Saturday, March 15, 2008

Proposal: The tangled depths

self-killed, final vote 0-8—Yoda

Adminned at 16 Mar 2008 14:43:25 UTC

Modify the dynastic rule “Treasure” and replace the line:

For a Treasure to exist, it’s Name and Gold Value must be defined by the Proposal that created it.

with:

For a Treasure to exist, it’s Name, Location, and Gold Value must be defined by the Proposal that created it.

Add a new dynastic rule entitled “The Tangled Depths” which reads as follows:

“The Tangled Depths” exists as one location where treasure may reside.  Captains still set their location to “Port”, “Sea”, or any other location specified within the rules but cannot set their location to"The Tangled Depths”.  If any captain is in possession of a treasure map, and the treasure defined by the map exists within “The Tangled Depths”, E may try to retrieve said treasure as a daily action called “Diving for Treasure in the Tangled Depths”.  This is done by rolling 2DICE20, and if the result is 8 or greater the captain is successful, gains possession of the treasure, and the map is destroyed.

Alternately, if a captain does not have a map, E may go “Diving for Treasure in the Tangled Depths” as a daily action by rolling 1DICE300.  If the result is 295 or greater E is successful in finding treasure, and then rolls 1DICEN where N is the number of treasures marked in the wiki as residing within the Tangled Depths, and finally E receives the Nth corresponding treasure on the treasure page marked as residing in the Tangled Depths.

The daily action “Diving for Treasure in the Tangled Depths” requires the Captain to be at “Sea”, any flavor other than “Sour”, and have an army size of 1 or greater.

Comments

Yoda:

15-03-2008 02:52:32 UTC

against We need to set up the locations and how they relate to treasure maps first.

I like the idea, though.

Darknight: he/him

15-03-2008 03:38:33 UTC

imperial

Chivalrybean:

15-03-2008 05:42:34 UTC

I had something along these lines brewing in my mind. I’d rather have locations and the treasure show up at a random one, that way it isn’t known in advance, so everyone can crowd there.

Chivalrybean:

15-03-2008 05:42:51 UTC

against

Chivalrybean:

15-03-2008 05:47:50 UTC

Also, the location is tracked on the map, and need not be tracked with the treasure itself.

Lugosh:

15-03-2008 09:01:43 UTC

imperial

I kind of like Chivalrybean’s idea of tracking location with the maps rather than with the treasure itself.

I like having the Tangled Depths as a location however, and would likely vote for a proposal with just that rule.

I also think it would be good to amend the rule so there is some sort of penalty for failure. There are dangers lurking in the tangled depths.

Dustin:

16-03-2008 03:00:28 UTC

imperial

Jack:

16-03-2008 13:54:21 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

16-03-2008 19:09:09 UTC

imperial

Logan:

16-03-2008 21:15:45 UTC

against s/k