Thursday, March 10, 2022

Proposal: Thin Walls

Passes 7-1. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 13 Mar 2022 00:49:36 UTC

Add a subrule to the rule Variance, called Persistence:

Each dynastic rule has a score for Persistence, which is a non-negative integer that defaults to zero. The Persistence of a dynastic rule is shown next to its title, in brackets, but is not considered to be a part of its title for the purposes of referring to that rule. The Persistence of a rule applies to all of its subrules; a subrule does not have a distinct Persistence from its parent rule.

Whenever a Maestro Team Member has a non-blank Focus, any dynastic rule whose Persistence is higher than the Variance of the parallel dynasty that is their Focus are Intangible for that Maestro Team Member.

Only dynastic rules may be Intangible. When a rule is Intangible for a Maestro Team Member, that Maestro Team Member may not undertake any actions defined by that rule, and any provisions of that rule that would restrict any of their own actions do not apply. However, an Intangible rule does not cease to exist or become flavour text for any Maestro Team Member, and its instructions must be obeys as applied to any Maestro Team Member or Persona for whom it is not Intangible.

Set the Persistence of the following rules (if they exist) as follows:

Parallel BlogNomic: 0
SCP Ratings: 0
Personas: 0
Maestro Missions: 0
Variance: 0
Dharma: 2
Qubits: 3
Instability: 0
Multiversal Collision: 0
Unravelling: 2

Not sure if Persistence is the right word, given that a low Persistence results in a rule that is more persistent…

Comments

Lulu: she/her

10-03-2022 11:58:44 UTC

Why not have decreasing levels of persistence make rules less persistent instead?

Josh: he/they

10-03-2022 12:07:44 UTC

Because I want it to mesh up with the existing Variance mechanic.

SingularByte: he/him

10-03-2022 12:25:26 UTC

Might a name like Discordance or Dissonance work instead of Persistence? That way the name is implying that it’s the more chaotic, variable dynasties get access to the higher numbered rules.

Lulu: she/her

10-03-2022 12:28:05 UTC

Might want to limit this to Dynastic rules only, too.

Lulu: she/her

10-03-2022 12:32:46 UTC

Anyways, I’m against this proposal, but only because I’m against the idea of Variance to begin with.

Lulu: she/her

10-03-2022 12:33:54 UTC

especially with something like Multiversal Collision in play

Josh: he/they

10-03-2022 12:40:34 UTC

@Jumble Have you proposed to repeal it?

Because if not then opposing things that build on it seems counterproductive.

Good point about dynastic rules, will add that in.

@SB - Discordance kind of works, although it feels a little meaningless and floaty to me - nice to have something more concrete I think?

SingularByte: he/him

10-03-2022 12:48:53 UTC

To brainstorm a few more words,
Clearance Level? Restriction Level/Restrictiveness? Inaccessibility? Forbiddance? Prohibition Level/Prohibitiveness?
I’m going to vote FOR on this, by the way.

Lulu: she/her

10-03-2022 12:51:12 UTC

@Josh Out of proposals, unfortunately.

GloopyGhost:

10-03-2022 13:31:47 UTC

Why did you give dharma and unraveling a variance of 2 (just out of curiosity)? Also, Persistence would have a Persistence of 0, correct?

Josh: he/they

10-03-2022 13:46:20 UTC

@Gloopy As a subrule of variance, persistence would be 0, yes.

In general I think any rule that isn’t fundamental to a core mechanic of the game should be off under some circumstances; I think Dharma and Unraveling meet that criteria

GloopyGhost:

10-03-2022 15:41:06 UTC

for

Lulu: she/her

10-03-2022 15:43:36 UTC

against still not entirely sold on it on its own merits

SingularByte: he/him

10-03-2022 16:31:24 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

10-03-2022 18:20:04 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

10-03-2022 19:27:18 UTC

for

MadisonSilver:

10-03-2022 19:47:59 UTC

for

Roujo: he/him

11-03-2022 02:11:23 UTC

for