Craig P

@Craigp
723 Followers
782 Following
24.6K Posts

Green energy day job, game dev / design talks & tutorials at night.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFL6-QAPmuin1iXUY1MEe0g

He/him

This is also true in party-based RPGs. Each person's role adds to the combat in a distinct, direct way, with a specific fiction and flare. If the characters all just got 'victory points' for being a level 8 whatever, it'd be boring as shit.

But in more industrial games, everyone works. And their job is directly tied to the success of your base in a tangible way. It provides specific resources or services you need, not generic cash.

This means the people slot into your mental framework.

That's The Farmer. That's The Researcher.

If they all just got paid to do whatever job, you'd never remember what their jobs were. They'd become generic.

This can be clearly seen in The Sims, where the jobs are distinguished mostly by when you go to work and what skills are relevant. Whether you're a clown or a hacker doesn't matter much if the pay's the same- just rank up a different skill and go to work at a different hour.

This fungability creates a vagueness in our lifestyles.

In The Sims you're probably going to have just one or two folks working, their story is mostly that they are the ones working. WHAT JOB barely matters.

It is once again the middle of the night and I am thinking about basebuilders.

One situation we face when our base is part of a wider society is the fungibility of tasks.

In the wild, farming gets you food, which you need. Chopping trees gets you wood for walls, beds, fires. Even as you ascend the tech tree, every job provides a directly useful service.

However, in a society, a job is just how you get paid. The player doesn't care whether you're a farmer or a barista if the pay's the same.

And obviously you can take whatever startup choices you want, which can include absolutely bonkers-hard challenge approaches or the easiest thing imaginable.

Either way, eventually your core obsessive inhabitant will crash out, and your base will end. Your challenges are largely self-inflicted, even in paradise you will destroy yourself.

It changes a completely open-ended vague runway to nowhere into a challenge to build the best/biggest you can en route to self-destruction, and perhaps to take the most away from the base if it's linked to a long-term civilization.

Obviously for a beginner, it's a fairly normal progression.

But the midgame and endgame are more focused by your startup choices, and I think that will create a much more natural and rewarding endpoint.

One thing I love about my little experiments in changing basebuilding game mechanics to be character-centric is that it naturally creates an end-state.

Basebuilders are notorious for not having an end state. In DF, you just build until you get bored and decide to do something stupid on purpose. Rimworld has "goals" but the reward is "congrats, start over now".

If your base is character-centric, the end is obvious: when the character arc is done. When their obsession destroys them.

There's something joyous about inflicting awful games on yourself and your friends. Shared awful art magically becomes good performance art.
One of his friends actually thought they were playing a spreadsheet sim game until BRRROMMMMDOMMMDOMMMDAAADOOMMMMMMMMBREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, it's quite a video.