BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Would claims of negative strength do anything? Currently it’s the highest strength that wins, rather than any kind of sum total.

It’d be better to have a positive strength claim for never having divorced.

Actually, negative claim strengths aren’t legal at all under the current rules, so Divorced would have the default strength of 1.

They are actually being made legal in this proposal, but I do agree a “never divorced” claim makes more sense. Otherwise, divorcing is weirdly actually better than going totally unmarried, since it’s valid for tie-breaking (though weaker than still being married).

@Bucky fair enough, edited

might be good to have some kind of currency that you get when obtaining claims and that can be spent on stuff

Do we want to make it gender-neutral? I deliberately went with Heir over Prince to avoid introducing a default male connotation, because I figured inclusivity > historicity.

Oh, also, technically Claims have Conditions rather than Requirements.

Just to confirm, is it intentional that everyone can have the same bride?

Can it be Spouse instead of Bride? I’m bristling slightly at the default-male assumption here.

(Implict assumption, I should say)

I think Spouse may get confusing with Partner. Maybe “Spouse” for the one you’re married to and something like “Prospect” for the potential partners?

Out of edit window, anyway; would vote for with fixes

we should def change the the default male-assumption, but otherwise sounds fine to me. Maybe has to happen after the fact :shrug:

I think the overall idea is good, but the details need a re-work

@SingularByte thought of that but forgot to write it in, grr

regarding the gender-neutral part, I just couldn’t think of the gender-neutral version of the word “bride” (partners were even named wives when I was writing this)

thanks for the feedback, will repropose