Nomic 2020/Proposals
From RPG Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Useful Pages
Pending Proposals
- Rule Proposal. Naughty Knights (v2)
- Rule Proposal. All-Consuming Void
- Rule 3: Change title to "Players" and add the following subrule (as rule 3.3): Each currently active player is assigned a number according to when he or she joined the game. Numbers for the first five players are assigned based on the order of the players on the Player page when this rule was proposed (Jota=0, Roger=1, inky=2, Matthew=3, lpsmith=4)
- New Rule: All-Consuming Void: Beginning one week from the day this proposal is enacted, Player 0 will roll two random numbers:
- The first roll (from 0 to the maximum player number) determines which player is affected.
- The second roll (from 0 to 2) determines which type of entity is affected (0=Piece, 1=Card, 2=Star).
- The [player chosen from the first roll] must select an entity to put into (or assign) to the Cosmic Void. This entity may not currently be in or assigned to the Void for any reason.
- The entity chosen must be of the type selected in the second roll. Once chosen, this item is considered "assigned to" the Cosmic Void and is removed from regular play.
- This player has complete authority over what entity is chosen; it does not need to be owned by this Player, and no other Player or entity can prevent the chosen entity from being assigned to the Void. (It is assumed in the game universe that the Cosmic Void "consumes" it of its own volition.)
- The next game day, the process repeats, with the next Player making the rolls. After the player with the highest number is reached, Player 0 rolls and the cycle repeats.
- The [Player chosen in the first roll] must assign an entity of the determined type to the Cosmic Void if one is available in the game. If the second roll corresponds to an entity type not currently in the game for any reason, nothing more happens that day.
- [After the item to be put in the void is selected, the player chosen in the first roll updates the Activity Page with a current list of entities the Void contains.]
- Items within the Cosmic Void may not be interacted with by players or other non-player entities, and thus do not directly count toward win conditions. They only count again if they are removed from the Void.
- WesternActor (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: Matthew, Jota
- NAY: inky (it feels like the roll to randomly select a player is too much hassle; I would prefer if the player rotation just determines who picks, or that the random player selection is only to decide whose stuff is deleted)
- Rule Proposal. Cards and Captures
- New Rule "Dealing In":
- Any time a piece is added to the board or moves from one place on the board to another, the player who caused it to move it must randomly draw one card from the Deck. This card is no longer in the Deck; it is now in the possession of the piece in question.
- At any time, a player who A) has a score of at least 2 and B) owns a piece which possesses a card can, as an action, spend two points (i.e., reduce their score by two) to transfer ownership of that card from the piece to them. Likewise, a player who A) has a score of at least 2 and B) possesses a card can, as an action, spend two points to transfer ownership of the card from themselves to a piece they own.
- At any time, any player can propose a Monkey Arcana card as per Rule 1. This proposal must include a name for the card and can optionally include a special effect that's associated with the card. If it's approved, the card is added to the Deck.
- Jota (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: Jota, inky, lpsmith
- New Rule "Dealing In":
- Rule Proposal. Gotcha!
- Change Rule 0.8 to "Capturing is an activity that happens on the game board. If a Piece is Captured, that Piece is removed from the game board. Additionally, the following effects happen, in this order:"
- Add as sub-rules of 0.8:
- Half of the captured piece's points (if any) are awarded to the Piece that captured it, and half to the entity that controlled the capturing Piece (if any).
- The score of the capturing piece is increased by the sum of the numbers of all of the suit cards possessed by the captured piece.
- If the captured piece possessed any cards in the Monkey Arcana, and those cards had any special effects associated with them, those special effects occur in alphabetical order of the cards' names.
- All of the cards possessed by the captured piece are now no longer possessed by anyone and are returned to the Deck.
- If there are any gold stars in the Cosmic Void, one of those stars is re-assigned from the Cosmic Void to the player who caused the capturing piece to move.
- Jota (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: Jota, inky, lpsmith
Rule Proposal. Not an Orphan
Rule Proposal. More Aggressive Knights
- Replace rule 16.2.3 with the new 16.2.3 and following 16.2.4:
- 16.2.3 If it cannot, but it can move to a square from which it can capture one or more pieces with its next move, it does so, preferentially moving to the square from where it could capture the most pieces. If there are multiple such squares, it chooses among them randomly.
- 16.2.4 If it cannot, its move is chosen at random.
