This is better. There is a defined win condition so an upper bound on the length of time the game can exist. The time limits are all set in a reasonable manner. The Totem has a reason for being the Totem. The game probably didn't need a "winner will win real currency" bit but I understand that's a common thing around the steem blockchain, though to me it always feels like paying people to play a game that you think is fun on its own merits.
The only thing that I can see immediately that needs to be defined more in a more structured way is "how proposals get made." Does a player post it to their own stream with a mention of the Totem account to attract its attention and with a given tag? That whole dynamic needs to be defined before the game starts.
Otherwise, I think this is a very viable basic set of rules, though I'm sure that the first hour of play is going to reveal where the sharp edges are that need to be sanded off.
I'm working on the implementation details right now. I want to make sure I can automate some of the process before committing to a specific implementation so the game can run smoothly. I'll be sure to do another post on those details prior to starting the game.
Some sort of automation system is absolutely going to be useful and when in place will make it very playable.
Still, you want the rules to be defined and distilled so that people could, theoretically, play it without the automation – perhaps on a different platform, in a different way, or some such. Someone could start playing it immediately if they were so inclined and pre-generate interest in those tools when they become available.
The tools should make play easier and less intrusive, not make play possible. You want the idea of the game to get mental traction so that people will be drawn to play it, so that in theory you can get a little financial restitution when you implement the tools (which will probably involve sending STEEM or delegating some SP, which is not something I'm being critical of – it's perfectly reasonable) to facilitate people who are already interested in the game.
Oh, yeah I see what you're getting at. The implementation rules I am planning to use for voting and proposals could definitely be interacted with manually. I'm not planning on fully automating this initial game, but just writing some scripts to make counting votes and quick and something I can adjust quickly as the rules are adjusted. The automating of things is more just a time saving measurement on my end as the totem.
Absolutely.
You see, this kind of game falls squarely into the niche of game designs I'm interested in – as if that wasn't immediately obvious from my interaction and history of posting. This, nomic, Lexicon, Fluxx – they form or are informed by the substrate of mechanical experimentation which led to the more explicitly role-playing games (Microscope, Kingdom, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen) that I really enjoy.
Plus I'm a big damn geek when it comes to ludology. The study of processes of games fascinates me.
So I'm really interested in seeing what you think the architecture of play for submission of proposals and how they should be processed should be. In part, so that we can get it documented and distributed in the wider world among some other people, see what they think, and shake it loose.
Systems which exist to modify themselves can sometimes make for very fun games.