Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Proposal: Wizards are Wild

reached quorum 8-1 with 1 def enacted by card

Adminned at 20 Jun 2018 06:46:48 UTC

Create a rule called “Cards” (or, if there is already a rule by that name, reword it) as follows:

A card is defined as a subrule to this rule, under the heading “List of Cards.” Each such card must have a name (which is the title of the subrule), a score (which is a nonnegative integer), a constraint outlining the circumstances under which it may be played or scored, and two effects, divided into an Up Effect and a Down Effect.

A Wizard may have up to nine cards in their hand; the contents of each Wizard’s hand are tracked as a comma-delineated list in the field “Hand” in the GNDT. No more than one Wizard may have a given card in their hand at a time, and a Wizard may not have more than one copy of a single card.

When a Wizard plays a card in their hand (if it is legal to do so according to the card’s constraint), they perform either its Up Effect or its Down Effect as an Atomic Action. As soon as that action is complete, the card is removed from their hand.

Leaving the meaning of score open for now.



19-06-2018 19:10:00 UTC

” No more than one Wizard may have a given card in their hand at a time”. Why wouldn’t many wizards know the same basic spell/potion and try to execute it at the same time?

Brendan: he/him

19-06-2018 19:14:48 UTC

I was imagining everyone playing from a common deck, but that’s certainly something that can be changed by proposal later if we want to drift toward deckbuilding.


19-06-2018 19:15:01 UTC

against IMO, having publicly visible hands of cards kind of defeats the point of cards.


19-06-2018 19:16:49 UTC

Sorry, that was too early to vote and lock possible changes.


19-06-2018 19:18:23 UTC

this rule mentions nothing about “publicly visible”. It is entirely possible for everyone to draw from the same deck and hide what cards they obtained.

Kevan: City he/him

19-06-2018 19:21:50 UTC

[9spaceking] They’re “tracked as a comma-delineated list in the field “Hand” in the GNDT”, which we can all see.

Kevan: City he/him

19-06-2018 19:27:54 UTC

for Would certainly be more interesting to have secret hands if we can think of a neat way to do that, but we can get there from here.

derrick: he/him

19-06-2018 19:33:47 UTC

for I foresee hiding cards to be difficult to implement, at least without coding. I primarily wanted to use cards as a way of rationing actions, and of randomizing possible actions.



19-06-2018 19:35:57 UTC

Secret hands probably give better gameplay opportunities but how do we verify them?
This rule does give a good foundation that can be expanded on, however.


19-06-2018 19:49:45 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

19-06-2018 19:50:57 UTC

We could do something with md5 hashes, which would be easy enough if card draws were a free, non-random pick - whenever you draw a new card you write a sentence description of your new hand and post the md5 hash to the blog somewhere; and at the end of the game, the winner can provide the original messages for all their hashes to prove they weren’t lying about their hands.

If card draws were random it would need a more complex system, which could still be done, but would be a bit painful. We could have the Historian deal cards out over private message, if they wanted to do that.

derrick: he/him

19-06-2018 20:02:32 UTC

The Historian was planning on having to act as the dealer in one way or another. I would hate to use private messages though.

Lulu: she/her

19-06-2018 22:17:43 UTC



20-06-2018 01:42:06 UTC



20-06-2018 04:05:23 UTC