Tiny Chat People

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.

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.

SpoilerShow

I for one would like to see more of Fernando's character, so for that alone I'd prefer if she stuck around.

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.

Less Monster Hunter; more-like a Telltale game.

Nah, our choices actually matter here.

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!

im frog crime??????????????

that is the best image

just here to watch good friends (i might suggest a little but we'll see)

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.

mortis there appears to be something wrong with your TIGER TCP.

I'm teaching these cats to love and none of you can stop me

mortis there appears to be something wrong with your TIGER TCP.

you're mistaken graham, that's just what i look like

you're mistaken graham, that's just what i look like

I stand corrected, my condolences.

Rin's a beautiful melty tiger.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hmmm yeah i'll bring this up to kitet when she's around on whether its per command, good point yall