Thursday, December 02, 2010

Proposal: Triptych

Timed out and passed, 14-2 with 2 unresolved DEFs. Josh

Adminned at 04 Dec 2010 02:26:49 UTC

Add the following to the end of the rule entitled Ages:

Rules can be tagged so that they only apply during certain Ages. A rule which has in its title only applies if the Imperatrix has not advanced the Age during this Dynasty. A rule which has [II] in its title only applies if the Imperatrix has advanced the Age once but no more than once in this Dynasty. A rule which has [III] in its title applies only if the Imperatrix has advanced the age twice in this dynasty. Rules which do not apply in the current Age have no effect on the gamestate or the rest of the ruleset. A rule may have multiple tags; in which case the rule applies to all of the Ages for which it is appropriately tagged. Rules without a tag apply at all times as normal. Any subrules of a tagged rule are considered to have the same tag.

Add a new subrule to the rule entitled Ages, entitled Constancy:

There is a column in the GNDT called Lingering Effects. This column is not reset when the Age is advanced.

Change the name of the rule currently entitled Influence to Influence . If there is a rule entitled Temples, rename it to Temples [II]. Add a column to the GNDT, entitled Lingering Effects.

If Proposal: Shall We Their Fond Pageant See failed, the rest of this proposal does nothing. Otherwise, add the following as a new rule immediately after the rule entitled Influence , entitled The End of the Age of Mortals [II]:

Immediately after the Age is advanced for the first time, Divinities may claim one or more of the following Aspects provided that they meed the eligibility criteria detailed after the Aspect’s name. Aspects are tracked in the Lingering Effects column of the GNDT. Any Aspect whose eligibility calls for a Divinity to have performed an action or possess a certain status more than any other Divinity is available to all parties in the event of a tie.

* Trickster - initiated and legally commented on Meddling posts than any other Divinity
* Demiurge - ended the Age of Unreason with a ++ in the Material plane
* Smith - ended the Age of Unreason with a ++ in the Domestic plane
* Muse - ended the Age of Unreason with a ++ in the Ephemeral plane
* Judge - ended the Age of Unreason with an N in all planes
* War - Tormented Playthings more than any other Divinity
* Love - Uplifted Playthings more than any other Divinity
* Victory - ended the Age of Unreason as the Patron of more Mortals than any other Divinity
* Betrayer - ended the Age of Unreason as a Nemesis of more Mortals than any other Divinity
* Sloth - neither increased nor spent Prominence, nor initiated or legally commented upon a Meddling post, during the Ageof Unreason

 

I prefer the idea of three frantic mini-dynasties to one long arbitrarily broken dynasty.

Comments

Blacky:

12-02-2010 11:24:44 UTC

for I like where this is going. However the descriptions need overhauling. IMHO in Trickster a more is missing and in War and Love Playthings and more should be switched.

Subrincinator:

12-02-2010 12:21:46 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

12-02-2010 12:23:01 UTC

for

Josh:

12-02-2010 12:24:50 UTC

@Blacky - you’re right about Trickster. Switching the words in War and Love would change the meaning slightly however - “Uplifted more Playthings” means that each plaything is counted only once, no matter how many times you Uplift them, while “Uplifted Playthings more” means that each iteration of Uplifting is counted individually.

Blacky:

12-02-2010 12:27:20 UTC

@Josh: I see the difference, however, I just wondered whether Uplifted Playthings more was solid.

Josh:

12-02-2010 12:29:41 UTC

I think it makes more sense to base it on volume of actions rather than volume of recipients. It doesn’t seem to make sense that if you Uplift a Plaything once then Torment them mercilessly 500 times you still count equally towards Love and War.

FuzzyLogic:

12-02-2010 16:06:57 UTC

for

SethOcean:

12-02-2010 16:39:19 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

12-02-2010 17:41:44 UTC

for Some of the Aspects seem a pain to keep track of, though, and “Immediately after the Age is advanced for the first time, Divinities may claim” is an impossibly short time window in which to do any claiming.

Brendan:

12-02-2010 18:16:11 UTC

for And I share Kevan’s concerns.

Josh:

12-02-2010 18:51:41 UTC

I can propose a fix to the timings. Not sure what to do about the Aspects, though. I like the idea of aspects being emergent, any ideas on how to accomplish that in a non-laborious way?

Roujo:

12-02-2010 18:56:24 UTC

for arrow =D

Ambisinister:

12-02-2010 19:43:45 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

12-02-2010 22:29:21 UTC

against I don’t like the wording of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences of the new rule. They only allow for age changes due to the Imperiatrix’s will. Alecto said he was hoping there’d be other ways to change ages as well.

Ienpw III:

12-02-2010 22:30:00 UTC

COV for after noticing Purplebeard’s fix

William:

12-02-2010 23:22:42 UTC

for

scshunt:

12-03-2010 00:36:25 UTC

against

Clarinet:

12-03-2010 00:58:24 UTC

for

Darknight:

12-03-2010 03:54:28 UTC

for

Thelas:

12-03-2010 18:19:28 UTC

for

Kau:

12-03-2010 23:01:19 UTC

for

Clucky:

12-04-2010 01:07:24 UTC

against I like the idea of rules changing with the age, but I’d rather have a more generic structure than the one proposed.