[Answered] Decision behind GiveUpExit mental break being disabled?

[O Negative]

As I probe the code of the game for hints of unfinished future content, I noticed a mental break which is disabled: GiveUpExit

My question is why the mental break is disabled.

I understand that this kind of mental break might be extremely annoying for some, and that makes it a really hard thing to balance. Personally, though, I love the idea of colonists potentially leaving the colony [and them being able to change their minds, which looks like it's already implemented]. As long as they're rather casually walking away as they leave, and I can send another individual to "arrest" them. Especially for the more intense biomes. Who wants to live in the desert or on an ice-sheet, anyhow?

I know there's no guarantee of Tynan answering, but any insight would satisfy my curiosity

Until then, probably just going to mod/re-enable this for my personal playthroughs

Code Select Expand

  <MentalBreakDef>
    <defName>GiveUpExit</defName>
    <mentalState>GiveUpExit</mentalState>
    <baseCommonality>0</baseCommonality>  <!-- Note: disabled -->
    <intensity>Extreme</intensity>
  </MentalBreakDef>
  <MentalStateDef ParentName="BaseMentalState">
    <defName>GiveUpExit</defName>
    <label>giving up and leaving</label>
    <stateClass>MentalState_GiveUpExit</stateClass>
    <category>Sad</category>
    <prisonersCanDo>false</prisonersCanDo>
    <recoveryThought>Catharsis</recoveryThought>
    <blockNormalThoughts>true</blockNormalThoughts>
    <nameColor>(0.65, 0.9, 0.93)</nameColor>
    <beginLetterLabel>gave up</beginLetterLabel>
    <beginLetter>{0} is leaving the colony.</beginLetter>
    <beginLetterType>BadNonUrgent</beginLetterType>
    <recoveryMessage>{0} has had a change of heart and is coming back to the colony.</recoveryMessage>
    <baseInspectLine>Mental state: Given up and leaving</baseInspectLine>
    <tale>MentalStateGaveUp</tale>
    <allowBeatfire>true</allowBeatfire>
  </MentalStateDef>

This is mostly a message to Tynan (and any other developers)

[RazorHed]

This wasn't just extremely annoying . It was damn near game ending in the early alphas. It happened a lot after raids because back then every corpse your pawns saw added up and they'd give up and try to exit after it seemed like only 5 or so corpses. You had to pick the happiest of happy pawns to haul corpses. Sure you could capture them and convince them to join you again , but then they were still very close to breaking because of the huge I was imprisoned mood debuff.  I really don't even think it would happen now though as it is WAY easier to keep pawns happy.

[O Negative]

Ah, so it's an old feature which proved to have no real counter-argument at the time. Gotcha.

Hopefully it gets re-implemented in one way or another. Thought about sticking into the possible mental states for a person with dementia. But then I thought "nah, that makes it too easy to get rid of em" lol

[CannibarRechter]

It might work if it was a staged break. I had brought this up previously, in another thread about breaks. I can think of two staged major breaks: Flight Risk, and Suicidal. These are major breaks that would happen that would require you to do something with the pawn, or obvious consequences would occur. They would probably be best implemented with additional mechanics, though.

[Joshims]

I really like the suicide break idea. It could be from overdose or cutting. I also like the idea of an extreme break that only hurts the broken colonist. I just wonder if putting suicide in the game would mess with the games rating, similar to how the drug names had to be changed.

Oh god I just thought of another idea, suicide attempts connected to equipped weapon. Failed firearm suicides give you like nose or jaw shot off :/

[O Negative]

Can't say I know how much experience you guys have with suicidal thoughts/actions... From personal experience, I can tell you that having a mental break blatantly labeled as Suicidal is just a bad idea.
Yeah, even though it's just a game. There are legal reasons, obviously, and I shouldn't have to explain the common courtesy/sense ones.
I get that with all of the other horrible things you can do in a game like this, suicidal actions/thoughts might not seem like such bad idea. Trust me, it is.

There's a loophole/middle ground, though:
Death due to an overdose via "Binging on hard drugs" could/should definitely be a thing. and might be already.
I've only ever experienced "soft drug" binges, so I can't say I know which drugs have the potential to kill, if any.

Staged breaks are a good idea, yeah.

[mumblemumble]

Really, I dont think suicides should be instant if implimented. Suicide should be at first like, getting the gun, locking up in a room,  waiting for several minutes, putting the gun to the head, contemplating, and then MAYBE pulling the trigger.

I dont see why suicide would be such a big deal for ratings, other games have suicide in them.

[MikeLemmer]

I dont see why suicide would be such a big deal for ratings, other games have suicide in them.

I think it's more as a trigger of actual suicidal thoughts out-of-game, rather than concern over ratings. There's a difference between watching colonists getting injured from other sources due to breaking at the wrong time, and watching them take their own life because they can't take it anymore.

The GiveUpExit mental break has the same effect mechanically (losing a colonist) without the nasty implications of watching your colonists commit suicide.

