To fluff or not to fluff?

[ToXeye]

"To fluff or not to fluff?"

Give the weapons ordinary names, but just make the system good. The fluff can wait until the things implemented become usable. Such as mortars, why are there no machine gun nests? Not because there is not fluff for it, but because it's not implemented yet.

*edit* Fluff usually means "the story that accompanies the rules". When you see the word "mortar" for example, you might think of a real mortar, but there is no in-game fluff for it except on the research screen. Fluff is basically just the accompanying text, and has little importance to how the game is played unless it is played by newbies who need a lot of guidance. That's why there's let's plays and intro guides and stuff like that. You can fluff the game up by saying "it has storytellers!" but what it actually has is different kinds of events. The fluff is the storytellers in this case. So definetly "fluff". But then there's the aspect of making those storytellers a bit more accurate in terms of what the game designer wants, and that's not fluff.

*edit* Fluff is one thing, an experience is based on what the player wants to feel. So for example, if he doesn't want to enter the house of horrors in skyrim, he doesn't have to (he can reload the game from an earlier point). If the player doesn't want to butcher pirates for food and leather, he doesn't have to. As you can see, the fluff generated with games is usually not real fluff, and the fluff you generate games with usually has little outcome on the actual gameplay.

But adding fluff to the game would for example mean making weird names for weapons, instead of just making them generic. Look at X-COM, that's a perfect example of where the weapons are interesting but non-infringing (even though "plasma gun" or "rifle" could mean anything). This game has some good things done for it too, it's just that apparently the lee-einfeld happens to be part of the current version in order to make the game more space-western or something (actually, it's a world war 2 weapon so it should be space-post apocalyptic).

*edit* Back to X-COM: That's the first game where I heard about anything called "plasma". I would guess that many players of this game might think "lee-einfeld, sounds cool, what is it?" If there was another name for the weapon that somehow made the weapon seem interesting, and adding a bit of fluff to it, it would be better than just slapping in some real-world stuff.

*edit* Then there's pattern protection, which is a pain in the ass. And that's why the game should have different kinds of fluff for it WHEN IT IS FINISHED. Before that, the game should focus on other things.

*edit* And also, rifle sounds more educational than "lee-einfeld" because lee einfeld is the name for a gun, not a word for a particular type of gun. It's a bit like the "counting on apples and pears" allegory. "I can't count on pears, we counted on apples today."

*edit* And it's a bit like the game is trying to imply that "Pistol" and "Lee-Einfeld" is the same type of thing, whereas one is a type of weapon and the other is a type of weapon produced by a particular company.

*edit* To continue on the "can't count the einfelds" thing, it's perfectly OK to mix like that it's just that I think it should be renamed "Rifle".

[nyxkin]

things like "Heckler & Koch Assault Minigun"

Time to blow your mind - H&K Assault Laser Minigun   

*edit* The lee-einfeld is very vaguely connected to any space game.

Please elaborate.
Also jesus christ, 'gimme a chance to respond before all the edits!! 

And again, I could just be an unreasonable ass: but are guns so low on the list of priorities? 

I suppose that yes, they are pretty low now, because combat system itself is already done and you can mod basically any gun you want. I think that adding new mechanics is priority now.

Wait, the Combat system is done? Since when?

Some of it's there, certainly, but I sincerely hope that at the very least we can have functional bayonets. I'm also sure about reading something awesome about improving the armour formula.

What I would like to see are other kind of weapon damage.

Exactly, introducing say the temperature management (which I salute), adds to the whole PvE idea. Adapting to a hostile environment and all; but that's not suggesting that there is not room for water management etc.

Adding more types of weapons, mind you types also in the way they apply damage (wave/particle/beam/whatever) is without a doubt fluff; as you already have functional weaponry which gets the job done.

And again, I'm not talking about a wish list for Rimworld 3, rather trying to "lobby" towards explaining that those fit, in one shape or another, right now.   

[ToXeye]

*edit* The lee-einfeld is very vaguely connected to any space game.

Please elaborate.

It's been pulled from a cellar, but then it ALWAYS comes with one of the colonists. Every third colonist that ever was has a lee-einfeld.

[nyxkin]

*edit* The lee-einfeld is very vaguely connected to any space game.

Please elaborate.

It's been pulled from a cellar, but then it ALWAYS comes with one of the colonists. Every third colonist that ever was has a lee-einfeld.

I read that as in it's connected to ANY space game, as in: that you claimed that there are Mk1's in Dawn of War... (or at least in the source material) 

Such as mortars, why are there no machine gun nests?

Agreed, but consider that with the adition of mortars you can at least test the idea behind manned turrets.

*edit* Fluff usually means "the story that accompanies the rules".

