On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Random grab, an old version: > > Rule 1941/3 (Power=1) > Fees > > If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or > fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the > specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next > highest integer. > > To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for > that action. Upon said announcement, the action is performed, > the Actor's kudos are decreased by the fee. > > [Need to add a 0 trap for over-spending, the old one had 0-trap > mechanics that wouldn't work anymore] Given that all of the zero-trap mechanics are already covered through the definitions of assets and the existing “pay” action, I’m not clear on what benefit a more sophisticated definition of “spend” would have over making it synonymous with “pay Agora”. It’s neat to see, though. > [Note, in this version, you never have to say what the fee is, you just > say "I do X by paying a fee" and the recordkeepor figures out what you > paid]. I actually don’t mind this, so long as the fee schedule is somewhere easily published. Since I’m the recordkeepor for Shinies anyways and am about to be responsible for publishing those facts, this gets a thumbs-up from me. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