[mumblemumble]

not really, suicide has a MUCH nastier effect. Loved ones would mourn them, and it would effect the entire colony.

Besides that, do you really think it would cause suicide, seeing the entire colony almost mourn the death of them? Unless they were a bitter enemy, i could see it making it harder on everyone.

[brcruchairman]

Going to add my two cents here; as someone who's dealt with chronic depression, I can confirm that sometimes suicide in media triggers my own suicidal thoughts. Personally, I don't think a colonist suicide in Rimworld would be trigger to me, but for others who haven't cultivated the detachment to their pawns, or whose brain simply works differently, that may not be the case.

Power to ya, Mike, for realizing that before I did. *hugs!* You, sir, are a boss. *salutes*

[mumblemumble]

I'm just going to put this out there chairman.

Which would be more provoking? A piece of media where it shows suicide as something emotionally removed and "oh well", or perhaps even humorous in intent, OR, something which showed it as an absolute tragedy?

I've had suicidal thoughts myself in the past, and the main idea to prevent me was thinking of others who cared, or even my purpose...and we all have a purpose, even if we don't realize it yet

[MikeLemmer]

Which would be more provoking? A piece of media where it shows suicide as something emotionally removed and "oh well", or perhaps even humorous in intent, OR, something which showed it as an absolute tragedy?

Depends on the person.

Regardless, I don't think suicide has a place in RimWorld. It hits a bit too close to home, both for those who have such thoughts and for those who've dealt with family/friends committing suicide in the past, and doesn't add enough to the game to excuse its inclusion. It's the same reason I wouldn't want rape added to the game.

[O Negative]

Mumble, with all due respect, you're kind of introducing a false dilemma with the two options you've given. Including a suicidal mental break in a humorous way would just be ridiculously offensive. A decision to add it in a way which portrays suicide as a tragedy might have good intensions, but it would still be disrespectful to some. A third option you didn't mention was just not adding it That one's got the fewest consequences, and doesn't prevent the game from being fun.

Mike's pretty much hit the nail right on the head in all of his posts.

[mumblemumble]

heh, rape is another thing I would want as a slim possibility to happen. Would be very interesting to try and deal with, imprisoning your best fighter because he tried to rape a girl, even if rape wasn't immediate, where someone could run in, fight the attacker, and prevent full on rape anyway... Though I agree that it would be hard as obviously not all personality types would commit rape. It would be hard to say, see a tetotaler pacifist with iron will attempt rape, compared to say a blood lust, psychopath chem interest person

Really this reminds me of something slightly off topic, so forgive me moderators

I once saw a play which I'm a bit foggy on the entire plot, but it was based in a politically volatile time in the victorian era IIRC. A man is about to be hung drawn and quartered over something frivolous, and another man is distraught that his daughter, whom is a young adult is watching.  He asks her why she insists of watching such vile things, and her answer is interesting : "I love the reality of it".

Her answer is the same for my views on rimworld. Beautiful, ugly, breathtaking or mundane, simple or confusing, REAL things are very interesting BECAUSE they are real. Same with rape, suicide, ect. They are very real, and complicated problems. Yes, this can be triggering for some, but can also expand the understanding of the world to those who see it. This is one of the BEAUTIES of rimworld, it forces you to deal with things few people deal with anymore voluntarily : Dilemmas, situations with no perfect answers, choices with no objectively "best" answer.

Every time there's an infection, every time the colony is pushed, there's decisions to make. Cut, or clean the wound? Who do you send to a possible death? Who is more important, when all of them have families, friends, and skills? What do you do with your money? What risks do you take?

To me, adding those 2 things would add a healthy amount of emotions, and management, especially as a lategame idea, and I would personally love a smooth transition from primal risks (injuries, starvation, cold, or heat) to a more societal risk (managing social policies, punishments for breaking the law of the colony, trying to make people get along) As I think this would solve some of the late game problems have.

Oh and to those curious about the play, the man whos worried for his daughter grabs the man and pulls down as hes hanging, breaking his neck and preventing the rest of his grisly execution.

@O neg :  Actually, not bringing it up has the side effect of "non existant" syndrome : The thing which almost every game, or movie suffers from to SOME extent, but is not a bad thing to strive to remove. When you say you won't add it, it pretty much says "in this part of the universe, rape, and suicide do not exist". This is of course silly, especially since a few background stories bring up these 2 IIRC. And its a grim game anyway.

I understand it would be hardhitting at times, but heres the conundrum : Nothing important, meaningful, or hard hitting is ever COMPLETELY easy emotionally. So which is more important? emotionally soft-balling, or touching on reality?

Its kinda like a joke someone made about rimworld prisons : "Welcome to our colony jail! Where we beat you, feed you your dead friends and give you a blanket made out of your dads skin!...but, we won't rape you or anything rape is just wrong, you know?"

Its a bit silly to think that suddenly an arbitrary line would be drawn around a few things... and it kinda messes with the believably at times. For instance, I cannot believe that a lonely gay (or straight guy, with no chance at all) might not on a bluemoon try to do sexual advances which were not welcome. Even if it equated out to an attempted touch, a punch in the face as reaction, and nothing else, it would be fun to see the social dynamic.