I go by the definition that it's just about everything that you could "cut off" and still have a coherent story or a stable building; all the little filler and embellishments etc..

[ToXeye]

Yep. So fluff is basically "pulled from the cellar" kind of stuff. I guess that it's ingame fluff to have a lee-einfeld since it's irrelevant to the story if it's pulled from a cellar or if it's actually from a museum or something. But "pulled from a cellar" should be changed to "bought from a closed down museum" to make the world a bit less zombie-apocalypse and a bit more space-empire. "Despite being one of the oldest surviving weapons in the world, this weapon is remarkably reliable."

*edit/addition* Games usually have no problem with using names of products of other companies, they usually just do it I guess. Such as Counter Strike having an UMP. The only problem with advertising having a game with real world weapons is that it's just that: advertisement for weapons.

*edit* Do the big companies get paid to advertise real world weapons? Seeing as there are gun-nuts a little here and there.

*edit* Back to "Fluff or not to fluff." I think it gave a good first impression, at least, to have a good startup screen and an interesting beginning to the game. That the game lacks an end-game is a problem. There's no real "fluff" about the AI storytellers, they are just straight up GUI, art and AI, and that's good because the characters are artwork, not a lot of random ideas.

*edit/addition* And as far as fluff goes, it is basically just art/text that enables the player to understand the idea behind the game. Such as the Fallout Bible. Just because Warhammer Fantasy/40k has a lot of fluff that is not reflected in the rules, doesn't mean that the fluff wasn't an inspiration for it. There's probably a lot of fluff for this game, I just haven't found it yet.

[nyxkin]

*edit/addition* Games usually have no problem with using names of products of other companies, they usually just do it I guess. Such as Counter Strike having an UMP. The only problem with advertising having a game with real world weapons is that it's just that: advertisement for weapons.

Mods usually don't have problem with using the names of irl guns, because they are usually too small to catch any potential legal flak from copyrighted brands.

My problem with the enfield (any of them actually, be it "smle" 4 or the "colonial" 1) in particular is that I can name at least three objectively superior contemporary rifles of the top of my head. That's not counting anything that came after, or anything that MAY have come after 2014.

[ToXeye]

I bought a booklet once called "tactica imperialis" which was 100% warhammer 40k fluff. So it was basically a lot of fluff in just one go. Some images of imagined planets, and so on. And I was very sceptical of it, because I thought it would contain more hobby-connected stuff, rather than just fluff. I was sceptical of thinking "those numbers make sense". The images looked good, though.

There's problems with making a game out of fluff, such as putting too much time into writing stories that do not affect the gameplay.

Right now I am a bit "space marines are this good in the game, and this good in the fluff" about 40k, and that's just about why I think that fluff is a good thing to expand upon. The reason space marines are balanced in the way that they can be shot down by lasguns, is that you can't have a 1% chance of harming a space marine in a game (unless it's a roleplaying game like those that Fantasy Flight make). In a similar way, perhaps you can't have every conceivable thing in the game, but you can have it in the fluff. It might harm the game to have fluff that is not included in the game, and that's the definition of fluff: not part of the actual game. It can become part of it, but then it's no longer fluff. That's my view on fluff.

An example of fluff is how the space marine armour works. It works with "rings" in some way, and that's probably just a design argument to make those cool rings in the crevaces of the armour. I would sooner write fluff about something like the FEV from starcraft (which in turn is based on the lifter from Alien 2, which in turn is based on just being a robotic trucklift).

Power armour in this game is like the power armour in neocron - it doesn't make the game destroyed because it doesn't change the balance much. I think that balance issues should be resolved in the AI at some point, rather than just making the game fluffy (IE it doesn't have game mechanics that reflect the nature of the fluff behind it).

[H_D]

Wait, the Combat system is done? Since when?

Some of it's there, certainly, but I sincerely hope that at the very least we can have functional bayonets. I'm also sure about reading something awesome about improving the armour formula.

I guess you're right it might be much more advanced. But it's functional and not broken (mostly), so adding new stuff may be more important for TS right now.

[nyxkin]

Right now I am a bit "space marines are this good in the game, and this good in the fluff"

In the grim future of 40k there are only dice rolls...
http://youtu.be/wex1Bn2Xodk

Actually, fraz's argument against using a particular gun, whether it is in fact the best possible representative for it's "class" or not - should be gold-plated and mailed to Tynan. Any volunteers?

