+- Eagle Time (https://eagle-time.org)
+-- Forum: Cool Shit You Can Do (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Forum Adventures (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+---- Forum: FA Discussion Town (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=22)
+---- Thread: Tiny Chat People (/showthread.php?tid=2306)
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-06-2017
(09-06-2017, 01:36 AM)Wheat Wrote: »tcps are childlike and trying to make the characters from the cute cat adventure into dark edgy child soldiers clashes with what everyone else is doing, creating needless complications. also child soldiers aren't a good thing
The early mindset of the 'character' was that the game as a construct allows the crueler gods that Macaron mentioned (ie. Spit) to enact cruelty on helpless TCPs. Obviously something that would be unjust. So his goal was to find a way to break the game, eliminate the enemies, and help the TCPs escape. Usually the sort of 'Rebel' ending I go for in games (thus my influence on the character).
The first few lines by Frog-Crimes to Macaron (around the time I first arrived) tended to be either very blunt or extremely curt and rude, which I tried to incorporate into playing as the 'character'.
In the process he came to regard the only tools he had to accomplish that goal, the TCPs, as just that - tools, soldiers, or units in a game that he needed to make strong and obedient to accomplish his goals. Driven by ambition into the exact mindset he had initially been trying to oppose.
Grind's clarifications on how things work, on top of what's happened with Fernando, have changed his priorities a bit. He's beginning to realize his own hypocrisy and wants to see the TCPs grow as people/characters. Partially because some of the 'trouble' players are beginning to own up to their mistakes and apologize or try to fix them.
I've been trying to play out the character, character development and all, based on the author's portrayal of the character in chosen dialogue and the behavior of the players that stand out as powerful personalities.
(09-06-2017, 05:53 PM)Wheat Wrote: »that's part of what i was going for by opening up the option to fernando to join grind. if we don't change our abusive and manipulative behavior, then not only is it in fernando's best interest to go somewhere that's safer for them, but we will feel the consequences for our failure to not screw up so bad. it puts the pressure on us to improve, and fast. and even if fernando leaves anyway despite our best efforts, they will at least be somewhere good instead of the dangers of being rogue.
I'm not sure Fernando can 'join' Grind. She can go Rogue, and live/work with Grind's TCPs, but I don't think she can actually 'belong' to Grind in a mechanical sense. At least if I'm interpreting what Grind said correctly.
Which means she could still go to Paradise, but she could never go out into the 'real' world, for better or for worse.
RE: Tiny Chat People - gloomyMoron - 09-06-2017
(09-06-2017, 07:50 AM)Fellow Wrote: »Okay, I see where wheat is coming from now. I'd like to go on record to say that I didn't think killing monsters would be so traumatic in a game where fighting other teams is a way to win, and that I didn't mean to make any threats with my latest post.
When I made the ice gnome I did it cause I felt we were ignoring a problem just to distinguish ourselves from triton from the little mermaid, but reasons or no I still went against the group and messed up everyone's game and I'm sorry for that. I think I'll just cross out my latest post and refrain from making any commands for a while.
You're entitled to your own definition of fun, by-the-way. You don't have to apologize for doing what you thought was best at the time, even if others said it was a bad idea.
The difference comes in that you're thinking of this like a typical video game, whereas it is something more akin to a social simulator. Killing a thing, even in self-defense, even a horrible monster, would be horribly traumatizing for any normal person. These cats aren't standard video game protagonists, they're pseudo-people that are basically children. As long as you recognize that, while it has game elements and the setting is a game, that this story/adventure is less about the game mechanics and more about the character interactions. Less Monster Hunter; more-like a Telltale game.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-07-2017
(09-06-2017, 10:35 PM)gloomyMoron Wrote: »Less Monster Hunter; more-like a Telltale game.
Nah, our choices actually matter here.
RE: Tiny Chat People - tronn - 09-08-2017
I really hated the idea of giving them guns in the first place, but I wasn't here at the time. Then, putting in things just so they can fight them is just cruel. Whatever lesson there is to be learned from that could have been taught any other way!
RE: Tiny Chat People - Loather - 09-08-2017
im frog crime??????????????
