Changing how "incapable of X" works

[TrashMan]

Let's face it - half of the background suck, especially some combos, because they leave you with colonists who are incapable of anything.

so instead of backgrounds flat-out making it impossible for a colonist to ever do X - EVER - even when not doing it will kill him, maybe a different way to do it:

a) a colonist can do it, but at a 50% work penalty and loses joy

b) a colonist won't do X until he's in trouble - if he is hungry for 2 days, he will start to hunt or cook, even if he hates it. Otherwise, he won't.

[Simulacrum]

I tend to agree. It makes sense that someone might decide to die rather than fight fire or shoot someone, because they might be paralyzed by fear, or have powerful ideologies, or whatever, but for people to choose to starve to death instead of gathering or preparing for themselves food, because - as a medieval lord - he's too important to do such things himself, is kind of extreme.

[akiceabear]

I generally agree - I think this would also help reduce colonist scumming when starting the game.

[JerryBi]

good suggestion.

[Devon_v]

Also agree. The joy penalty could be major, and perhaps also put a negative "Did something I hate" mood in play.

[SSS]

Yeah, I think this idea could be balanced by hefty penalties so it isn't abused.

[Axelios]

I'm in favour of this. As explained by others above, it doesn't make sense for the "incapable" to be true in times of extreme need, like a starving noble refusing to harvest some plants just because it's beneath him.

After doing it he can feel great shame.

[themightysushicat]

"Ok i get that you are a scientist but if you dont do this YOu WilL DIe!" -Me (always)

[TrashMan]

"NO! I am a noble and will die a noble death of starvation, rather than lower myself to actually making my own food!"

[mokonasakura]

I think they should be allowed to do anything however "incapable" would mean they can't increase in level. This would allow people to hunt, however they wouldn't increase in levels for ranged or melee.

[Axelios]

It needs considering for each skill.
I would not expect anyone incapable of art or social to do it.
Art is not survival related, and people get worse under pressure socially

For violence, i would suggest that fighting others would never happe, but perhaps hunting would if they were starving?

For firefighting, I think they would never do it.

What else is there? I think we should make a comprehensive list of all the "incapable ofs", and discuss them all.

So far i can think of:
Dumb labour
Scary
Violence
Social

[Tynan]

No, I think it'd be a mistake to soften this. The missing checkbox on the overview and the hard limit make the differences between your colonists very stark. This is how they develop clear identities and specialties. Changing some numbers in the gigantic spreadsheet that is the colonist->worktype table just doesn't have nearly the same impact or clarity.

It also "grinds away" a lot of weird, unusual challenge situations that I want to preserve. Do this too much and the game loses its edge because every situation becomes basically the same, with some small numbers changes applied. A joy penalty just doesn't push nearly hard enough unless it's like -60, and then we're asking, "why is a noble going insane from hauling potatoes for a half hour?". No, the simpler, clearer implementation that's there now works better. It's one of the strongest mechanics in the game IMO.

EDIT: It also has the benefit of reducing mental burden when players are deciding work assignments. This is a big benefit; the cognitive discomfort produced by trying to decide how to set up that big table is a serious problem so I'm very happy for it to be reduced any way.

[Axelios]

You make a good argument.

[StorymasterQ]

Yes, we don't need no Rimworld Therapist.