- Lpsmith (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: lpsmith, Jota
- NAY:
- Replace rule 16.2.3 with the new 16.2.3 and following 16.2.4:
Approved Proposals
- Rule Proposal. What's an entity?
- New Rule 0 subrule:
- An Entity is any noun mentioned in these Nomic rules. In particular, Players, Pieces, Cards, and the Cosmic Void are all entities.
- YEA: lpsmith, Matthew, Jota, Roger, inky (although "any noun" seems like it will be a cause for regret later)
- New Rule 0 subrule:
- Proposal. Scoring
- Proposal. Longevity Scoring
- Proposal. Amendment to Rule 2: Assigning Blame.
- Proposal. Amendment to Rule 2: Assigning time.
- Proposal. Amendment to Rule 1: "If at any point during the voting period, the player who originally posted a proposal votes to reject it, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate * Proposal. Amendment to Rule 6
- Rule Proposal. Friendly Typo Handling
- Rule Proposal. Pawns
- Rule Proposal. Amendment/addition to Rule 9: Pawn Promotion.
- Rule Proposal. Format rule sub-lists as numbers:
- Rule Proposal. Amendment to Rule 9[.4.2]
- Rule Proposal. Alternative adjustment to Rule 6.1:
- Rule Proposal. Win Conditions v2
- Rule Proposal NPC Victories
- Rule Revision Proposal The 'wait, what?' addendum
- Rule Proposal. The Deck
- Rule Proposal. More definitions
- Rule Proposal. Passivity == FAIL
- Rule Proposal. Stellar Cartography
- Rule adjustment proposal. Keep win conditions together
- Rule Proposal. Rule Renumbering (Addition to Rule 2)
- Rule Proposal. The board (v2)
- Rule Proposal. Pawn Promotion Addendum
- Rule Proposal. Randomness
- Rule 9. Rule 9 Cleanup to rewrite Rule 9 as the following (and fix any other rule numbers/references to it in the Rules or Proposals)
Rejected Proposals
- Proposal. Amendment to Rule 3: Removal of inactive players.
- Any enrolled player who misses a scheduled Nomic session without notifying all the other players receives 1 demerit. Any player who accumulates three such demerits immediately loses the game, and any points he has accumulated toward winning are distributed equally among all remaining players. If the points cannot be distributed perfectly equally (because there are five points but only three remaining players, for example), those points are entirely removed from play. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 8:37 PM
- YEA: Roger
- NAY: Matthew, because he's an idiot
- Any enrolled player who misses a scheduled Nomic session without notifying all the other players receives 1 demerit. Any player who accumulates three such demerits immediately loses the game, and any points he has accumulated toward winning are distributed equally among all remaining players. If the points cannot be distributed perfectly equally (because there are five points but only three remaining players, for example), those points are entirely removed from play. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 8:37 PM
- Rule Proposal. Proposal Points
- Each proposal that is or has been adopted and added to the rules increases the score of the player who made the proposal by 0.5 points. This rule is effective retroactive to the beginning of the current game on May 3, 2020. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 9:57 PM
- NAY: Matthew (I originally liked the idea, but changed my mind)
- Each proposal that is or has been adopted and added to the rules increases the score of the player who made the proposal by 0.5 points. This rule is effective retroactive to the beginning of the current game on May 3, 2020. Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 9:57 PM
- Rule Proposal. Change to Rule 7.
- Rule currently states, "At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points." Change "At any point" to "A maximum of time per game week." Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 10:17 PM
- NAY: Matthew
- Rule currently states, "At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points." Change "At any point" to "A maximum of time per game week." Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 10:17 PM
- Rule Proposal. Change to Rule 7.
- Rule currently states, "At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points." Change "At any point" to "A maximum of one time per game week." Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 10:39 PM
- NAY: Jota (I want to start taking actions! I don't want to have to wait a week between them!), Matthew
- Rule currently states, "At any point a player may take an action to award themselves points." Change "At any point" to "A maximum of one time per game week." Proposed by Matthew, May 3, 2020, 10:39 PM
- Rule Proposal. Adjustment to Rule 6.1:
- This is a co-op game
- Remove this text:
- 'If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game.'
- Replace it with this text:
- 'If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if a majority of players have a score of 100 or greater, the players have won the game. If not, the players have lost.'
- Proposed by lpsmith at 12:45, May 4th
- YEA: lpsmith
- NAY: Matthew, inky (but I would be interested in a version of this that had some opposition baked in)
- Rule Proposal. Win Conditions
- Change to Rule 6.1. Relevant text currently reads: "If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game." Text will now read: "If at any point, a player has a score of 100 or greater, and all other win conditions have been met, then 24 hours later, if any player has a score of 100 or greater, those players have won the game.
