Friday, September 23, 2011

Call for Judgment: Zombies?

Not a CfJ. Sunk by Kevan.

Adminned at 24 Sep 2011 14:24:43 UTC

Factual points:
* Florw and Ujalu are listed in the GNDT as having -1 Sanity. This is because they had 1 Sanity before I Exhausted and Starved them earlier this morning.
* The rules cap Sanity above at 15, but it is not capped below at zero.
* For some reason, the rules for death specify a Survivor is Dead at exactly zero Sanity only.

I am not sure whether or not it’s possible for Exhausting and Starving to be simultaneous. If they cannot be then I have edited the GNDT incorrectly and both players in question should be Dead on 0 Sanity. If these effects can be simultaneous then both are Alive on -1 Sanity. OMG! :-O

I propose that Exhausting and Starving are not in fact simultaneous and I call for judgement on this issue. Vote FOR if you agree, or AGAINST if you think we have zombies!

PS. This is awesome!



09-23-2011 09:02:26 UTC

(Strictly speaking this isn’t a CfJ because it doesn’t suggest “measures that shall be taken to resolve [the problem]”, and so can be “automatically failed by any admin”, but I’ll hold off for some discussion.)

Sanity is explicitly a “non-negative integer”, and Appendix 3.3.1 says “Unless otherwise specified, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers, and any action that would set those values below zero is an illegal action unless explicitly otherwise stated in the ruleset.” - so a player with 3 Sanity can’t take the -4 Sanity Cannibalise action.

I’m not sure we’ve ever had any precedent that’s addressed simultaneous actions, but I’d assume that common sense was against them - it’d clearly be problematic if you could perform multiple, parallel copies of the same action (taking a “player with brown hair may change their hair to red to gain 1 Style” action fifty times simultaneously, to gain fifty Style). Maybe it’s worth an appendix clause, though.


09-23-2011 09:06:30 UTC

Looks like I accidentally deleted a line from that - meant to say that if even if we accept simultaneous effects, your action of “I take these two actions simultaneously” would be illegal, as “any action that would set those values below zero is an illegal action”.


09-23-2011 09:07:02 UTC

No, it’s fine as is - I missed the rules in the Appendix. (Personally I think it’s poor style to have a section named Clarifications containing things which are not just clarifications, but that’s no excuse for my not reading it!)


09-23-2011 09:09:16 UTC

Fixed GNDT. Feel free to modkill this now.

Ienpw III:

09-24-2011 00:21:34 UTC

For the record I agree with bateleur on that point.