Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Proposal: Traveller versus Traveller

Timed out 2-5.—Kevan

Adminned at 28 Jul 2006 20:11:03 UTC

Add a new subrule “Chrono Smash” to the Rule “Modus Ponens”.  Give it the following text:

Requirements: Target Traveller is within this Traveller’s range, and this Traveller has an influence greater than 0.
Action: This traveller reduces eir Influence by N and target Traveller’s influence by 2N, where N is a number of eir choice between 0 and eir Influence.

Add a new subrule “Heisenberg Snare” to the Rule “Modus Ponens”.  Give it the following text:

Requirements: Target Traveller is within this Traveller’s range, and this Traveller has an influence greater than 10.
Action: This traveller reduces eir Influence by 10.  Target Traveller gains a Heisenbeerg Loop.

Add a new Rule to the Ruleset entitled “Temporal Uncertanty”.  Give it the following text:

Some Travellers may be in one or more Heisenberg Loops, denoted by one asterisk per Loop after eir Influence in the GNDT.  If any Traveller takes an Action dependant on the TL of a Traveller (including emself) (aka the target) in any Loops, e must afterwards move the target forward in time by DICE(20N+1)-10N Years and DICE12 Months, where N is the number of Loops the target has.

posted by Bucky at 26 Jul 2006 19:36:00 UTC Comments (13)

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

26-07-2006 21:08:26 UTC

imperial

Saki:

26-07-2006 22:55:48 UTC

for

kaddar:

27-07-2006 02:16:01 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

27-07-2006 02:32:00 UTC

against Even paying N to drain someone’s Influence by N would be too much.

Thelonious:

27-07-2006 07:57:48 UTC

I agree that the N:2N is a bit much.  I think N:N would be about right.  However, I reckon we can pass this and then argue over the exact ratio in another proposal.

for

Hix:

27-07-2006 17:28:25 UTC

against  against I don’t like Heisenberg uncertainty stuff at all. Not only is the lack of control highly annoying, but “takes an Action dependant on the TL of a Traveller” is decidedly vague; and by my interpretation, it triggers far too often.
Be careful when you:
1) Use Local Rules (Travelers in the past don’t exist for their purposes).
2) Create or vote on Local Proposals (Range matters, and range depends on TL)
3) Change your TL by any method (obviously, your TL depends on your TL)
4) Unidle (TL retains the value it had previous to idling)
5) Gain a Companion (CTL is initialized to TL)
6) Create/alter Node Events (which one you are allowed to alter depends on TL)
7) Abandon a Companion (whether it’s a Chronocrime depends on TL)
and many more, of course.

For kicks, let’s add a rule that says “No action may be taken which would cause the TL of any Traveller to go backwards in time by exactly one day”.  Then ANY action by ANY Traveller depends on the TL of ALL Travellers, triggering EACH Traveller’s Heisenberg loops.

TAE:

27-07-2006 21:20:20 UTC

against
I’m actually for the Heisenberg uncertainty stuff, but the Chrono Smash is too powerfull.

ChronosPhaenon:

28-07-2006 14:21:42 UTC

My and kaddar’s votes should not be counted, as we are idle.

Thelonious:

28-07-2006 14:24:07 UTC

CoV against

Bucky:

28-07-2006 15:34:24 UTC

Hix:
1)Only if the action would affect em to begin with.
2)Yes, as intended.
3)Yes, as intended, for every method except Continuum and Range Jumping from CTL.
4)Unintended, but I like.
5)Why not?
6)Yes, as intended
7)No.  Action is not dependant on TL, only its effects.

Thelonious:

28-07-2006 15:43:39 UTC

I’ve also just realised that, as worded, this forces a traveller to split with eir Companion.  This is made worse considering that another Traveller can inflict it on you.

Bucky:

28-07-2006 17:19:49 UTC

“If a Traveller and eir Companion are at the same location, then when the Traveller’s TL changes, at the same time, the CTL changes to the same value.”

Thelonious:

28-07-2006 18:00:27 UTC

Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that modification.