Here's a reason to favor generic ("Assault Rifle") over fictional ("CAR-61") names: it allows us to assume that a given weapon designation includes a variety of different models. Based on the lore of Rimworld, there should be a huge diversity of weapons. Colonists, pirates, and traders would have brought weapons with them from numerous far away worlds. Other weapons may have been manufactured in the Rimworld's distant past, or scrapped together in the current hostile environment. I certainly don't want Tynan to create 20x as many weapons to reflect this diversity; in fact I would prefer that he keeps the list approximately the same that it is now. Instead, generic names can be used with an understanding that the names represent a category, not a specific model. Perhaps the new "quality" metric (mentioned in the change log) could further reflect this diversity within each category.

Now, as for the actual fluff, one should never go overboard and start writing fan fiction for fan fiction. On the other hand I feel that settling for bare bones functional, either for mechanics or in naming is just a waste.

Maybe there is something to just changing the names sooner rather than later before we all get used to the names as they are and they never get changed.
It is still Alpha and fluff is less important right now. But I have to agree that there is a danger of fluff taking a back seat for so long that it gets forgotten or becomes the status quo.
In the end it's all up to the development team of course.

Of course threading the balance between a "tumblerina" and a "puritan" is a daily struggle of sorts; and not something that should be put off until you risk becoming one or the other without even noticing.

[Cat123]

Here's a reason to favor generic ("Assault Rifle") over fictional ("CAR-61") names: it allows us to assume that a given weapon designation includes a variety of different models. Based on the lore of Rimworld, there should be a huge diversity of weapons. Colonists, pirates, and traders would have brought weapons with them from numerous far away worlds. Other weapons may have been manufactured in the Rimworld's distant past, or scrapped together in the current hostile environment. I certainly don't want Tynan to create 20x as many weapons to reflect this diversity; in fact I would prefer that he keeps the list approximately the same that it is now. Instead, generic names can be used with an understanding that the names represent a category, not a specific model. Perhaps the new "quality" metric (mentioned in the change log) could further reflect this diversity within each category.

There's a solution that hasn't been mentioned in this thread: <SUBTYPE> all the things. If you've played Torchlight II or Diablo III you know the score. Code wise, ARPGs have this 100% sorted.

Put a hierarchy in the tables so that each weapon is labelled in a universal manner, but randomly generated:

<TECH TIER> <FLAVOR> <TYPE> <TYPENAME> <SUBTYPE> and then attach names that are generated - two variables, three if you want to go wild.

The <TECH TIER> is obvious. Roughly - <NATIVE>, <BLACK POWDER>, <EARTH EQUIVALENT>, <FUTURE TECH>, <CULTURE>. This isn't shown, but it determines the list of names <TYPE> has. This is determined first and also directly alters the <TYPE> stats (higher tech = better).
The <FLAVOR> is based on fluff, lists are based on <TECH TIER>
The <TYPE> is obvious. Melee, Pistol, Automatic, Shotgun, Sniper, Flame, HW/Rocket, Plasma, Laser - this determines the code for scaling regarding range, damage, speed etc.
The <TYPENAME> is chosen from a list determined by <TECH TIER> and <TYPE>
The <SUBTYPE> is based on type: <SINGLE>, <BURST>, <AUTOMATIC>, <CONSTANT>. Rimworld doesn't currently do clip size / ammo, but you get the point. Most pistols / Sniper will be <SINGLE>, some might be burst. A flamer will be <CONSTANT>; the RNG % chance is determined by <TYPE>


Coding this is actually easier than it looks.

e.g.
<TECH TIER> Black powder
<FLAVOR> Captain Sparrow's
<TYPE> Pistol
<TYPENAME> roll RNG to label: flintlock, handgun, revolver: Rolled flintlock
<SUBTYPE> Single

Player sees: Captain Sparrow's Flintlock

or
<TECH TIER> Earth Equivalent
<FLAVOR> Old Raider Willy's
<TYPE> Shotgun
<TYPENAME>  roll RNG to label: boomstick, pump-action, shotgun,
<SUBTYPE> Burst

Player sees: Old Raider Willy's Boomstick

or

<TECH TIER> CULTURE
<FLAVOR> Sma's
<TYPE> Laser
<TYPENAME>  roll RNG to label: CREW, Laser, Lasgun, Beam
<SUBTYPE>Single

Player sees: Sma's CREW

Note: <NATIVE> tech works just as well with this. i.e. a <NATIVE> pistol type is a chakram, a <NATIVE> sniper is a bow etc. In fact, LASER shouldn't even be a type - it's just a <TYPE>Sniper</TYPE> for Future / Culture tech levels. The point here is that the system can quickly reduce pointless categories while looking bloated.

etc. The various <TYPENAMES> should be kept to 3-4 variables that allow players to enjoy the novelty but quickly learn the various fluff descriptions of what a weapon does.

