On 7/3/22 14:11, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> (I want a complex subgame, for that, I think we need
> to start with setting some sort of substrate for it.
> I generally endorse further modification of the following.)
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Rock Paper Scissors Magic
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a new rule with power=1.0 titled "Magic Levels"
> with the following text:
> {
> The Witchor is an office.
> Enchantment (Level), Conjuration (Level), and Illusion (Level)
> are secured non-negative Integer player switches tracked by the Witchor.
Please pick a single name, don't put parentheticals in switch names.
Also, "natural player switch", and there's very little point in securing
something at power-1.
> Unless otherwise modified or changed, these switches' default value is
> 3.
"[...] switches tracked by the Witchor, defaulting to 3".
> Colliqually, these are a player's Magic Levels.
This is more of a style preference, but I don't think it's a good idea
to say something is "colloquial" in the rules. If it's in the rules,
it's not colloquial by definition.
> Each player CAN, by announcement, change eir Magic Levels, ONCE
> each week. A player that attempts to change eir Magic Levels
> more than once a week fails to intend to change eir Magic Levels.
> The values of what a player intends to change eir Magic Levels to
> CAN be a public secret. (See the ACORN on Secret Auctions)
No need to capitalize "ONCE".
Not clear whether this is supposed to be an instantaneous change or a
buffered change like planning to flip.
You never define "public secret".
The "ACORN" is an informal name and shouldn't be used in rules text. If
you want regulations, their enactment needs to be authorized under a
promulgator.
> Colliqually, this is the Magic Studying Period.
Again, it's not colloquial if it's defined in rules text.
> At the beginning of each week, each player who intended to change
> eir Magic Levels, announces the values of what they were
> changing eir Magic Levels to.
> A player that fails to do so by the end of the week fails to intend
> to change eir magic levels.
Players only announce things by sending messages.
> Colliqually, this is the Magic Practicing Period.
Same issue.
> At the beginning of the next week, a player's Magic Levels
> are flipped to the values they intended to change eir Magic Levels to
> during the most recent Magic Practicing Period.
Should probably have a "simultaneously" here.
> In a non-binding way, this rule makes the 3 following numbered
> suggestions related to Magic Levels:
> 1. Enchantment should be stronger than Conjuration.
> 2. Conjuration should be stronger than Illusion.
> 3. Illusion should be stronger than Enchantment.
> }
I see no benefit to having this in rules text. If this is just good
strategy, it will be figured out by players themselves. Also,
"non-binding" suggestions should use "SHOULD" rather than this more
verbose formulation.
> Enact the following rule with power=1.0
> titled "Constant Magic Output" with the text:
> {
> The sum of a player's Magic Levels MUST be 9.
> If the sum of a player's Magic Levels are NOT 9,
> each of the player's Magic Levels are flipped to 3.
> }
This should not use "MUST", which suggests a requirement on pain of
blots. Just "If the sum of a player's Magic Level values is ever not 9,
each of eir Magic Level switches is flipped to its default value."
should work.
Also, I don't really see a reason for this to be in its own rule.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
