Jump to content

DST Paranoia


Recommended Posts

Having people around is a great source of comfort in dire situations. Pigmen and bunnymen are welcomed, but there is something more comforting with people. You know they can help you. You know they can give you the things you need. You know that if everyone puts their strengths together then surviving this nightmare will not be a difficult task.
But...
With everything you give others, you wonder if you are being used. With every thing they take in front of you, you wonder if there is enough left for you. With every enemy they slay, you wonder if they wouldn't do the same to you. And after a while you start to wonder if it isn't safer to be alone. You wonder if these people are really your allies, or if they are even people to begin with.
You wonder if being together is a good idea at all.

This is what I think the atmosphere for DST should be.
The presence and actions of the other players should have a diverse effect on your sanity.

This is a suggestion of how they affect you:
Sanity decrease:
-When other players attack anything on your screen (discourage ganging).
-When other players pick items on your screen (discourage land stripping).
-When other players receive items from you (discourage sharing).
-When other players are eating or using healing items (regulate item consumption).
Sanity increase:
+When other players give you items (encourage trading).
+When other players are nearby (encourage pairing).
+When other players create items or build things on your screen (encourage production).
+When other players deposit items in the "free for all box" when you are nearby (encourage resource pooling).

Low sanity would have effects on the perception and interaction with other players.
Just as the cute rabbits change into beardlings and passive shadows start to appear, other player characters will appear as shadow creatures. You will also no longer receive any form of communication (but you will still be able to send them info) from them nor will any of their actions cause an increase in your sanity except for giving you items.
When the shadow creatures become aggressive, player characters that have appeared as passive shadow creatures so far start to spawn aggressive shadow creatures. Further more, other players will no longer receive any information from you.

Further more, adding the same shadow creature that the player characters appear as when on low sanity as a naturally spawning creature can add more difficulty as you can't tell the difference.
Another interesting enemy that could be added to increase the paranoia factor is a doppelganger. This enemy would copy the appearance and the equipment and then go to attack other players when the original is not there. He can be made to act as a normal player by harvesting resources and picking items but occasionally attacking a player and then running away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this idea, but i think it needs a nerf. I mean, if you have 3 players besides yourself, and they're all gathering resources on your screen, even if the sanity decrease is very small it will add up very quickly. Same with the sanity increase. 

I agree that when insane the other players should deform a bit, but making it so that they can't communicate with you is, again, a bit extreme. Perhaps instead their voices become warped and sinister and/or they will sometimes say mean and threatening things without the player typing it, and only the insane player can see it. Same for extra hostile shadow creatures spawning around them. Perhaps instead, they just decrease sanity or spawn one small version of a shadow creature. 

As for the doppelganger... I don't know. It just doesn't seem very Don't Starve-y to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like most of the ideas here, but I think you have a bit of a loophole with the free for all box. Using that instead of giving items directly changes a sanity transfer into a net benefit, but requires you to do it by proxy, which is annoying. I'd say remove the give/receive/stash sanity ones.

 

Another problem with the sanity costs of actions is it encourages going off and doing work solo, which is not really what it sounds like they're aiming for, design-goal-wise. They seem to be leaning pretty heavily on ways to encourage coop play, rather than punish it. At best, I think they'd go for neutral-ish mechanics.

 

Having other players become shadowy when sanity is low is really cool and sounds like it would definitely work. Limiting communication when insane would be cool, and really encourage keeping sanity up. It might also be cool if you could still see that they were typing, but it would turn it into gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the idea of Sanity gain or loss for those actions should be incorporated at all. I mean, they're people, and why would it make you lose sanity to see someone picking up something? The "loss" of someone picking up things on your screen should be the trust and teamwork of the other player, because you are, in effect, pooling resources across you. What if you go mining, and have a good bit of gold on you that you're planning on using in your base with the other player, or the other player has been collecting food and you think they're not giving you your fair share? The "paranoia" of the concept of DST (In my opinion) Should be the trust, or lack of, between players. Will he kill you? Should you kill him before he has a chance? Is he moving closer with a spear ready to be equipped and kill me before I can fight back? I think the only "sanity" issues for these kinds of actions should be that of you, the player, and the trust you have to give or withhold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MenaAthena
 What are the odds that there are three players out there who intentionally want to drive you insane? I think it is an entertaining possibility.
Being able to actively decrease the sanity of other players sounds like an interesting concept to me. Also, having a way to reverse the effect if not intentional is needed.

 You can't work will with someone who is insane, keep sane if you want to work together.

@rezecib
 That is not a loophole, it is a thought out complement to the mechanics. The FFA box is not going to be everywhere, it will be constructed at bases where everyone can pool resources at sunset without having to worry about the sanity cost of item exchange. The sanity boost provided by groups of players pooling resources will mostly negate any penalty from exchanging needed items during the day.
Also, there are many ways around most of the costs (just do it outside each others screen). But it will keep a distance among the players that they will have to work around for the sake of staying together.
This is not a punishment of coop, it is just a limit to prevent the game from becoming too friendly.

One of the most important tasks in Don't Starve is time management. Having each player do a different task would make the game more manageable if the players plan to coop; which is encouraged by this mechanism.

 Also, have the devs confirmed that there would be in game typing?

@strydevex
 Are you sure they are people? How can you be? If the doppelganger was implemented, you would have no such assurance and the in game characters have no such assurance even if he wasn't.
Game psychology is different from real life psychology. The idea that it is a game allow people to act more freely and with less regard to consequences. Implementing mechanics that provide fast consequences to in courage more life like psychology is the job of the game creators.
The world of Don't Starve is a harsh world, the very fact that there are foods (recipes no less) that can harm you without any benefit is proof enough. I think the world of don't starve together should not be any less harsh.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against a lot of these implementions(Although I like the main idea) for personal reasons and my tipical whiny behaviour, but something that is really confusing me is:
Why should land stripping be desencouraged(if anybody answers, tell me if this word is correct)? Because in my opnion, the least direct and imediate the problems of slowly destroying the world are, the better. I believe greatly that it could create quite interesting scenarios with players taking away too much of the land and then having to work together in despair to restore the world to a livable status(or, in my case, just break down into anarchy where food is the most precious thing.)
but if you get imediate penaulties just for picking up stuff and harvesting your food, then 1)working in group will be absolute hell and 2)people will get an unecessary imediate incentive to build renewable stuff very early(and there's already plenty of that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a suggestion of how they affect you:

Sanity decrease:

-When other players attack anything on your screen (discourage ganging).

-When other players pick items on your screen (discourage land stripping).

-When other players receive items from you (discourage sharing).

-When other players are eating or using healing items (regulate item consumption).

Sanity increase:

+When other players give you items (encourage trading).

+When other players are nearby (encourage pairing).

+When other players create items or build things on your screen (encourage production).

+When other players deposit items in the "free for all box" when you are nearby (encourage resource pooling).

 

this is could be to bad and to good because if your a team getting around on the 1st day picking up items you could get insane the first day and teaming on a beast say Varg hounds ect... you could get insane easy like that to. its still a little bad cause you are trading,  pairing,  making stuff then you could stay sane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but while I like some of the general outline of this idea, I don't go raving mad when someone picks up a sandwich in front of me.

 

Also not particularly sure why you want to discourage sharing and working together. It's kind of ridiculous that getting things from players boosts sanity, but giving doesn't, and literally just picking something up decreases someone's sanity. And how would this discourage land stripping if it happens to someone else? What this post tells me is that you want to brainwash all Don't Starve Together players into some sort of weird system. Or just encourage them to get away from anyone else so they don't have to worry about weird sanity effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone, almost, likes the main idea. I am happy about that, but it would make me happier if people pointed what they didn't like and what they did like and maybe make suggestions to refine the idea and turn it into something that a lot of people would enjoy.

 

@RalphKastro

 You have every right to not like something for whatever reason if you think you will not have fun with it.

And the word you are looking for is "discouraged" (I don't think disencouraged is a real word even if we can understand what you mean with it).

I'll address the rest of your questions at the end of this post.

 

@ChesterSpy

The intent is to lead to a null net effect if the player adhere to certain core ideas that I'll highlight at the end of this post.

 

@spiritcrusher77

 I don't take offense when people discredit or object to my ideas; I welcome a discussion with hopes of rectifying and enhancing said ideas.

Do you know how many fights break out over the last piece of pizza? And since you mentioned a sandwitch.

And you figured out my plan! Muhahahaha! Too late, no one can stop me now.
Seriously, brain washing? what are you talking about?
I am just suggesting a mechanics with the intent of carrying over the same intense atmosphere of don't starve into DST while simulating real-life-like psychology into the game.
 

While I am discouraging sharing, I am encouraging trading. This leads to every player trying to have things that he can trade off with the others.

I am not discouraging working together as much as I am discouraging working together at the same screen. This encourages players to spread out, gather different resources and explore.

 

There are three major keys for success in Don't Starve; they are exploration, time management and resource management. The mechanics I am suggesting aim at maintaining a distance amongst the players, regulate their time and resource consumption and encourage exploration.

The penalty for disregarding these concepts may not become clear until later in the game if the mechanics I suggested were not implemented (which may not be all that bad, but would make successful playthroughs more rare). Also, all the penalties I am suggesting are very easy to avoid, work around or even ignore if the boosting behavior is used to cover the sanity loss (zero net effect).

 

 

And thanks to everyone who bothered reading what I wrote and spend time to replay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a suggestion of how they affect you:

Sanity decrease:

-When other players attack anything on your screen (discourage ganging).

-When other players pick items on your screen (discourage land stripping).

-When other players receive items from you (discourage sharing).

-When other players are eating or using healing items (regulate item consumption).

Sanity increase:

+When other players give you items (encourage trading).

+When other players are nearby (encourage pairing).

+When other players create items or build things on your screen (encourage production).

+When other players deposit items in the "free for all box" when you are nearby (encourage resource pooling).

I don't like this for some reasons.

Long Version:-A sanity decrease when players attack you is reasonable but not required.

-Players picking up things isn't a smart idea as if you and another person were picking up meat and traps, so no.

-Players receiving items increases sanity but giving them decreases sanity makes no sense, if anything it'd be like giving to charity, you'd feel good.

-If anything, I'd go crazy if I heard a monster eating food or healing. But if a player was eating or healing and I heard it, I'd not go crazy, this doesn't make sense.

-Same as the first point I made, people near you makes sense but isn't required and conflicts still with the first one.

-Players building items would contradict how the night light works, if you build something it'd make sense for the person who built it not everyone else.

-And for the last one, I don't know what you mean by "free for all box" but I think you mean a chest so that makes no sense, you'd feel confidence or relief but it makes no sense to do this.

 

Tl;Dr version: I don't think this is a good idea, but I understand what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe when your sanity is very low, you can't see your friend on the map/screen anymore, can't see what they're typing, and can't type. where there is another person there would be a shadow creature that looks like the player's avatar, but shadowy. you'll see them typing auto messeges that they don't really type about that you're lame and insane and they'll rob your body, and they'll see you say strange insane things in chat. when sanity decrease even more, they look like shadow-y version of themselves, and they attack you.

 

the bad in your idea is, that players could easily "sanity trade" by giving each other items back and forth untill sanity fills up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP's ideas are incredibly exploitable.

E.g. Infinite sanity gain:

Maxwell gives player A an object --> Player A drops it off-screen --> Maxwell picks it up off-screen. Repeat.

Player A builds a sign on-screen. Player A destroys a sign off-screen, and then picks up the material. Repeat.

Infinite sanity drain:

Eat seeds ... seriously, do I need to give you an eample?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but while I like some of the general outline of this idea, I don't go raving mad when someone picks up a sandwich in front of me.

That mental image made me laugh way too hard. I felt the need to make an awful stick figure comic.
post-449710-0-35310000-1411669372_thumb.post-449710-0-22656700-1411669400_thumb.post-449710-0-10612900-1411669431_thumb.

But to the point; this is an interesting idea for sure, but I think you would need a manual just to figure out why your sanity is fluxuating wildly. Some of the points would be counterintuitive during gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, what's with the long posts, people (except the truthseeker)?! I can honestly say tl;dr but I did read the first bit of the first post, so I know what the deal is about and honestly? Why? Why would you want to complicate things? Do you ever go more insane when a person picks up a penny from the ground and is around you? Probably not, unless you have some weird phobia from people picking up stuff from the ground. That's just total weirdness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone, almost, likes the main idea. I am happy about that, but it would make me happier if people pointed what they didn't like and what they did like and maybe make suggestions to refine the idea and turn it into something that a lot of people would enjoy.

 

@RalphKastro

 You have every right to not like something for whatever reason if you think you will not have fun with it.

And the word you are looking for is "discouraged" (I don't think disencouraged is a real word even if we can understand what you mean with it).

I'll address the rest of your questions at the end of this post.

 

@ChesterSpy

The intent is to lead to a null net effect if the player adhere to certain core ideas that I'll highlight at the end of this post.

 

@spiritcrusher77

 I don't take offense when people discredit or object to my ideas; I welcome a discussion with hopes of rectifying and enhancing said ideas.

Do you know how many fights break out over the last piece of pizza? And since you mentioned a sandwitch.

And you figured out my plan! Muhahahaha! Too late, no one can stop me now.

Seriously, brain washing? what are you talking about?

I am just suggesting a mechanics with the intent of carrying over the same intense atmosphere of don't starve into DST while simulating real-life-like psychology into the game.

 

While I am discouraging sharing, I am encouraging trading. This leads to every player trying to have things that he can trade off with the others.

I am not discouraging working together as much as I am discouraging working together at the same screen. This encourages players to spread out, gather different resources and explore.

 

There are three major keys for success in Don't Starve; they are exploration, time management and resource management. The mechanics I am suggesting aim at maintaining a distance amongst the players, regulate their time and resource consumption and encourage exploration.

The penalty for disregarding these concepts may not become clear until later in the game if the mechanics I suggested were not implemented (which may not be all that bad, but would make successful playthroughs more rare). Also, all the penalties I am suggesting are very easy to avoid, work around or even ignore if the boosting behavior is used to cover the sanity loss (zero net effect).

 

 

And thanks to everyone who bothered reading what I wrote and spend time to replay.

While I agree that some things being picked up, they would start fights, I don't know if sanity would play a role in that. Even if it did, it should probably have more guidelines then "Something picked up on your screen? Oh well, sucks for you." I didn't mean literal brainwashing; what you're saying would modify the behavior of players for the worse, in some ways.

 

By the way, how would the game tell if you were sharing or trading? That's a bit confusing. Would the act of both of you receiving and giving something just keep the sanity at the same level? Also, couldn't players just put things in chests, or even easier, just move away when they drop something and someone else picks it up? I get that a bunch of players massacring a pig village or something, even though working together on the same screen being something to be discouraged is pretty odd, players should at least be able to fight together against a boss, or a hound attack or something.

 

I just don't get why you want a multiplayer game where players are discouraged to work together against or with something. As you said, there are pretty easy ways for players to get around these mechanics (and plenty more situations which would be pretty unclear), so to me this can end in one of two ways. One, it ends up being a useless section of code that's easier to ignore than mosquitoes in this game, or it ends up being an incredibly annoying feature that ends up with players just avoiding each other as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That mental image made me laugh way too hard. I felt the need to make an awful stick figure comic.

attachicon.gifIMG_20140925_110148_784-1-1.jpgattachicon.gifIMG_20140925_110148_784-1-2.jpgattachicon.gifIMG_20140925_110757_833-1.jpg

But to the point; this is an interesting idea for sure, but I think you would need a manual just to figure out why your sanity is fluxuating wildly. Some of the points would be counterintuitive during gameplay.

 

I look forward to your OT webcomic series! :D 

 

 

Okay, what's with the long posts, people (except the truthseeker)?! I can honestly say tl;dr but I did read the first bit of the first post, so I know what the deal is about and honestly? Why? Why would you want to complicate things? Do you ever go more insane when a person picks up a penny from the ground and is around you? Probably not, unless you have some weird phobia from people picking up stuff from the ground. That's just total weirdness.

Does it...drive you insane? :p

 

 

(Yeah, as for my non long posts on this here, see my, "Let me see what they did first before going off on a wild speculation idea rant" replies elsewhere.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very grateful to everyone commenting and discussing this with me. I am aiming to become a game designer and this discussion is teaching me so much.
So, thanks everyone.

