Do we really need rimkids?

[Harold3456]

This is an argument that gets turned into massive walls of competing thread, with two pretty entrenched camps. In my view, the arguments basically boil down to:

a.) Gameplay limitations of Rimkids (cute name, btw, I like it)
and
b.) Story limitations of Rimkids.

Now, I like the idea of Rimkids. I like the potential for further stories that can be told with them (and that's what Rimworld is -a story generator). I like the idea of building a family ever bit as much a sI like the idea of building a colony. That said, there are those two pesky problems to consider, so......


a.) Gameplay limitations: Now for me, the biggest gameplay limitation of a Rimkid would be that, well, they'd be really annoying if you didn't want them. They'd basically be a parasite you'd have to feed a portion to every day, and protect (I assume the death of a Rimkid would bring massive mood penalties for all involved). The best way I could see getting around this is to make Rimkids a purely planned thing - say, buying some kind of object (like a crib) that facilitates couples "trying for a baby". That, or a "terminate pregnancy" option, but given what a controversial issue abortion is IRL, I wouldn't suggest going that route. If I had any major reservations about Rimkids, this is it. The player needs some degree of control over their arrival, or else they will become a much maligned element.

B.) Story limitation (or rather, "willing suspension of disbelief" limitation): The majority of Rimworld colonies take place over the course of a few years - 99% probably take place in the span of <5 years, in fact. That means that you either have to accept that childbirth gives you a perma-baby, or you have to break your suspension of disbelief in order to age the kid really fast. A lot of players have problems with this leap, but I think it would be totally fine.

Time is already wonky in Rimworld - every year is 60 days, you're growing potatoes in something like a week, you're building a full-sized domicile with beds, solar generators and working electricity in about a day, and the longest part of cooking a lavish meal is walking across the room for the ingredients - even on a wood stove. So I don't think it's a crazy stretch to grow your kids in phases - baby, child, adolescent, adult, with each lasting a year. Sure, you could end up with something like a 15 year old man with an 18 year old dad, but thanks to the magic of cryo I've already had stranger father-son age gaps.

And likewise, you don't need to add so much "teaching" into the game. If you can assume that all these peoples from various worlds, some in cryosleep for a thousand years, can all speak the same language, then you can suspend your disbelief to assume the child "picks up" the language during gameplay. I'd say pop the kids out with inherited skill interests, give them a few free points with each stage (it would be interesting if the player himself could choose these points, to kinda symbolize the folks training the kid in the niche he's going to fill), and when he hits adulthood give him some totally neutral "colonist" adulthood story that provides no free skills (no +3 shooting, +3 medicine, for example) but also doesn't take them away (-3 growing, incapable of dumb labour).


Do we really need it? Well, we don't really need this game, if we're going to be totally pedantic on the word "need". We also didn't "need" pets, or "need" drugs, or "need" relationships, the game functioned perfectly well in older alphas without any of this. But in a game that's nominally a story generator, following the lives of individuals, child rearing is an enormous part of the life cycle to exclude, and something that I believe would be a net gain for the overall experience.

[Rock5]

That was well said. I would add that perma-babies is an option. I would even say that a perma-baby would add more to the "story" than just adding another colonist.

[keylocke]

anyways. as some of you guys might've tried with the a16 unstable release. players can now setup new bases or migrate or play as nomads.

this means that the typical <5 years game time, no longer holds sway since players can keep playing the game with the same pawns indefinitely, without having to worry about the ever increasing number of raids up to the point of super laggy times.

gist is : if raids get too much, too laggy. then players can just tell their pawns to run away with their caravan and build a new base.

this means that kids have plenty of time to grow up.

the game is no longer about : recruit as many pawns as you can to play tower defense with raiders.

nope. the story is now about the cycle of your colony between settlement, exodus, and all around conquer the world kind of thing (if that's your thing).

a16 is practically a whole new ballgame.

[buttflexspireling]

  With Rim kids we could have new Rim kid-only
classes like Guardian Illusionist, Shoe Shiner,
Star Scout and Cheerleader. The Guardian Illusionist
could trick raiders with low intelligence, the Shoe
Shiner could shine shoes of a raider in a attempt to
appease him/her, the Star Scout could increase
research potency during raids while wearing molastic
lipstick with skirts to become more appealing to raiders
and the Cheerleader could lower mental break threshold
(by 1%) while in combat.

[carpediembr]

Sure, you could end up with something like a 15 year old man with an 18 year old dad, but thanks to the magic of cryo I've already had stranger father-son age gaps.

