Re: [s-d] Re: Wonko amended 175

["Daniel Peter Lepage" <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> eugman@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> I like the idea.  What about instead of a minister we could have a
>> triarchy?
>>
>> So for one thing peter doesn't decide what happens to him when he
>> fails spectacuarly. It would also add alot more creativity and
>> balance. We just need a good way to go about it.
>
> And speaking of me, could someone prop an actual Minister of the
> House? I'm inclined to not take this all on at the moment. I just
> managed to get rid of a few ministries.
>
> Some sort of system like this sounds interesting, but I'm not sure
> how easy it'd be to put limits on the power.

I'm not sure you'd need much. Maybe say the effects can't alter Game
Documents or expel players from the game, and then make it easy to depose
the Dungeon Master if e starts making unpopular decisions.

But by and large, I doubt this would be abused much because there'd be no
point. The fun part of abusing the rules is finding clever ways to do so
and taking advantage of them; I can't speak for anyone else, but if the
rules gave me absolute power over the game I wouldn't exploit it because
there wouldn't be any reason to.

We could also make em interact with the House in fundamentally different
ways - maybe e doesn't get to do the same things players do, so e'd never
have to worry about deciding what horrible things happen to emself.

Then we can tie it to the Ministry (once we have one) so that nobody will
want the position unless they're actually feeling responsible enough to
keep track of everything. I also wouldn't mind giving someone a little
extra power as payment for tracking something fairly large and complex.

-- 
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss