Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatWyrmGold]

I won't interpret it as something different if you don't rephrase it to be non-insulting.

[IronyOwl]

I won't interpret it as something different if you don't rephrase it to be non-insulting.

What would you consider non-insulting in this context?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hm, let's go over your points.

I can't understand what other people say, specifically what you say.
I can't figure out what things are germane.
Somehow these are relevant to you actually answering my questions.
You are going to answer briefly because I'm too stupid to understand an answer that includes any details you deem "irrelevant".

How about one that doesn't focus on how incapable I am of understanding you?

[IronyOwl]

Alright, I suppose I'll answer your original two questions now:

No. Neither of those two things happened.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Then clearly we have different recollections of the exact same words.

So, we do have to make every little critter and every single plant that needs to exist if we don't want ecosystems to collapse?

[IronyOwl]

So, we do have to make every little critter and every single plant that needs to exist if we don't want ecosystems to collapse?

Yes. However, "needs to exist" is a very exclusive club.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Even if we take what you claim as all that's needed as actually all that's needed, a claim which I doubt, that still requires no fewer than four gods to collaborate on a single ecosystem. Worms, grass, deer, wolves; any three without the other are doomed.

And, again, I disagree with both the idea that only four species are needed and the idea that making players create every little species that exists makes the game better. You want to restrict the species available for "free" to the bare minimum--that would be excellent! You want to say that any creature with a vaguely interesting physical trait or feature has to be made by a player--fine with me. You want to say that every ecological niche is devastatingly empty until one player spends the time and effort to fill it, regardless of how "interesting" it is? That, Irony, is where my problem comes in. Especially since without those species, all the effort one spends will be wasted.

And what does it bring to the game if every single species is novel, is player-created? None. Whatsoever. The worms, the rats, the flies, the bushes and shrubs, they will be created and then forgotten, because stories about worms, rats, flies, bushes, and shrubs are boring. People care about the humans and elves, the dragons and giants, the sphinxes and gremlins. They want to make the interesting things, and don't care so much for the rest.

So tell me: What does that game design choice add to the game?

[IronyOwl]

Even if we take what you claim as all that's needed as actually all that's needed, a claim which I doubt

What makes you say that?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Even if we take what you claim as all that's needed as actually all that's needed, a claim which I doubt

What makes you say that?

Knowledge of ecology. But I've already explained my reasoning, why bother doing it again?

Now answer my actual questions and don't, how'd you put it, "become confused and focused on irrelevant things." Why is forcing the players to make each individual species good for the game?

[Tiruin]

((I think you're deviating from the point. Other than specify what pathogenic organism --your action-- to put in an animal which has no definite existence, why didn't you just create it in the first place?))

[GreatWyrmGold]

One action per turn.

[IronyOwl]

Even if we take what you claim as all that's needed as actually all that's needed, a claim which I doubt

What makes you say that?

Knowledge of ecology. But I've already explained my reasoning, why bother doing it again?

Now answer my actual questions and don't, how'd you put it, "become confused and focused on irrelevant things." Why is forcing the players to make each individual species good for the game?

Are you confusing how the game works with how reality works again?

If not, what are you trying to say there? It looks like you're saying I'm lying or fickle or something.

[IronyOwl]

Um...
I think you did forgot about my action

Would seem so. Was it bolded? I can sneak it in if you link to it or something.

Yeah, http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=127735.msg4379368#msg4379368

Sorry for the delay. I missed this because I assumed there was nothing past the wasteland of text.

[4-1] You create a dream-world that unconscious creatures might nudge the surface of, like bumping up against the surface of a liquid they can't break. The result is generally disturbing but vague nightmares.

((Also I either wrote in the result or forgot the modifier for Althaine's action. Oops. :I))

[Digital Hellhound]

I wish you'd taken my advice rather than continue arguing forever and forever.

Modifier? Let's say you wrote it in. NO TAKEBACKSIES. >_>

[Corsair]

((Irony Owl am I correct in guessing that the "simpler" an action is the lower the roll required to partially succeed?))
"So it is my time... how the world has changed.... ... ... I see that I do not have long for it either if no-one heeds of me..."
Create a series of black monoliths about the size of a man scattered across the regions, upon each in faintly glowing script that is able to be understood by any sapient, upon each stone record some individual facet of the world and all the information about it. In one place at the center of the key gateway place a larger stone that bears information about the stones and me their creator. (Feature)



((Edited))