@Pyromailmann
- Someone walks to you and stabs you with a spear, you are ... OK with that? It doesn't make you angry or upset at all? >_>
- Leave the traps that are near me and go pick the ones further away! Those are near so I'll pick them.
- You are a nice person <3 But not all people are like that. And even then, can you really afford to be charitable in such conditions? And you can always drop the item on the ground and leave, the other player can take it without decreasing your sanity.
- Have you ever sat near a noisy eater, do that and tell me it doesn't drive you mad. Also, it is not about the sound as much as about them consuming things; are they eating or healing too much? Do they need to heal with an item? You can doubt your allies when in grim situations, but they can do things to erase your doubts. That is the basic concept of paranoia which is a normal thing to occur among members of groups under grim conditions.
-There are ways to prevent said conflict.
- Ohh! That looks cool! .... Wait! That fire looks creepy... This is not as cool as I thought at first. This can actually make building night light less problematic if you are on low sanity because the boost from building it can offset the drain its operation has.
Also, you feel more confident and safe when the people around you know what they are doing. And each tool they build is a tool that you (or allies) can use to insure survival.
- Everyone left main camp early morning. One player cutting wood, another farming spiders, someone gathering twigs and grass, etc...
Come dusk and all gather at main camp and put everything they gathered in the shared chest (free for all box) and you can measure how much resources the group has, what you need more of and you can get what ever you need to build the next tool without having to ask for it.

I expect private chests to be implemented (only the player that built the chest can use it). Otherwise, steeling will be too easy and keeping your items safe from evil players would be hell.

Finally, I respect your opinion and thank you for your understanding.

@shigad
@Isosurface
Thank you for your input.
And yes, I am fully aware of all the things the players can do if this was implemented (I thought it through). You don't need to give me an "eample" ;)

But is this not normal human interaction? Two people meeting and having a "conversation", exchanging "words of encouragement" to boost each others moral?
And when someone bothers you by doing something that is not worth chopping him with an axe over, you get back at him with ... eat seeds to make him mad.

There are plenty of ways to restore sanity, and none of them are that hard to obtain, why is this any different? Allowing players to boost or damage each ether's sanity.

@LadyMeda
 The game is not completely intuitive and a lot of experimentation is needed in single player mod to know the working of things. This could give the players more things to learn beside the things they have learned in single mod.

@XirmiX
 We are having a discussion, posts are usually long during those.
As for why I am doing this, it is because I am EVIL! Muahahaha!
Seriously, I am just suggesting something. It is OK if you don't like it. You are also free to suggest refinement for it. Or something else in its place.

And imagine that you've been searching for a penny for 3 hours, you finally find one but someone else takes it before you. And that guy doesn't really need it, but he just picked it up for no reason and now you have to ask him for it. Tell me that would have no mental impact on you. The characters are not in an everyday situation; even small actions can have significant effect on people who are under stress.

@spiritcrusher77
 I think that the sanity in this game represent the general mental and emotional state of the character (the two are interlinked after all). So what affect your emotions can affect your sanity.

As for how exactly the sanity effects would be executed and how impact-full they are, that is called balance and is usually discussed after a majority of people agree that this is an interesting idea and could be fun to have in game.
But there are many things that can make this feature tolerable enough that it isn't annoying as well as significant enough that it isn't ignored.
You may not lose sanity the first time you give an item, but the more you give and less you receive the larger your future sanity loss for giving.

It isn't that I want a multiplayer with no team work, I just want a multiplayer with a different flavor from all the other multiplayer games we've had so far. I want more interaction and significance to the presence and actions of the players around you instead of just having them there doing stuff like in every other game.


Finally, a lot of people have expressed interest in the main idea, and most of them complained about different aspects of what I am suggesting as an implementation for the idea. But what does anyone think we should have instead?
Nothing? Players don't affect your sanity at all?
All positive effect from other players?
Can anyone think of something more interesting?