- New Rule 11: Queen Win Condition. "In order for one or more players to win the game, there must be at least three different Queens in play: one identified by a color, one identified by a letter, and one identified by a name. Each of these three Queens must be owned by a different player."
- WesternActor (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: Jota
- NAY: Matthew, lpsmith (I like these ideas, but I'd rather see them in a purely-coop context.)
- Rule Proposal. Amendability
- While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
- A) Accept the amendment (which resolves the amendment), modifying their proposal to incorporate it and removing all votes that had been cast on the proposal,
- B) Reject the amendment (which also resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page, or
- C) Put the amendment up for voting. If an amendment is put up for voting, then any player can vote on it. If at any point the amendment has a majority of players is in favor of it, then any player can resolve the amendment by incorporating it into the proposal. (This does not change the votes on the proposal.) If at any point a majority of players is against it, any player can resolve it by indicating that it was rejected.
- A proposal cannot be resolved while it still has unresolved amendments.
- While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
- Rule Proposal. Amended Amendability
- While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
- A) Accept the amendment (which resolves the amendment), modifying their proposal to incorporate it and removing all votes that had been cast on the proposal,
- B) Reject the amendment (which also resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page, or
- C) Put the amendment up for voting. If an amendment is put up for voting, then any player can vote on it. If at any point the amendment has a majority of players is in favor of it, then any player can resolve the amendment by incorporating it into the proposal. (This does not change the votes on the proposal.) If at any point a majority of players is against it, any player can resolve it by indicating that it was rejected.
- A proposal cannot be resolved while it still has unresolved amendments.
- While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
- Rule Proposal. Additionally Amended Amendability
- While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. Players must add their name and the time/date when suggesting amendments. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
- A) Accept the amendment (which resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page and modifying their proposal to incorporate it and removing all votes that had been cast on the proposal,
- B) Reject the amendment (which also resolves the amendment), indicating this on the page, or
- C) Put the amendment up for voting by indicating this on the Proposals page. If an amendment is put up for voting, then any player can vote on it by adding their vote to the page. The person who suggested an amendment is assumed to have voted for it unless otherwise indicated. If at any point the amendment has a majority of players is in favor of it, then any player can resolve the amendment by indicating this on the page and incorporating it into the proposal. (This does not change the votes on the proposal.) If at any point a majority of players is against it, any player can resolve it by indicating that it was rejected.
- A proposal cannot be resolved while it still has unresolved amendments.
- While a proposal is within its voting period, any player can suggest an amendment on that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. Players must add their name and the time/date when suggesting amendments. The person who made the proposal can then choose to:
- Rule Proposal. 1.2: Proposal Amendments.
- While a proposal is within the first 48 hours of its voting period, any player may suggest an amendment to that proposal by adding it to the Proposals page just after the proposal and marking it as an amendment. Players must add their name and the time/date when suggesting amendments. No amendment may be added to a proposal after 48 hours of that proposal's voting period have elapsed.
- For an amendment to a proposal to pass, it must receive yea votes from a strict majority of currently active players.
- Any amendment that receives a strict majority of nay votes from active players at any time, or has not received a strict majority of yea votes by the time the proposal voting period ends, does not pass.
- The proposal's original proposer may still pull the proposal following the procedure outlined in rule 1.1.2. If this occurs, all proposed amendments, regardless of their voting or passage status, are pulled as well.
- WesternActor (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
- NAY: Matthew
- Rule Proposal. Change to Proposal Resolution
- Change Rule 1.1.5 to read: "If a proposal has not been resolved after 72 hours from the time it was posted, the voting period automatically ends. No votes may be cast or changed after the end of the voting period. If [a majority of players] voted to approve the proposal, then any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved. If not, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was rejected."
- WesternActor (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: Jota
- NAY: Matthew
- Change Rule 1.1.5 to read: "If a proposal has not been resolved after 72 hours from the time it was posted, the voting period automatically ends. No votes may be cast or changed after the end of the voting period. If [a majority of players] voted to approve the proposal, then any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was approved. If not, any player may resolve the proposal by editing the proposal page to indicate that it was rejected."
- Rule Proposal. Fae Magic
- Each player initially possesses one magic faerie (including any new players added to the game). A faerie can be Newborn, Energized or Weary; all faeries begin as Newborn. At midnight UTC (8pm MUD time), all Weary faeries become Energized.
