Re: This feature is optional, if you don't like it, don't engage with it.

[Deadsweet]

"What a game intends for you to do includes not only the things the fiction of the game tells you to do, but also the broader things the game permits you to do. If there is something that the game's authors simply flat-out 100% did not want you to experience, did not want you to engage in, then it wouldn't be there. Even when it comes to potential misbehavior using the rules of the system you're placed within--externalities that they didn't or couldn't account for, like throwing garbage at NPCs--the only truly accurate sign that the authors don't want you doing that is that nothing happens at all. This is because even a negative reaction, even the game pushing back against misbehavior, is content." - Dan Olson, The Stanley Parable, Dark Souls, and Intended Play.

Hey guys, I have this awesome idea that I think should be added to the game.

I want to defeat Crab King with an inserted Pearl's Pearl to get the Inactive Celestial Tribute super early. Problem is, it takes forever to complete Pearl's questline. Solution? I think you should be able to kill Pearl and have drop her pearl along with a pinchin' winch blueprint. I think this is an excellent alternative for players who want to complete the Celestial Altar more quickly. Now, I already know that people will have plenty of bones to pick with this suggestion, but worry not! I have dutifully assembled a quick and easy Q&A in anticipation of some common replies:

Q: Pearl's super sweet once you get to know her, why should the player be allowed to kill her?
A: Technically killing her would be optional, so you don't have to if you don't want to.

Q: Doesn't being able to kill Pearl make her entire questline completely pointless?
A: I mean you don't have to kill her, you're free to complete it anyway even though it's way longer.

The first question points out that this new feature changes our relationship with an NPC; we are given freedom to interact with Pearl in a crueler way, which affects how we perceive the survivor's actions and the game's story. The second question points out that this new feature makes her questline obsolete, affecting the game's balance and progression. The reply to both is essentially the same: the feature is technically optional, so if you don't like it, don't engage with it. This kills the discussion, and the forum is quiet once more.

So...I hate this reply. Not only does it dodge the points brought up by those questions, but it also shows a lack of awareness about why games have options in the first place (though both frustrate me, the latter is forgivable). The underlying assumption is that an optional feature is only relevant to a player's experience when it's opted into, when that simply isn't the case. The options you're given shape the way you engage with the game, and poor or unbalanced options can lead to uninteresting play. "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" - Soren Johnson, Designer Notes.

This is also the reason why people are so adamant about balance in this game, even though it's not really a competition. Part of the game's main appeal is its challenge and difficulty, and giving the players options to bypass that quietly confirms that skipping the fun stuff is how the game is meant to be played. At the very least it confirms that challenge and difficulty are not all there is to Don't Starve Together (Which I actually agree with, but that doesn't mean I want the game to be unbalanced. Two ideas can coexist, people!)

Let's revisit that quote from earlier. In that video, Olson uses The Stanley Parable and Dark Souls as a jumping off point to discuss how game designers counterintuitively nudge players into playing the intended way by adding content that rewards "disobedience". While his examples are quite different from Don't Starve Together, I think the concept of intended play still applies here, especially when discussing character skill trees. I hope people who fall back on this reply keep this post in mind.

If you would like to learn more about this sort of thing, I highly recommend Dan Olson's video as well as How Game Designers Protect Players From Themselves by Game Maker's Toolkit. The second video goes more in-depth on the ways game designers encourage you to play the game as intended without being obtrusive (He also discusses why game designers are hesitant to nerf mechanics, resorting to buffing other ones instead. Sound familiar?).

Cheers to a peaceful, constructive, and all-around conflict-free forum! (Ha!)

[Pruinae]

This takes me back to one of Klei's live streams, it was something along the lines of deciding if they should make the lunar mutated mobs more terrifying, but they ultimately decided against it (I don't remember the reasoning given, it was so long ago lol). I think the game has come a long way since the days it veered into the more gruesome aspects it has, I love creepy stuff, but nowadays we get cute shadows with scarfs so I don't think we will be getting the kill granny speedrun.

Wait... was it an actual suggestion or only an example to talk about the "it's optional, just don't use it" argument? @.@ 

[viblym]

Only if she gets to fight back.

[Vixen Doe]

i don't think killing a mob to skip a whole quest would make things more fun

[congrongfuguo]

也许我们可以不得到珍珠就和 Crab King战斗 只是得到更少的战利品

Maybe we can fight Crab King without getting pearls, but only get less loot

[Walrusst]

You can fight it without the pearl I thought.
You just need the pearl and its all stats up to crab king to get the main reward, the sanctum.

So you can fight the weaker versions of crab king to practice the sanctum kill.