And forgive me for the very long post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheThinker 

Personally, I would prefer the actions of other players to affect your sanity similarly to you, but in some different ways. For example, if a player dies, it should definitely drain your sanity. Being around skeletons of players should do the same. Other more subtle things could be something like being around a starving player while having food with you, which would encourage sharing, which should be encouraged, not discouraged. Obviously that would mean that there would have to be some physical way to see players starving, like with Wolfgang. It should only drain your sanity if the other players hunger is below 30 or so. Also, I think that insane players should bring down the sanity of those around them. Anyway, these are just examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to simplify the most what I think about this: I don't think that player-player tension should be made into a in-game mechanic. It should be encouraged, but putting a number on it and penalising you for letting it go too low or too high isn't a good thing. Instead of adding al those penaulties and rewards, the game should encourage situations in which the players might get a little paranoid(can't think of anything aside from increasing hunger speed, but there must be other ways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very grateful to everyone commenting and discussing this with me. I am aiming to become a game designer and this discussion is teaching me so much.

So, thanks everyone.

@Pyromailmann

- Someone walks to you and stabs you with a spear, you are ... OK with that? It doesn't make you angry or upset at all? >_>

- Leave the traps that are near me and go pick the ones further away! Those are near so I'll pick them.

- You are a nice person <3 But not all people are like that. And even then, can you really afford to be charitable in such conditions? And you can always drop the item on the ground and leave, the other player can take it without decreasing your sanity.

- Have you ever sat near a noisy eater, do that and tell me it doesn't drive you mad. Also, it is not about the sound as much as about them consuming things; are they eating or healing too much? Do they need to heal with an item? You can doubt your allies when in grim situations, but they can do things to erase your doubts. That is the basic concept of paranoia which is a normal thing to occur among members of groups under grim conditions.

-There are ways to prevent said conflict.

- Ohh! That looks cool! .... Wait! That fire looks creepy... This is not as cool as I thought at first. This can actually make building night light less problematic if you are on low sanity because the boost from building it can offset the drain its operation has.

Also, you feel more confident and safe when the people around you know what they are doing. And each tool they build is a tool that you (or allies) can use to insure survival.

- Everyone left main camp early morning. One player cutting wood, another farming spiders, someone gathering twigs and grass, etc...

Come dusk and all gather at main camp and put everything they gathered in the shared chest (free for all box) and you can measure how much resources the group has, what you need more of and you can get what ever you need to build the next tool without having to ask for it.

I expect private chests to be implemented (only the player that built the chest can use it). Otherwise, steeling will be too easy and keeping your items safe from evil players would be hell.

Finally, I respect your opinion and thank you for your understanding.

Alright to start

-No, I wouldn't be OK with someone stabbing me, clearly I'd be dying and rushed to a hospital. But what was conflicting was that the game thinks the person attacking you is good, it has to check that (like with pigman or any follower). But it has to do that for 60 people on 1 server. It'd lag the server so it'd be like the umbrella radius in DST so no.

-I know if someone was picking stuff up near me, I'd be fine with it. An exception is if I wanted that. The game can't measure your thoughts.

-Yes, if the person isn't throwing things or lunging at me with swords and spears alike. Like you do.

-Yes, I have. I never minded that because I'd either be eating or move away. It'll help you to ignore them. Aggravating them or asking them to stop isn't smart.

-Yes, I know this. As the first bullet says above is all I need to prove how it conflicts (if you need insight I suggest to check the weekly dev casts for more).

-Wow! I had no idea that fire looked scary! Anyways, whenever you research and prototype something for the first time it gives you sanity. The second point is true, you do feel confident when people know what they're doing.

-Of course you'd feel that. You'd be closer to some sort of goal. But you'd worry if you're running out of space.

-Yes, I do think eventually a safe (or private chest) is added to both DST and regular DS.

Also realize, I have been down a path like yours before. Defending my ideas that I know people would hate eventually. I don't want others to be doing this because it makes you more and more of a stubborn person (No offense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shigad

@Isosurface

Thank you for your input.

And yes, I am fully aware of all the things the players can do if this was implemented (I thought it through). You don't need to give me an "eample" ;)

But is this not normal human interaction? Two people meeting and having a "conversation", exchanging "words of encouragement" to boost each others moral?

And when someone bothers you by doing something that is not worth chopping him with an axe over, you get back at him with ... eat seeds to make him mad.

There are plenty of ways to restore sanity, and none of them are that hard to obtain, why is this any different? Allowing players to boost or damage each ether's sanity.

 

that's not "words of ecourgment", that's meta-gaming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...