privately tracked by the Narrator and should be relayed to any Explorer who becomes Possessed by Katastrophe as soon as that event takes place.

The following is Persistent Information:
* Any Malfeasances discovered through requesting information while Possessed by Katastrophe, as per the rule Malfeasances
* The locations of any Traps set by an Explorer who was Possessed by Katastrophe at the time the trap was set

Comments

Kevan: he/him

16-12-2022 17:03:39 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

16-12-2022 18:34:42 UTC

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?

SingularByte: he/him

16-12-2022 18:47:56 UTC

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”.

Josh: Observer he/they

16-12-2022 19:02:22 UTC

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.

Raven1207: he/they

16-12-2022 19:08:27 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

16-12-2022 19:30:54 UTC

for

Bucky:

16-12-2022 20:52:49 UTC

for

Habanero:

17-12-2022 19:28:04 UTC

for

JonathanDark: he/him

17-12-2022 21:48:57 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

18-12-2022 11:58:44 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

18-12-2022 13:53:37 UTC

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

Josh: Observer he/they

18-12-2022 14:14:52 UTC

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?

quirck: he/him

18-12-2022 14:45:51 UTC

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

Kevan: he/him

18-12-2022 17:23:30 UTC

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.

Josh: Observer he/they

18-12-2022 17:35:38 UTC

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