[s-d] Eugman submits Prop 308

["Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On: 12/12/05 1:08:48 PM Eugman sent:
> Subject: [s-b] [auto] EugeneMeidinger submits p308
>
> EugeneMeidinger has submitted a new Motion, p308.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Motion 308/0: Quest Queue Quite Quixotic
> A Proposal by EugeneMeidinger
> Last modified on nweek 102, nday 3
>
> [[First draft, A bit unorganized but the general idea is there.]]
>
> Create the following rule under section 2:

Why not create a whole new rule section defining QUESTS?
You seem to intend for them to stand apart from other objects.

> {{
> ==Quest==
>
> Quests are a type of Game document. Quests are not Motions but are
treated as such except 
> where stated otherwise. Any unstated characteristics of Quests is assumed
to be identical to 
> those of Proposals.
>
> At the time a Motion is created, a Minister of Change assigns it a unique
serial number that is 
> at least 1 higher than all Motions created before it.
>
> A Quest consists of a list of conditions and a list of rewards. A Quest
has five possible states: 
> Pending, Open, Stacked, Current, and Historical.
>
This, to me, looks like a fine line to walk. You can't treat it like a
Motion and at the same time
have it not be a Motion. Do you intend for Players to be able to Propose
Quests (i.e. a non-Proposal 
that is a Quest)? This seems ambiguous to me. You're generating a whole new
voting structure for this 
individual object. Imagine the work! 
Why not create the Object within the existing Proposing/Voting Structure?
And why Stack? Can't a 
Player go in pursuit of multiple Quests simultaneously?

> Whenever a Quest passes, instead of changing to Historical and having an
effect listed on the 
> Quest it becomes Stacked. If a Quest fails the the owner loses 10 GC,
otherwise e receives 5 
> GC and NOTHING ELSE[[No bonuses garnered by passed props]].
>
Again. New Voting structure. I'll add that a submitted Quest would only be
submitted should
the submitter see an advantage in doing so. Why an exceptional reward? Let
it fly or fail.

> A play may submit any number of Quests less than of tenth of eir GC per
nweek.

In any world I've ever existed in (Timothy Leary not withstanding) this is
Gibberish.

> When the conditions of the Current Quest are met, it becomes Historical,
the oldest Stacked 
> Quest becomes Current, and any objects listed under the rewards are given
to the player who 
> caused the last condition to be met. The rewards may also list changes to
the game which are 
> at this time acted out.
> }}
>
This last, at least, seems lucid. I'm still not comfortable with the
Stacking aspect of things.

> Create the following quest with the state of Current:
> {{
> ==Cartography Catastrophe==
>
> Conditions:A player has been in each room of the Haunted House. The only
locations
> counted are the current ones at the end of each nday.
>
> Rewards:
> 400GC
> 5 Pens

Better get your timing right! (and have a master plan).

> The Title of Master Mapper
> }}

Needs Work!!!

Triller

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