Or you could stick with generic names. [Hint: Rimworld isn't an ARPG, so this post is redundant, but has a point to it: specifically my outrage that people are weighting all the guns to do the same fucking damage >.<]


Atm Rimworld feels like some kind of nerdy NRA wet dream with all the earth weapons, it's bizarre. No, I will never instinctively known that a SUV4821.FAC is a Belgium Assault rifle made to use chocolate bullets.

[ToXeye]

^ The above is interesting.

Basically we have three things:
> Generic Names on guns (instead of making fluff for them)
> Generic Systems for guns (instead of just having one type of gun, you have multiple subtypes with flavours)

But then there's more to fluff than just guns. And I think of the title of this thread... must read the first post again... "Black Hawk outside of Mogadishu"

The point about not having to making fluff for the game is that, hey, he's trying to make a game here.

[nyxkin]

"Black Hawk outside of Mogadishu"

Y'know, if you're going to quote someone: do them a courtesy of quoting with context.
Or in this particular case, that I would expect the mentioned arsenal of pre-1980's(?) weaponry more natural during the 93' US raid and the subsequent shitstorm; then on a alien world in the presumably distant future. And I still do. 

And yes, I did cast a wide net of sorts to see if 'I' can get a discussion (aimed at enriching the severely lacking "sci-fi elements") of RW going; with the goal of seeing if 'we' (as the players) can show if in fact we would like more of said elements. The "net" got caught on the current guns, and I'm honestly fine with that for the moment.
Even getting rid of the current names (be they horrible or just breaking one's immersion) is a small step in the right direction for me.

Brilliant technical technobabble, meow!

That's not only in line with how RW already deals with say colonist traits; but it's also something that when set up, would work fine for just about any naming scheme - AND would be somewhat simple to implement using the already available mechanics...

You actually gave me the idea of seeing if it would be possible to try getting specific "weapon traits" to work that way, for instance is it actually possible to:
<TECH TIER> Earth Equivalent
<FLAVOR>
<TYPE> Rifle
<TYPENAME> 
<SUBTYPE> : Assault/Bolt-Action/Semi-Auto/Sniper
^Bolt-Action Rifle <(and to tie an "effect" to this ie burst size, longer cool down)

Now consider expanding that with something like how Borderlands does it's gun generation, or the concept of different manufacturers giving different specs to a weapon to be precise.

You could easily get dozen(s) of variations of existing guns; which while named generically ie 'Rifle' but with a trait like 'Bolt-Action' a manufacturer and possibly even a quality rating... We could get a ☼CatTek Bolt-Action Rifle☼ which is certainly different from a +Raider Assault Rifle+ even though they were technically generated from the same weapon type.

Is my inner 'nerdy NRA wet gun-nut' talking, or does this sound leagues better then the current system While still feasible?

[ToXeye]

^ The above.

A lot of games have random weapons, it's just a question of accepting the weird variants that turn up. One example is the chainsaw miniguns from starforge. If rimworld had something like "Bolt-Action Rifle with Bayonet" that would be a little better. It would change the gameplay to have bayonets, though. Special ammunition for a weapon would be nice, such as incendiary ammunition being part of the weapon specs.

[Shinzy]

OH I'd honeslty love if the weapons would have generated names in the same fashion as the factions get them

Badassadjective weapon of Terrainfeature Badasspersons
-> Notorious comb of crag assassin

[NinjaPirate]

I just wanted to weigh in and say I really like the sound of the last few posts. I love the way Borderlands throws together variables to give you this seemingly infinite pool of weaponry. Even in an old PS2 favourite of mine, 'Champions: Return to Arms' you'd find what is essentially the same weapon - say, a sword - but it could come in so many varieties (tainted broad sword, hulking sither, elven scimitar, etc.). They'd all have a cosmetic variety as well as whatever stat alteration the 'prefix' would dictate. 'Polished' is better than 'Rusted' etc. I think it's the way to go.

As an aside, I saw mention of bayonets. There's an entry in the changelog:

Code Select Expand

Aug 21
...
Equipment (weapons etc) can affect stats.
Apparel can now affect any stat, including work speed, psychic sensitivity (tinfoil hats!), social impact, etc.
...
It sounds like it'd be pretty easy to add a stat modifier to a weapon that offers a melee damage boost. Again, that could be one of the variables - you could find a ☼CatTek Bolt-Action Rifle with Bayonet☼.

I feel like the 'things made of stuff' should apply here too. It needn't be reflected in the weapon's name, but they all have a stat page, which could display what it's made of and how that affects it. A rifle made of steel could slow a colonist down marginally more than one of plasteel, for example. Though maybe there aren't currently enough materials a gun could be made of to warrant that. Bows made of different wood perhaps? But 'wood' is 'wood' as a material right now, no matter the tree. Hmmmm...

I'm getting way too into this. This kind of system feels only natural given the variety in pawns and their gear/background already.