RE: Tiny Chat People - Kitet - 09-08-2017
![[Image: imfrogcrime.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/222885344817840128/355601876454211604/imfrogcrime.png)
RE: Tiny Chat People - MagicHats - 09-08-2017
that is the best image
RE: Tiny Chat People - Loather - 09-09-2017
![[Image: mtNiFfR.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/mtNiFfR.jpg)
RE: Tiny Chat People - mortis - 09-09-2017
![[Image: Mmd6ZlU.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/Mmd6ZlU.jpg)
just here to watch good friends (i might suggest a little but we'll see)
RE: Tiny Chat People - FlanDab - 09-09-2017
Ah! I was gonna suggest burying the ice gnome but when I scrolled down, the discussion ender was there, therefore would make my suggestion null.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-09-2017
mortis there appears to be something wrong with your TIGER TCP.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Gen - 09-09-2017
I'm teaching these cats to love and none of you can stop me
RE: Tiny Chat People - mortis - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 04:21 PM)Dark Lord Graham Wrote: »mortis there appears to be something wrong with your TIGER TCP.
you're mistaken graham, that's just what i look like
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-09-2017
(09-09-2017, 08:02 PM)mortis Wrote: »you're mistaken graham, that's just what i look like
I stand corrected, my condolences.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Gen - 09-09-2017
Rin's a beautiful melty tiger.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Justice Watch - 09-12-2017
Yo kitet, the thread is getting kinda cluttered with discussion, and finding official updates is getting kinda hard amidst all that. Could you add big forward and back links to the update posts so finding them is a little easier?
RE: Tiny Chat People - gloomyMoron - 09-12-2017
Yeah. I wanted to curt down on the amount of discussion being done there but it has become apparent to me that I need to actually define what I mean by Faith and there isn't a good way to do that in thread without it turning into its own side thing. So does anyone mind if I do it here? I assume no-answer as no (and a no as no, obviously, >.>), I feel like it is important but I don't want to distraction even further focus.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Justice Watch - 09-12-2017
Further, this thread exists for discussion, yet the bulk of it still appears in the main thread. I can't imagine that makes things very easy for the author, either. Are we at the point where we should ban discussion in the main thread in favor of moving it here, leaving only explicit commands behind? Or is that overkill?
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-12-2017
I agree, the main thread should be for commands and vetoes only, and from henceforth we should limit ourselves to doing so in one post.
I feel it would also be beneficial if (after the next update, to avoid massive retconjuration of posts made thus far) we limited ourselves to one command and one veto per 'player', for the sake of the sanity of the author and to avoid the clusterfucks we've been creating. In the event that we change our minds, we can simply edit our post and post here that we have changed something.
If we need to get multiple things done at once, this system also encourages us to discuss it here first and collaborate on doing those multiple things, rather than everybody trying to do five different things.
How do others feel about this?
RE: Tiny Chat People - mortis - 09-12-2017
yeah, the new official rule is one veto per update, per player
kitet's super fuckin stressed with the way this has been going (re: shitposting in the thread) so yeah, full support here
RE: Tiny Chat People - Justice Watch - 09-12-2017
(09-12-2017, 01:41 AM)Dark Lord Graham Wrote: »I agree, the main thread should be for commands and vetoes only, and from henceforth we should limit ourselves to doing so in one post.
This, I think is a good idea.
(09-12-2017, 01:41 AM)Dark Lord Graham Wrote: »I feel it would also be beneficial if (after the next update, to avoid massive retconjuration of posts made thus far) we limited ourselves to one command and one veto per 'player'
This, I do not. Limiting one post per person already reduces clutter significantly enough, but limiting commands also reduces the reader's ability to support multiple people's ideas at once. Sure, making huge lists of commands has the potential to be problematic, but if I have two very strong opinions on what to do next, but can only "input" one, that reduces my ability to participate significantly. Perhaps a limit like 3-5 would be more reasonable. Not everyone is super hyped about discussion.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-12-2017
(09-12-2017, 02:04 AM)Justice Watch Wrote: »(09-12-2017, 01:41 AM)Dark Lord Graham Wrote: »I feel it would also be beneficial if (after the next update, to avoid massive retconjuration of posts made thus far) we limited ourselves to one command and one veto per 'player'
This, I do not. Limiting one post per person already reduces clutter significantly enough, but limiting commands also reduces the reader's ability to support multiple people's ideas at once. Sure, making huge lists of commands has the potential to be problematic, but if I have two very strong opinions on what to do next, but can only "input" one, that reduces my ability to participate significantly. Perhaps a limit like 3-5 would be more reasonable. Not everyone is super hyped about reading discussion.
My logic is that, with only one veto per player, a person who has decided to cause as much chaos as possible could enter 5 commands to cause chaos, making it difficult to prevent all of them from getting through. When implementing a system, it's important to consider how players can break or abuse that system.
RE: Tiny Chat People - gloomyMoron - 09-12-2017
You can Veto an entire post though? I mean, it is powerful and subjective. You can (and probably should) use it selectively but you can also use it broadly.
RE: Tiny Chat People - Dark Lord Graham - 09-12-2017
(09-12-2017, 02:12 AM)gloomyMoron Wrote: »You can Veto an entire post though? I mean, it is powerful and subjective. You can (and probably should) use it selectively but you can also use it broadly.
Can we? I've been under the impression that it was a one-for-one veto to command ratio.
RE: Tiny Chat People - mortis - 09-12-2017
hmmm yeah i'll bring this up to kitet when she's around on whether its per command, good point yall