Dynasty Archetypes

By Kevan, July 2025

This is an attempt to give one definition of the fundamental types of dynasty that are played at BlogNomic, as a potentially useful lens through which to see trends and absences. I've described a few dynasties as "sandbox" when discussing them in recent years, but considering what other categories might exist, I've grouped them into four fundamental types: Sandbox, Political, Boardgame and Minefield.

Most BlogNomic dynasties are some mix of the first three, and will shift around as the game progresses: Boardgame structures typically only emerge at the start, but otherwise it doesn't take much amendment to make a dynasty more Political or Sandboxed.

Minefield dynasties are something of a standalone category by definition, although they will always have some other kind of gameplay going on - and any dynasty can become a Minefield if a suitable mechanic is enacted.

Bucky noted that this division of archetypes can broadly be seen as relating to when players perform actions: at any time (Sandbox), when a subgroup agrees (Political), or when it's their turn (Boardgame).

Sandbox dynasties

Sandbox dynasties have a variety of mechanics, and many optional actions that players can perform fairly freely. (They often have, if anything, too many.)

The actions tend to be performable at any time, or are only loosely locked to "once per day", or requiring some resource spend. Often the only impetus to take game actions is a general sense that it's probably worth doing something to get your gamestate numbers up, and that you shouldn't become too much of an outlier.

Some Sandbox dynasties are a kind of simulation: creating a complex world with neatly interacting components, but no particular intended goal, leaving the group to negotiate one later.

Most early BlogNomic dynasties — perhaps most online Nomics in general — would be classed as Sandboxes, and there's something of a sense that a sandbox and daily actions are seen as the tabula rasa at BlogNomic, the default dynastic design in absence of any other framework.

Other types of dynasties can develop Sandbox elements where a standalone mechanic or resource is added to the ruleset but never connected to anything else.

Examples:

• The NetHack dynasty: players explored a dungeon
• The School of Witchcraft dynasty: players attended (or skipped) magical lessons
• The Prehistoric dynasty: players developed primitive technology
• The Unexplored Planet dynasty: players investigated a planet
• The Demiurge dynasty: players roamed through a city of demons
• The Alien DNA dynasty: players wandered around a laboratory

Strengths: Easy for players to be creative and throw new ideas in, without having to follow any framework. Allows engagement at lighter or heavier levels.

Weaknesses: Can stall if there's too much to do and players aren't sure which direction to move in. Hard to know who's playing. May be difficult to agree on a victory condition once the sandbox has sprawled and players have committed to different parts of it.

Tends to end: In all kinds of ways, but often with a sudden flurry of actions. That can be conventional gameplay, or kickstarted by a scam being available.

Political dynasties

Political dynasties centre around confrontational game actions, where players are given room to argue their case and seek alliances, with the outcomes of group decisions being significant. The actual gamestate can be minimal and the actions uncomplicated: gameplay revolves more around negotiations and retaliations within factions, than individual personal gameplay.

Some Political dynasties have explicit game mechanics that require a number of players to act together in order for something to happen. Others are more emergent from tit-for-tat situations, where players can launch actions at any time, but will be guided by informal agreements or threats of reprisal.

Political dynasties always foreground the proposal aspect of Nomic, because players will naturally vote and propose in a way that reflects their alliances (in practice no single faction will ever get large enough to dominate basic proposal voting completely) and will work to persuade floating voters. This makes Political dynasties perhaps the most "Nomic" ones, and as such it's surprising that they're something of a rarity at BlogNomic.

Examples:

• The Missile Crisis dynasty: players allied into blocs with different voting and attack strengths
• The Venetian Election dynasty: players gained power by moving in and out of secret factions
• The Blizzard dynasty: players competed for shelter in the cold
• The Elevator dynasty: players negotiated over proposals to ascend a tower
• The Royal Succession dynasty: players voted to change the weights of the game's final scoring
• The Thief dynasty: players discussed how to divide up loot

Strengths: Tends to have a more engaged player base, as the less active players are either recruited as allies, or quietly shut out of gameplay. Proposals get more focus and (public or backchannel) discussion.

Weaknesses: Can flag if the player base dwindles without notice: what were evenly-matched factions can suddenly falter into a foregone conclusion. Being a game of persuasion, disagreements can become heated.

Tends to end with: A group pushing through a series of coordinated actions to win. This will often include a scam (if only a small one) to get further than their rivals would expect them to.

Boardgame dynasties

Boardgame dynasties have a clear game loop and a strong sense that everybody who sits down at the table is expected to take part. They often involve a round-the-table sequential turn order, or players reacting (publicly or privately) to periodic game events from the Emperor.

These dynasties often make some effort to respect the circle of the dynastic game, taking steps to minimise the impact of proposal enactments that would other interrupt mid-turn (sometimes they add a fundamental extra ruleset layer, saying that all enacted rule changes are paused on a stack until the current turn ends).

Some Boardgame dynasties may consider timeouts or optouts for people who fail to take their turns or don't want to play the game, but it's usually implicit that actually playing the game is the expected default.

The original Suber ruleset is arguably a Boardgame Nomic in style, as its starting rules are turn-based.

Examples:

• The Werewolf dynasty: players had secret identities over a day/night cycle
• The Assassin dynasty: players moved around a grid, one square per round
• The Giolitti dynasty: players were paired up for a card game tournament
• The Battlebots dynasty: players programmed robots to fight one another
• The Road Trip dynasty: players took turns to travel forwards along the road
• The Wizard Duel dynasty: players simultaneously chose which spell to cast at whom

Strengths: An engaged player base, since mandatory game actions will deter Slouches who aren't keeping up. A focused ruleset, since everyone is engaging with it.

Weaknesses: The proposal side of the game can atrophy if players start to see the dynasty as a static boardgame rather than a game of Nomic.

Tends to end with: A player or team winning conventionally. Scams tend to be smaller and scattered across the dynasty, as a turn structure reduces the opportunity for big surprise moves.

Minefield dynasties

Minefield dynasties have a ruleset with a prominent and powerful mechanic that takes up most of the group's attention. Proposals and other game actions become much less important.

Such a focal rule is typically one with great and free-ranging power that's likely to decide the game if somebody manages to pull a good trick with it — usually something that allows players to create free-text rules or gamestate. The ruleset may include a careful list of restrictions on what text can and cannot be written, but working around that is part of the fun.

Examples:

• The Djinn dynasty: players made freely-described wishes to change the gamestate
• The Visiting the Past dynasty: players pulled and applied rules from earlier dynasties
• The Parallel BlogNomic dynasty: players used a GPT model to generate gamestate text
• The Great Machine dynasty: players wrote secret free-text victory conditions
• The Atlantean Language dynasty: players defined the "true" ruletext meanings of pictograms

Strengths: Encourages engaged discussions about rules and the meaning of sentences, and how to amend the ruleset around them.

Weaknesses: The rest of the game can atrophy, both dynastic gameplay and other proposals, as players are reluctant to sink too much time into game aspects which could be irrelevant if a Sniper takes the win. Less confident players can be deterred by the level of rulecraft and argumentation likely to be required to play well.

Tends to end: With a massive scam, or a stalemate if the leading players all realise that they were planning the same massive scam.