+iny ©at people

I really hate to talk about my own idea again but for explanation's sake, it might be cool to have a 'point of view gun' that, when fired, shares the wielder's point of view and thoughts on a matter with whoever's hit. Specifically, in a way that transcends normal communication-- it just transmits that point of view perfectly.

It'd be non-lethal, and actually helpful for conveying ideas to a populace of TCPs which might be taught in a way that prevents typical conversation. What if one of the gods just didn't teach a TCP how to communicate, and only how to fight?

A TEACH gun?

Propagunda.

I really hate to talk about my own idea again but for explanation's sake, it might be cool to have a 'point of view gun' that, when fired, shares the wielder's point of view and thoughts on a matter with whoever's hit. Specifically, in a way that transcends normal communication-- it just transmits that point of view perfectly.

It'd be non-lethal, and actually helpful for conveying ideas to a populace of TCPs which might be taught in a way that prevents typical conversation. What if one of the gods just didn't teach a TCP how to communicate, and only how to fight?

Ooohh, I thought you meant like a transplantable camera.

I support this, but we should ask Wax about it first, because this seems really powerful. We don't want everybody else getting this as well.

this was all a lot to read

i dont think a teach gun is a good idea, ages ago someone was talking about how these kinda things can devolve into an arms race and i really dont want to deal with what the reaction to "gun that shoots ideology" could be, while we wouldnt at this point make anything like it, its very possible that you could make some sort of obedience chip for a tcp and Wow, that'd be, something

also the point of view gun is definitely the kind of magic item that would hurt the health of our tcp and i think we should avoid those kinds of things as much as possible

also i think that while we're on a fashion adventure we should make a snapback hat that says "crimes?" on it
only one snapback, our heads have to share

Propa-gun-da is definitely imperfect, but I think it's a good subject to think about for the future. An obedience chip is actually super counter to what we want, and in some ways this gun is overdoing the subversion angle, but on the other hand, I am really unsure if non-lethal weaponry and good conversational skills will be enough to convince the rest of the TCPs in this game to go rogue. We need something, IMO.

SpoilerShow

Here's where I got it from, by the way.

big fan of bananapanda's outfit ideas, though i think windy needs better access to their arms

They'll just use their power to make the holes dingus

for your health

but this actually gets me thinking; that ability could allow us to encase windy in a complete nigh-indestructible sphere of armour, yet still allowing them to retaliate from within

if only I knew more about Fennel to think of what can be accomplished with her

I am really unsure if non-lethal weaponry and good conversational skills will be enough to convince the rest of the TCPs in this game to go rogue. We need something, IMO.

Perhaps we should convince marzu and macaron of the necessity of preventing grind and rein from militarising the session via our diplomatic shenanigans. We already know macaron prefers peaceful sessions so she should be the easiest to convince. That only leaves marzu to worry about.

Diplomacy is far less potent if attempted against everyone at once BEHIND THEIR BACKS.

I know everyone wants a peace and rainbows solution but we need to be at least somewhat practical and realistic in how we go about limiting and/or eliminating violence. assuming we want to win, which seems to be less of a priority for some by now. :P

If we are going to try to have everyones TCPs to go rogue the last thing we want is to make the session be a fun peaceful one. We need to make their Gods seem like horrible tyrants so they actually have a reason to leave, honestly we probably only need to make Grind and Reins TCPs go rogue, because we can most likely start an alliance with Marzu and Macaron.

Problem is, peaceful endings don't work with Wax. We could take out Grind and Rein, but if we ally with M&M after Wax winds up on his own. Unfortunately, the best course of action (ally with Wax) means we'll need to make M&M's TCPs go Rogue as well.

We don't have to actually ally with M&M. All we have to do is convince them to take the reins off their TCPs.

I mean the other gods are already doing a pretty good job of that by making them kill each other for very petty reasons, we just need to convince them that they don’t actually need to do that and there isn’t much benefit in it for them.

If all the tcps of the players who actually want to fight have stopped obeying those players then the other gods are then presumably safe to ask their tcps nicely to do the same so that the game can end and they can move on.
The difficulty is that while there is still fighting, it is much safer to be on a side than to be rogue.

I also think Sol has a good point that I forgot in that using magic items wounds tcps so we should make sure we aren’t making all of our tools really complicated because then actually using them won’t be sustainable.

I also think Sol has a good point that I forgot in that using magic items wounds tcps so we should make sure we aren’t making all of our tools really complicated because then actually using them won’t be sustainable.

On that note, I'd like to reiterate my proposal for stone walls, and simple mechanical catapults that hurl nets and canisters of sleeping gas. We would be able effectively defend ourselves and incapacitate enemies, but nothing would be powerful enough to count as magic use. And if the walls were strong enough to withstand enemy attacks by themselves, we could just sit inside our fortress, beaming froggy propaganda through cyberspace.

We don't have to actually ally with M&M. All we have to do is convince them to take the reins off their TCPs.

'please make yourselves defenceless against every other player'

Not going to happen unless grind and rein are also dealt with. Everybody wants to win and will act in their best interests unless duped otherwise. Why not ally with them if it makes our job easier in every possible way?

In fact, out of all the players, we are the ones most susceptible to losing our TCPs to rogue status. Ultimately, we need to refine our strategy in ways that increase its chances of success, not diminish them. The idea of itself is highly improbable and the more we come up with outlandish, backfiring/pointless ideas (sleeping gas? do you think TCPs have lungs?) the more we kinda waste our time.

I can approve of a temporary alliance with Wax while we plan things out and use him to bounce off our ideas and prepare.

If we need to formally drop it to make our plan work, then we need to be prepared to do that later.

I can't believe people haven't suggested something as basic as

>Ask Wax how our knife could have possibly effected other sessions

i don't like the POV gun. i like the idea of talking to macaron asap

i don't like the POV gun. i like the idea of talking to macaron asap

+1

a joint IRC (internet relay cat) channel that none of the gods can read.

I love this idea, but adding elements that are specifically not for the eyes of gods seems like the zone of tranquility all over again, and will just piss of Wax. So how about this: Gods can read it too. Oh, and maybe gods can join the chats as well. It sounds like a really convenient way to communicate with everybody at once.

I mean gods wouldn't be able to read it specifically because none of us have a computer, not because of any magic prohibition.
I guess nothing is stopping anyone from making one, but we'd have to make sure our keyboard tastes nice.

We already made TCP communicators that have the same effect as an IRC channel such as described would accomplish.

We already made TCP communicators that have the same effect as an IRC channel such as described would accomplish.

Not really true. an IRC like such would allow group chatting, which is something the communicators are incapable of.