Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Proposal: When to Heist

Reached quorum, 8-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 16 Jan 2025 06:01:46 UTC

Create a new rule, “Timing”:

If a rule defines an action as a Heist Action, a Participant can attempt to perform that action by, in a single Dice Roller comment, specifying the action they want to attempt and rolling DICE48.

If any of the following situations occurred in the previous X hours before that attempt, where X is the result of that attempt’s DICE48 roll:

  • The Participant performing the attempt successfully performed a Heist Action.
  • The Participant performing the attempt gained a Target.
  • The definition of the Heist Action being attempted was added to the ruleset.

then that attempt to perform the Heist Action fails. When such an attempt fails, the Participant who performed the attempt cannot make any more attempts to perform Heist Actions for 24 hours, and that attempt to perform a Heist Action has no other effects.

If none of those situations occurred within the time period in question, then that Heist Action succeeds (unless it would be impossible for some other reason), and applies the changes specified in the rule that defines it to the gamestate and/or ruleset. The Participant who attempted it must then update the appropriate tracking pages to reflect the results of the change.

A new timing system I’d like to experiment with this dynasty, as a sort of inverted “push your luck” mechanic. If you wait 48 hours between actions, they always succeed. If you wait less than 48 hours, they might still succeed, but the chances are lower. My hope is that this will reduce the incentive to be online at particular moments in time and/or to try timing scams, because the randomness takes the edge off hard “timing breakpoints”.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

15-01-2025 17:48:43 UTC

Small nit: “X is the result of the DICE48 roll” change “the” to “that” to strongly tie the roll performed by that Participant in that instance, rather than any such roll. Plain-reading would probably make this ok, but just in case someone wants to debate it…

JonathanDark: he/him

15-01-2025 17:50:11 UTC

Same thing with other instances of “the”. Replacing with “that” ties the results strongly with the action performed. It’s a habit of mine, maybe overcompensating for past wording scams.

ais523: Mastermind

15-01-2025 17:55:32 UTC

It probably doesn’t matter, but there’s no harm in doing so: I’ve used more explicit wording throughout the rule.

Josh: Mastermind he/they

15-01-2025 21:30:44 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

15-01-2025 21:31:26 UTC

I do like the idea of trying this.  for

Habanero:

15-01-2025 22:24:28 UTC

for

JonathanDark: he/him

15-01-2025 23:11:44 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

15-01-2025 23:23:27 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

16-01-2025 02:49:30 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

16-01-2025 03:17:57 UTC

for