- Any player who possesses a Newborn faerie can assign that faerie a name via the Activity Log. That name must not have already been assigned to any other faerie. This makes that faerie Energized.
- Any player who possesses an Energized or Weary faerie can give it to another player via the Activity Log.
- When giving oneself points as per Rule 7, any player who possesses one or more Energized faeries can choose to invoke any or all of them. This increases the number of points they receive by the number of faeries invoked and makes those faeries Weary.
- Proposed by Jota at 9:31pm, May 3 (MUDtime)
- YEA: Jota, lpsmith (why not)
- NAY: Matthew, Roger (I'm not quite ready for this)
- Rule Proposal. Card and Queen Win Conditions
- New subsection to rule 11.1 ("The game includes a deck of cards."): "Only Queens may possess cards of the quintessence suit."
- New Rule: Card Win Conditions. "In addition to all other win conditions, a player may not win unless he or she possesses at least one card of the four player suits (air, earth, fire, and water) and owns at least one Queen that possesses at least one card of the quintessence suit."
- WesternActor (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- YEA: Jota (tentatively -- I'm a bit concerned about the consequences for a full co-op victory)
- NAY: lpsmith, Matthew
- lpsmith amendment suggested change, to make it work with the co-op rules: "In addition to all other win conditions, the players may not win unless at least two players possess at least one card of the four player suits (air, earth, fire, and water) each, and additionally own at least one Queen that possesses at least one card of the quintessence suit." I would also recommend suggesting it as rule 6.3. (Also, perhaps an additional 13.2 defining 'player suits'?)
- Jota amendment suggested change, to make it work with the co-op rules: "In addition to all other win conditions, no players may win unless every one of them possesses at least one card of each of the four player suits (air, earth, fire, and water) and owns at least one Queen that possesses at least one card of the quintessence suit.
- Rule Proposal. Pick a Card, Any Card
- To randomly select a card from a set of cards, consider the set of cards to be in standard order. Randomly generate an integer number from 1 to the number of cards in the set. The selected card is the one in that position in standard order.
- New addition to Rule 0:
- Standard Order for cards is: first all the air cards in numerical order, then the earth cards in numerical order, then the fire cards in numerical order, then the water cards in numerical order, then the quintessence cards in numerical order, then the Monkey Arcana cards in alphabetical order by name. (If any of those categories is not present in the set, then it is not included in the order.)
- New addition to Rule 0 if a similar definition has not already been added:
- Randomly: Any activity that happens 'randomly' may be carried out by any Player by using any RNG, as long as there is some record of the method they chose (such as orokos.com, or ifMUD). They must, in that history, indicate that they are choosing randomly for a particular Nomic choice that must be made. They must use the first result so generated.
- Jota (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (EDT)
- NAY: lpsmith (I don't think we need to define an algorithm for defining how to draw randomly from a deck of cards. Everyone knows how to draw randomly from a deck of cards, and when anyone wants to do that, they can use whatever algorithm they want. I wonder if we even need the 'randomly' rule. Hmm...), Matthew, inky, Jota (lps' replacement is about to pass, so I might as well spike this)
- I guess this is redundant with the other randomness proposal, although the standard order might be useful for something
- Rule Proposal. Cards and Captures
- Any time a piece is added to the board or moves from one place on the board to another, the player who caused it to move it must randomly draw one card from the Deck. This card is no longer in the Deck; it is now in the possession of the piece in question.
- At any time, a player who A) has a score of at least 2 and B) owns a piece which possesses a card can, as an action, spend two points (i.e., reduce their score by two) to transfer ownership of that card from the piece to them. Likewise, a player who A) has a score of at least 2 and B) possesses a card can, as an action, spend two points to transfer ownership of the card from themselves to the piece.
- Any time a piece is captured by another piece:
- All of the cards possessed by the captured piece are no longer possessed by anyone and are returned to the Deck.
- If there are any gold stars in the Cosmic Void, one of those stars is re-assigned from the Cosmic Void to the player who caused the capturing piece to move.
- Jota (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (EDT)
- NAY: Jota (I'm temporarily voting NAY in order to A) give other players a chance to give feedback and B) let some of the other proposals this relies on pass first), Matthew
- What if, upon capturing, the point value of the cards was awarded to the capturing piece? That might create some danger that a piece could win. -LS
- It might be interesting to have the Black Knight owned by the Cosmic Void. -LS