[Lee lol]

I believe it's better to turn Pearl into a  boss than to kill her directly to get the pearl. Then if you win her, you can get pearls, which is a good choice for speed players; if you don't want to kill her, you can choose to do the pearl mission.

If we can fight her, we don't need to kill her, just defeat her. Because Pearl is a lovely grandmother.

But I still think it's a little strange to fight with Pearl... I think Klei's original design is to treat Pearl Island as a warm haven. She is the only interactive NPC in the game, not a giant beast. In the Constant, we are alone, and only Pearl can talk. If she becomes a boss, the Constant will lose the last warm place.

In addition, should this post appear in the general discussion instead of the beta branch?

[gaymime]

8 hours ago, Pruinae said:

This takes me back to one of Klei's live streams, it was something along the lines of deciding if they should make the lunar mutated mobs more terrifying, but they ultimately decided against it (I don't remember the reasoning given, it was so long ago lol). I think the game has come a long way since the days it veered into the more gruesome aspects it has, I love creepy stuff, but nowadays we get cute shadows with scarfs so I don't think we will be getting the kill granny speedrun.

i'm glad they didn't. lunar mobs and summer fire are the only parts of the game i still refuse to engage with after 4 years of playing

[Evelo]

I wouldn't be opposed to it. Options are options, but the whole sentiment of Dan Olson and Soren Johnson's quotes are something I keep stating on the forums, and yet there are tons of individuals who still think, "If you don't like it, don't use it." Granted my main gripes with this argument are regarding Skill Trees, Celestial Portal, and bug exploitation (ie Void Walking). But it really does affect everyone if the options are available even if you simply don't use it. There will be consequences which affect the game for everyone whether or not they use said thing.

[Steorra]

9 hours ago, Pruinae said:

Wait... was it an actual suggestion or only an example to talk about the "it's optional, just don't use it" argument? @.@ 

I'm aspie and i have a bit confused as well about this.. though I guess it's only an example to talk about "why we should not say .just don't use it. "

Which means that "just don't use it" is an unreasonable point for argument or debatable design in most scenarios.

And it same for the great depth worm, lunar rain, wild fire, etc. (though I'm ok with all of them. However, a reason makes me ok with GDW is it would never spawn for me by a bug in default setting.)

18 minutes ago, Steorra said:

Which means that "just don't use it" is an unreasonable point for argument or debatable design in most scenarios.

I personally think "just don't use it" is rude for most scenarios, it just means that someone chooses to neglect others feeling and told them "you could turn it off". But in other words, if the design give enough spare and options for those who don't like the original design, then it would be fine.

 

I mean, "just don't use it" should never become a valid option when a design becomes debatable - For people who don't like this design, we should give them other options to make them fine. To tell them "if you don't like it, your only option is JUST DON'T USE IT" is rude and lack of empathy. Such words are not aiming for making DST become better, but more like "we are lazy to trying to make DST to satisfy more players, if you don't like some currently design, your only option is just don't PLAY it but not come here to give out your feedback"

 

[Guille6785]

As much as I love the idea of being able to kill Pearl to finish the quest early like you would a dark souls NPC, I suggested a much more realistic idea to allow players to get the tribute without doing Pearl's questline: 

 

[Q42]

Many here seem to be misunderstanding that this post does not advocate for this feature to actually enter the game. Pearl being killable is an example argument which is rebutted in the second half of the post; which details how things being "optional" does not excuse them from being unbalanced. Paraphrasing from the original post here: A feature being optional is a weak argument because unbalanced options lead to uninteresting gameplay.

The Pearl suggestion could have been more explicitly labelled as an example, so I can see where the confusion lies.

[Anis5240]

48 minutes ago, Guille6785 said:

As much as I love the idea of being able to kill Pearl to finish the quest early like you would a dark souls NPC, I suggested a much more realistic idea to allow players to get the tribute without doing Pearl's questline: 

Transmute 3 iridescent gems into Pearl's Pearl (hur dur). Why? Because the Pearl's effect onto CK is equal to 3 iridescent gems.

[somethin]

6 hours ago, congrongfuguo said:

Maybe we can fight Crab King without getting pearls, but only get less loot

You can already do that and since the rework you actually have a reason to do so. He now drop bumper kits that basically never breaks and a couple of bottles which after you give pearl her pearl back will always reveal a sunken chest. You just don't get the altar.

[SilverSpoon]

I've been using this Signature since before this post, should I take it personally...?

That being said, the only times I would use "Just don't use it" would be if someone had no feelings beyond "I hate it", like insulting people who use or like it, or being base solely on their own skill level and ignoring or belittling other people's opinions.
As long as you're moderately saying your opinion that some in-game something are unbalanced, I'd respond moderately.

