Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a bit of substance.]I dislike most of the renaming.
Meh. I dislike abstract names. (In the first draft of the Card rules, everything operated directly on "pending draws"; it was later amended to operate on chips, which could be cashed in to draw more cards.) I considered basing the renaming on Parliament, but I don't know how the houses' votes are weighted; the houses of Congress do correspond pretty closely to what we're using. (I also don't know the short version of "bill originating in the House of ___".)
The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down.
F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood the proposal's effect at the time.)
Please develop some new mechanics if you want to use the population
> concept. I'm not using it for anything yet, which is why the mechanics are fuzzy. The idea is to get the concept out there, and if someone does come up with a good use for it, then the mechanics can be cleaned up to work with that use.