[brcruchairman]

Mumble, I think I can see where you're coming from. It sounds like you're making the argument, not without merit, that art (including video games) is only as poignant as the subjects it tackles. This is true. And it's also a completely valid stance to take.

Where we disagree, I feel, is whether a game, for which my goal when playing is levity and not intense reflection, is the place to put those ideas which, due to the discomfort they bring, also bring the possibility of growth. It sounds like you believe Rimworld should push players in such a way, in the hopes of a more rewarding payoff. That's totally valid. I disagree; that too, is valid I think, for the same reasons: we're both intelligent, thoughtful humans who just disagree on something simple and small. So I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for being very civil and for sharing your thoughts with the rest of us.

I will take a moment to note something, however:

I've had suicidal thoughts myself in the past, and the main idea to prevent me was thinking of others who cared, or even my purpose...and we all have a purpose, even if we don't realize it yet

This is your experience. I'm very happy that it has been your experience. For me, I had no such resolution. I have no such hope. Though I'm receiving treatment, there is still a very real chance that my depression will end up killing me. So it has been my whole life, and so I have reason to believe it will continue to be. Mind you, if I do go, it won't have been a video game that did it. But I suppose my belief is that, if there are a small but significant number of people like me out there, then it may be worth omitting such sensitive topics as rape and suicide for the sake of preventing the suffering of others; as O Negative put, the third option is, as you put it, making such things "non existant." (Or, more accurately, "Not simulated." Just because the game doesn't simulate colonist poops doesn't mean we assume they don't poop. Though now that I think about it... Huh. I'll have to consider the question of pawn feces.)

The above is, I'd like to stress again, merely an opinion. It is not fact. If you disagree, then your opinion is just as valid as mine. Point of fact, there's a play called "The Pillowman" by Martin McDonagh, which deals with a question similar to this one: How responsible can an artist be held for people's reaction to their work? It's one of those questions there may not even be an answer to. The question, however, still may be worth asking.

If Tynan puts suicide in the game, I'll keep playing. It's not what I would do, personally, but that doesn't make it wrong. I suppose the point of my post earlier, and of here, was to be sure that if it is included, that it is considered carefully first. That one might stop and think, "Is this worth it?" and only after concluding, "Yes, art transcends risk" proceed. I may be alone in thinking this, but for something like this I care more about the process by which a decision is reached than by the decision itself.

You, Mumble, have done an excellent job of considering. You've presented well thought-out points and beliefs, all of which I find poignant and sympathetic; I can see and understand why you believe what you believe, and like you a little more for it, too. Your points are all good, and are all in keeping with the belief (unless I've misread) of "Art, games included, should promote growth, and through it, beauty."

I'm also going to admit that, at the moment, I'm being inconsistent; I love hard moments and situations and the like in RPGs. I feel a thrill whenever I encounter something ambiguous, which makes me stop and stare at the screen for a full five to fifteen minutes, deciding which dialogue option to pick, which is right. For me, however, I feel that a strategy game is a poor platform to give such topics the context and justice they are due.

I feel that it would be difficult to find a revelation in a mood debuff from a bereaved colonist, or an epiphany in a colony's tantrum spiral. I feel it is much easier, both for a player and a designer, to make opportunities for such growth through a more character-driven medium, one in which the actors involved are complex, have thoughts beyond the immediate, and process deeply as individuals, rather than the fairly mechanical and cookie-cutter logic of pawns.


Tl;dr:
These are just my feelings; if you disagree, that's TOTALLY fine. In summation, these are my points:
1) Things like suicide and rape are heavy subjects which can elicit strong emotional responses. (On this, I believe, we agree.)
2) I do not believe all art has to tackle all issues. As such, I do not see a need for Rimworld to include suicide. (Note that this also means I see no need for Rimworld to exclude suicide, as well. If it's in, it's in.) I feel we may not have the exact same stance on this issue.
3) I feel that a strategy game is a poor platform to tackle difficult subjects like rape and suicide with the gravity they are owed, and that other genres, like RPGs or interactive novellas are much better suited for the task. (I'm not sure whether you would agree with me on this or not; I'd be interested to hear your take and reasoning on this.)
4) I do not view this issue as a major sticking point; the inclusion or exclusion of difficult subjects will not significantly impact my gaming or purchasing habits of Rimworld. I also view polite disagreement as an entirely acceptable outcome, as many of my points are on very soft subjects, in which there may not exist a right answer.
5) Thank you so much for being willing to talk about this, Mumble; I very much appreciate your thought out points, analogies, and your sensitive handling of the matter. On the internet, it's always easy to dismiss someone as being overly sensitive, or to take a hostile or defensive tone, and from seeing you in various threads, it seems that you're one of the many Good people who is civil, polite, kind and thoughtful. I very much appreciate this; it's folks like you, O Negative, and Mike Lemmer, who discuss difficult subjects so well, that make the internet worthwhile. Thank you.