Friday, March 26, 2021

Proposal: Wits and Wagers

Quorum of FOR votes reached (7-0)—Enacted by Clucky

Adminned at 27 Mar 2021 05:37:28 UTC

If Proposal: Indepegnence is enacted then this proposal has no effect.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, called Gambling:

Each Game has a value called Juice. At any given time, a Game’s Juice is 4 minus the current stakes of the table.

Once per Game, as a communal action, a Player who is not a participant of that Game may make a comment to that Game’s Table declaring themselves to be that Game’s Bookmaker.

Once per Game, any Player who is not a participant of that Game or its Bookmaker may make a Bet on it. Making a Bet is an action that is carried out by making a comment to that Game’s Table, which names a single Player who is a participant in the game, and which identifies the Juice at the time at which the Bet was made.

After a Game has ended, if any Bets were made on it, the following may occur:
* Any Player who made a Bet which named the Player that was the Campione of that Game may increase their Pegs by the Juice identified in their Bet.
* Once per finished Game, as a communal action, any Player may reduce the Pegs of all Players who made a Bet which named the Player who was not the Campione of that Game by the Juice identified in their respective Bets.
* Once per finished Game, as a communal action, any Player may increase or reduce (as appropriate) the Pegs of the Bookmaker for that game by x, where x is the number of Bets placed that named the Player who was not the Campione in that game minus the number of Bets that named the Player that was the Campione in that game.

In the rule The Magistrelli System, change “Every time a Player gains a peg they gain 1 Magistrelli” to “Every time a Player gains a peg for being the Campione of a Game they gain 1 Magistrelli”.

This whole proposal would have been easier to word if there was some intrinsic property in the ruleset that made Giolitti tables distinct from each other

Pass-agg sniping about trash vetoes aside - this does bring pegs a bit more into in the game but also divorces them from straight wins and losses, which I hope makes them more utile as a game mechanic.

Comments

Brendan: he/him

26-03-2021 14:49:55 UTC

I still have with a problem the fundament concept of “let’s start a casino! Josh, you just walked in, so you have 35 chips, and lemonfanta, you also just walked in, so you get 30.” When the average pegs-per-player are above the default starting value, it remains very unlikely that a new or unidling player can catch up.

lemon: she/her

26-03-2021 15:06:38 UTC

couldn’t you vote on a game super close to the end when the outcome seems pretty certain and not lose anything for it? maybe the first player to bet on a game should get a slightly better deal, and the last a slightly worse one

Clucky: he/him

26-03-2021 15:06:49 UTC

I don’t really like how the bookmaker is handled. fact that anyone can claim it at any time feels like it’ll reward super active play.

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 15:40:32 UTC

@ Clucky only one person per game can claim it, so there’s a push-your-luck aspect, but it’s of marginal utility anyway

@ Brendan - the max you can gain or lose is 3 so no-one is currently anywhere close to being locked out of this

@ lemon - that’s what the 4-stakes bit is doing - at the beginning of a game, when stakes are lower, you’ll have more value. At the end, when stakes are higher, less risk but also less upside.

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 15:42:05 UTC

@ Brendan but I’d also vote for a peg equaliser for lemon and other subsequent joiners if proposed

Brendan: he/him

26-03-2021 15:57:12 UTC

I posted a peg equalizer CfJ two days ago and it was definitively voted down, so I’m skeptical about the chances for a repeat.

lemon: she/her

26-03-2021 16:03:51 UTC

for responses noted, this seems interesting!

Lulu: she/her

26-03-2021 16:08:23 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 16:11:00 UTC

@ Brendan I didn’t cast a vote on that one, sadly, but my guess is that while pegs felt like a victory marker rather than a currency people were averse to equalising the progress they’d made thus far; if we’re shifting it towards being a currency that has no bearing on victory then there may be more appetite.

That said, you did cast this as being about new players rather than existing ones; if this is more about your own self-interest then you should note that I’ve consistently voted in favour of pro-Brendan equalising measures!

Brendan: he/him

26-03-2021 17:11:10 UTC

for Yes, Josh, I do appreciate that. But my greater concern has always been that it’s bad game design to let some players luck into an early lead and then build rules to preserve the status quo.

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 17:14:39 UTC

Yeah, I don’t disagree with you! I am prepared to vote for clear catch up mechanisms even in the face of my own interests! We are currently agreeing, Brendan!!!!

Kevan: he/him

26-03-2021 17:26:59 UTC

imperial

Raven1207: he/they

26-03-2021 18:10:33 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

27-03-2021 05:13:20 UTC

for