Thursday, February 25, 2016

Proposal: Zug Zug

Times out and Fails 2-2-2. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 27 Feb 2016 21:12:34 UTC

Add a new rule called “Quests” as follows:

As a Weekly Action, an Orc may open a Quest by creating a Story Post titled “Quest: Name of Quest” where Name of Quest is any name that has not been used for a Quest before. In the body of such a post, they should describe the goal of the Quest, and must state the Target Number of the Quest, which is any positive integer greater than 2.

Any Orc may commit Warriors to an open Quest by paying an amount of Warriors and making a comment on the Quest’s Story Post stating clearly that they are committing that many Warriors. They may do this more than once, and all such commitments are cumulative. Any Orc who has committed at least one Warrior to a given Quest is a Rider on that Quest.

If at least 24 hours have passed since a given Quest was opened, any Rider on an open Quest may resolve that Quest by rolling DICEX in the GNDT (with a comment stating which Quest they are resolving), where X is the total number of Warriors committed by all Orcs to that Quest. If the result equals or exceeds the Target Number of the Quest, that Quest succeeds; otherwise that Quest fails. Upon resolution, each Rider on the Quest receives x-1 Warriors, where x is the total number of Warriors that Rider committed to the Quest. In addition, if the Quest succeeded, each Rider on that Quest receives x*y Spoils, where x is the Target Number of the Quest and y is the number of Warriors that Rider committed to it.

Once a Quest has been resolved, it is no longer an open Quest. An Orc may not open a new Quest while a Quest they opened is still open.

We can make this more complicated and interesting later, but I’m curious to see if the basic mechanic interests people.



25-02-2016 20:22:16 UTC

Note: you used x*y but defined y and z in the number of spoils received. Aside from that I like the general idea but my big problem is that since you always get x-1 Warriors back you can commit all of them all of the time. Furthermore, since you get more rewards based on how many you commit it seems like a very much rich get richer system. Also, not a problem but on a personal note, I don’t care for GNDT rolls used where no matter how what you do a single dice roll determines pass or fail.

Brendan: he/him

25-02-2016 22:50:58 UTC

Note: thanks for the correction, Larrytheturtle. I’d be glad to tweak this to make it riskier for richer players if people find the idea interesting.


26-02-2016 13:23:50 UTC

Note: I like the general mechanic, but seems very low risk.

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-02-2016 19:39:25 UTC

This should probably be voted on.

I’m not sure I like it, but it’s better than nothing, and direct combat seems an unfavored direction. (For some reason.)


quirck: he/him

26-02-2016 20:01:11 UTC

against  arrow per Larrytheturtle


26-02-2016 21:55:22 UTC

against I almost forgot to actually vote on this. I like the general idea and I would support an amended version I just think it is to broken as is.  Also, when did the arrow come back? I thought they got rid of it awhile ago?

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-02-2016 22:18:24 UTC

It’s always usable with :ARROW[closing colon], it was just the button that was removed, apparently to avoid confusion.

Not really sure why that was found necessary, or why it was later added back, but I like it.

imperial Anyways, there are actual votes on this, so I’m going to abstain.


26-02-2016 22:51:12 UTC



27-02-2016 04:31:13 UTC

imperial I have no strong opinion either way on this.