Bay 12 Games Forum

Holy shit I almost forgot about this thing, that hasn't been updated in 6 MONTHS.

GOSH.

Don't exaggerate, it's only been 5 months, 27 days!

Alright, alright. I'll work on it after checking the RtDs.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on December 14, 2013, 07:02:49 pm

((First: Well, two considerations. First: These conversations are the kind we can get done in a few minutes, tops. Second: Fun trumps realism, every time. If we're putting on plays in these conversations, there's a problem, but just conversations shouldn't be problematic. No reason to worry about the time it takes, really.))

(I really don't like those excuses.  They are a cheap way out for the most part.  Conversations take time.  Since this is based off of DF 1.0, they would take time.  Heck, even in the next version, talking does take up time.  DF 1.0 is supposed to be an accurate simulation of a reality, and because of that, 'Rules of' don't really work.)

((Since when did we rather decide to play an accurate simulation of an accurate simulation of reality?
Besides, if we actually did that, we wouldn't be able to take breaks to chat with each other at all. I can guarantee that if dwarves took chatting breaks halfway through mining each tile or building any building, or any/every other task, there would be a lot of ragequits...and due to that same rule, applied to a different game, they wouldn't. So, either you have to stop us from having any conversations during working periods, or you need to stop using "DF 1.0 rules" in this argument, because you aren't actually following them.
I'd like to point out that you didn't actually address either of those arguments--you just said that they didn't count.))

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on December 14, 2013, 07:02:49 pm

((Second: My point wasn't that they didn't make things interesting, it's that they're a cheaper way to characterize something or whatever. It's the difference between outright stating that Bob is swift to anger, and having Bob be swift to anger when he talks about a sensitive subject. Show, don't tell.))

(Well, that is just it.  People form a great deal of ideas about themselves, most of which are highly skewed.  Specifically stating something about a person in a thought, would prove not to be true.  Actions speak more than words, but in my opinion, thought speaks more than words as well, because of the masks that people display when speaking to others are, for the most part, ripped clear off.)

((Thoughts are words. And, for that matter, conversations are actions.
Think, for instance, of the snippet we had about religion. How would we "communicate" those differences through thought? Have you think:
I'm sure glad I went on those church camp-outs. This canteen is great!
and then I think:
Wow, religious people are really kinda dumb. I wish they would just keep their thoughts to themselves.
Or what? I promise you, I have never spontaneously thought that thought in my life.
That's just one example. Thoughts aren't the worst thing to communicate things with, but a lot of things are better conveyed through conversations...especially things the person himself is not aware of.))

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on December 14, 2013, 07:02:49 pm

((Third: Keeping the thread bumped is hardly the most important part of conversations. Besides, these discussions come up once, get settled, and then get forgotten. Unless we actively try to use them to bump the thread, it won't work too often. Conversations, on the other hand, are constantly seeded by--and sometimes without--external action.))

(You're missing the point I was making.  I was just pointing out that discussion can be very potent, and the poster I was responding to seemed to place it as an unimportant 'third option'.)

((Ah.
Well, he has a point. Discussions like this are more frustrating and slower to come up than IC conversations and ideas.))

"Who are you? Why are you bugging me?"

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on December 14, 2013, 06:29:31 pm

((Oh. What did it do?))

((Indirectly caused damage to, then loss of our shuttle, injured several people, shrugged off and returned amplified by several orders of magnitude a shot of Lukas's particle cannon, nearly melted our robot overlords (Miyamoto in Gilgamesh, and Lukas), burned a new canyon through the planetoid, damn near destroyed our whole base by trying to wrestle with a nearby gravity anomaly, and in doing so caused the loss of Anton's right leg. So it was a pretty vile thing.))

((Not Anton's leg!))

Quote from: Devastator on December 14, 2013, 06:13:05 pm

((oh, and GWG, I'm more impressed that Grate seems to have made the AM break a sweat.  That's quite the thing.  Wonder what class III means.))

((No idea. It may be this.

((...That would be amusing.))

Quote from: Devastator on December 14, 2013, 06:13:05 pm

((oh, and GWG, I'm more impressed that Grate seems to have made the AM break a sweat.  That's quite the thing.  Wonder what class III means.))

((I'd say the crystal thing we encountered on the planetoid was at most a Class II.))

((You've only encountered one crystal on a planetoid?))
[/quote]((Only one that mattered.))
[/quote]
((Oh. What did it do?))

((oh, and GWG, I'm more impressed that Grate seems to have made the AM break a sweat.  That's quite the thing.  Wonder what class III means.))

((If that's Class 3, I wonder what higher classes would be...
And lower ones, I guess.))

Quote from: Devastator on December 14, 2013, 06:13:05 pm

((oh, and GWG, I'm more impressed that Grate seems to have made the AM break a sweat.  That's quite the thing.  Wonder what class III means.))

((I'd say the crystal thing we encountered on the planetoid was at most a Class II.))

((You've only encountered one crystal on a planetoid?))