#add families and children

29 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

midnight palm
#

i get it, you dont want cannibals eating babies. i really really get it. but seriously get the fnck over yourselves. the game has a gaping hole where a family system should be. why have relations between settlers? why have negative moodles when they die? why let any animals breed at all if the connotation of "babies being eaten" is so pearl clutchingly bad? the real world has plenty of fncked up sh1t, some edgy teenager posting their "wolf eating a baby corpse" garbage doesnt matter at all except to the developers sensitivities. literally get the fnck over yourselves and just put it in. its needed to bring the world to life. thank you for reading, and seriously get the fnck over yourself.

trim jungle
#

However I also believe that there should be a family system

#

Part of medieval culture was family, children were extremely important, women lead to divisions between family’s and were a driving force for many

#

and a mechanic could be that children run away from wolves and if they are eaten (which I pray to god none of you guys are that sick) there is like internal backlash leading to the falling of the settlement

#

Like the people related to the children fight against the consumers

#

Also the game is already a little dark

trim jungle
trim jungle
#

You can’t control what people do with their game

#

It is THIER game and unless you have some serious bank and invest in thier game I highly doubt they are going to take a word you say seriously

dawn crystal
#

"Why have relationships between settlers? Why have negative mood modifiers when they die?"

So... social interaction and grieving are only appropriate when the other person has had a kid with you? I think the whole socialization and mood systems are there to add more layers to the game. Not that the idea of including children in GM is inherently bad, but this delivery is so weird (and hostile lmao??).

trim jungle
#

Ya I know

#

Like I understand but also the game is already somewhat grim and I would just add like specific modifiers to dang near destroy your settlement if something like that happens

timid escarp
#

I have just one thing i'd like to point out, have you ever heard of bad gossip about Rimworld where the asked mechanic is implemented. So how bout accepting this isnt a thing that bothers anybody into disliking the game therefor

trim jungle
trim jungle
#

You were using it as a example not to make fun or anything like that

coarse perch
#

I see each villager as representing a family already - its not like 3 people can found a village - and twenty would struggle to build a town/castle-complex. I think if the devs leaned more into that idea then they could come up with some quite different behaviours and interactions that might be more flexible and interesting.

#

Its quite in keeping in medieval times that families did a job - hence were our surnames came from.

trim jungle
#

Yes!

#

That’s cool, but still

#

Having a liniege would be amazing

trim jungle
#

Bump

fallow shale
#

I have thought about this a bit and I had an idea to have children and such be in the game without all the messed up stuff.
Children and babies will not have a health bar, they will instead have a care bar. Care will degrade when near hostile creatures and humans. They will never be directly attacked.
During a raid and when any hostile creatures or humans are nearby, the child/baby will hide in a corner or by a tree.
If a child's care drops to zero, one of three things will happen.
(1)If the child is able to move and is not a baby. A pop up event will state that "due to a lack of care, a child has ran away from the village and escaped to a better life". Once the pop up is closed, the child will be gone without a trace. This acts mechanically the same as death but with no body.
(2)If the child is unable to move or is still a baby. The same event as 1 will happen. Except the pop up will state that "due to a lack of care, a chaplain/druid(depends on the religious alinement of the child and/or parents) came by and convinced the settlement to let the child be taken to a local chapel/temple to be taken care of. A heartbreaking event, but everyone knows its for the best".
(3)If the child is unable to move or is still a baby AND is the last surviving member of a settlement. the same as 1 will happen. Except for a pop up that states "after the fall of <village_name>, a child was left stranded alone. Luckily, a nearby village sent over scouts after seeing smoke in the sky. The scouts saved the children. And hopefully, they may return to rebuild the legacy of <village_name>". This will skip the game ahead a number of years equal to the difference between the oldest child and 21. Where you will continue the game with only that character as an adult at the age of 21. When this is done, all crops will be found dead, the stockpiles will be looted, and the livestock would be long gone with the pen's fencing damaged.

trim jungle
unique comet
#

IMO Children should be like dogs and such... and not attackable or ignored by raiders... And I really hope one day they do add them... and you could then go on indefinitely just generation after generation... At 14 or so they can begin to learn to hunt small animals, train, and even apprentice under adults to learn skills, like smithing and such.

keen shore
#

Or you could have a setting for sensitive people to turn off cannibalism, even blood. Honestly I've been playing this game for a while and families / babies just makes so much sense while I never use anything like human meat and I care not a bit for the cannibal references. If anything at all, I would choose families over those cannibal references any day.

keen shore
# fallow shale I have thought about this a bit and I had an idea to have children and such be i...

It's a good idea to avoid "messed up stuff".. But it seems a bit complicated. Having families and children in that game just feels right. I don't see the existing game mechanics needing change or special cases for children settlers. This is more of a moral issue but why not let the players decide? If it's too hardcore for the devs, maybe enable the modders to work on it? Because this feature is really needed to bring the game to another level and I bet many players would opt in and download that mod. That way devs don't have to take responsibility for having it in their game and the player base will be happy. Best of both worlds.