I don't agree the idea of being able to kill Pearl to get Pearl's Pearl, because it allow to go into a server with people who don't want to do that and kill Pearl.

[Deadsweet]

2 hours ago, Q42 said:

Many here seem to be misunderstanding that this post does not advocate for this feature to actually enter the game. Pearl being killable is an example argument which is rebutted in the second half of the post; which details how things being "optional" does not excuse them from being unbalanced. Paraphrasing from the original post here: A feature being optional is a weak argument because unbalanced options lead to uninteresting gameplay.

The Pearl suggestion could have been more explicitly labelled as an example, so I can see where the confusion lies.

Correct. I actually think being able to kill Pearl is a terrible idea, and I agree with the points brought up in the post that were reiterated by the people who took the suggestion at face value. I centered the suggestion around her because I thought it was plausible enough to get people to consider my argument seriously while being absurd enough to signal that it wasn't an actual suggestion (...oops.) I also wanted to get people to think about why she was left as a nonhostile NPC in the first place, and to balance critiques of new proposals or features with the designers' intent in mind.

 

5 hours ago, Evelo said:

I wouldn't be opposed to it. Options are options, but the whole sentiment of Dan Olson and Soren Johnson's quotes are something I keep stating on the forums, and yet there are tons of individuals who still think, "If you don't like it, don't use it." Granted my main gripes with this argument are regarding Skill Trees, Celestial Portal, and bug exploitation (ie Void Walking). But it really does affect everyone if the options are available even if you simply don't use it. There will be consequences which affect the game for everyone whether or not they use said thing.

Seeing the replies on discussions about skill trees is actually what inspired this post in the first place. I was going to drawing the connection more explicitly but I regrettably...forgot.

[Mike23Ua]

A lot of things Should be optional, but killing Pearl to skip her questline isn’t one of those things.

Harsher Winters with Blizzard winds that blow out campfires? Sure let’s make that an option.

Removing the penalty for dying by making death no longer black out health core portions? Yeah that is an actual option.

But killing that poor sweet Crabby hermit granny is just plain cruel.

[Edible Coal]

6 hours ago, Guille6785 said:

As much as I love the idea of being able to kill Pearl to finish the quest early like you would a dark souls NPC, I suggested a much more realistic idea to allow players to get the tribute without doing Pearl's questline: 

 

nice idea, but consider you only need to power the archive once , you would be left with three gems anyways, so is guarantee that everyone would take this option.
so whatever pearl offers should be really useful ( maybe allow u to guarantee get certain crop seed or rain on demand for non wicker players) 

[Cats_On_Fire]

On 1/7/2025 at 5:57 AM, Edible Coal said:

nice idea, but consider you only need to power the archive once , you would be left with three gems anyways, so is guarantee that everyone would take this option.
so whatever pearl offers should be really useful ( maybe allow u to guarantee get certain crop seed or rain on demand for non wicker players) 

You be sleeping on bottle loot

[DegenerateFurry]

I personally like doing her quest, but I'd accept Pearl being killable if she's a multi-phase boss.

The first phase is a fake-out phase where she just kites like a pig and snips you with her claws. 

Once you deplete her health, she coughs and says, "Call an ambulance...", and reaches for her heart, then pulls out a seashell six shooter and says, "...but not for me!", then shoots you. She can fire it while moving, runs fast and away from you, and shoots six times before reloading, each shot doing as much as a blow dart from a MacTusk. 

[Edible Coal]

9 hours ago, DegenerateFurry said:

I personally like doing her quest, but I'd accept Pearl being killable if she's a multi-phase boss.

The first phase is a fake-out phase where she just kites like a pig and snips you with her claws. 

Once you deplete her health, she coughs and says, "Call an ambulance...", and reaches for her heart, then pulls out a seashell six shooter and says, "...but not for me!", then shoots you. She can fire it while moving, runs fast and away from you, and shoots six times before reloading, each shot doing as much as a blow dart from a MacTusk. 

1. push her on to a boat before fight
2. start fight and blow up the boat

[gamehun20]

1 hour ago, Edible Coal said:

1. push her on to a boat before fight
2. start fight and blow up the boat

She can swim and still shoot in the water

[gaymime]

4 hours ago, Edible Coal said:

1. push her on to a boat before fight
2. start fight and blow up the boat

jokes on you; unlike the survivours she knows how to swim!

 

[Ratituee]

i think this logic only really applies when you are talking about skins / world settings, things that you decide before playing and can easily go without

[cybers2001]

I think the actual example that relates to OP here is the greater depth worm, where the general response to people who don't like its mechanic in the game is to "just turn it off."