HAhahahaha... that would be funny.

and when he hits adulthood give him some totally neutral "colonist" adulthood story that provides no free skills (no +3 shooting, +3 medicine, for example) but also doesn't take them away (-3 growing, incapable of dumb labour).

Or they could just get the traits with a mix off their parents, or even a rare chance of getting from some other colonists that actually helped raise them.

Either way, I'm very PRO RimKids. I dont understand how no one created a mod on it yet

[Rock5]

What we need is Doctor Who's Progenitor Machine for instant colonists.
https://youtu.be/PBFflbA5Bkk?t=67

[Elixiar]

I would hate kids to be in the game.

I just really don't like them.
If they were in the game, I'd just have them executed...

And knowing how kids are in games, that probably wouldn't be possible, so I'd be burdened heavily with a feature I hate. Sure there may be a mod that takes them away but I wouldn't want to have to depend on a mod that may or may not exist for the rest of my time playing Rimworld.

No to kids.

[Rock5]

Personally I don't want to see kids as a way to get colonists. Any way they think to deal with the time needed to grow one would be immersion breaking and not really needed.

I could see them added as another immersion feature such as pets to offer buffs to colonists, especially the parents or carers, but also to other colonists;
"Was hugged by little Jimmy",
"Developed special bond with little Sally". Wait, did that sound a bit creepy?

[daduhweewah]

I forced one of my colonists to "give birth" with the dev tools, and she gave birth to a 6 foot tall Hawaiin skin colored (she was white) brawler.

He then walked across the ice sheet to storage to grab a parka and tuque pants etc, and then took his age 0 ass to work.



I do think it would be cool to have to keep an eye on kids during raids, they could be like untrainable from age 0-3 then somewhat trainable from 4-8 then they could be advanced intelligence trainable from then on out and when they hit age 15 they fight. Also, perhaps a season is a year instead of 4 seasons making a year. This would rotate your colonists a bit better.

The game tries to put real life stuff into it, and this would be more real life stuff.

[Darkmark8910]

I don't like the idea of Rimkids... but if they were to be stuck into the game, they could go the Sims (original game) route. IE you have a baby stuck in a cradle for ~4 years that can only cry and stuff. Then you get a child 'til they're 15. Then they're adults.

[deslona]

I think it wouldn't be worthwhile to add kids, yet. The game needs more end-game content to make player play for over 10 years. I am not suggesting that a kid take ten years to grow up. But if we are talking children we are talking a period of time for growth and development (not just instant adults). And 10 years is a reasonable enough number to start getting some ROI from the children system. There simply needs to be more content first.

Also don't limit your ideas for kids by only birth. It could also be a possibility for kids to come in an event;
a group of starving kids has stumbled across your colony - lit, they have the starving setting and walk to your door and collapse, up to the player to save or slaughter.
Kid in a crashpod - same as now
Kid just traveling with a family member while they trade with your colony.

But first, we need more stuff to keep players invested in long-term colonies/worlds.

Also I think any adolescent age on-wards pawn should be able to do farming, cleaning and tailoring at least. This leads to the exciting possibility of having a colony STARTED by kids.

[Harold3456]

Personally I don't want to see kids as a way to get colonists. Any way they think to deal with the time needed to grow one would be immersion breaking and not really needed.

I mentioned this in another comment (top of page 2), but truncating kids' grow-up time wouldn't be as immersion breaking as it might sound. The time it takes to do literally everything in Rimworld is weird, you just don't really notice because it's the way it's always been. People reacted the same way when Tynan said "I'm going to change seasons to be 15 days long".

I think it wouldn't be worthwhile to add kids, yet. The game needs more end-game content to make player play for over 10 years. I am not suggesting that a kid take ten years to grow up. But if we are talking children we are talking a period of time for growth and development (not just instant adults). And 10 years is a reasonable enough number to start getting some ROI from the children system. There simply needs to be more content first.
.............................
But first, we need more stuff to keep players invested in long-term colonies/worlds.

I actually consider kids to be a possible long term incentive. My big problem with mid game colonies is that they get too luxurious - I'm stuck with surpluses of everything, playing Tower Defense against ever increasing waves of raiders. What better way to channel all that surplus then into a kid? Something that needs to be fed, protected, sheltered, and yet also provides a human story element?

As to your other suggestions, though, those are all pretty great. Yeah, once kids/adolescents are introduced as a gameplay element, they should most certainly be brought in as events.

Also, I 100% agree that more content is needed to fill the midgame. Where I disagree is in the idea that kids can't be considered a part of the growth in that area.

[Elixiar]

Make them DLC.

Only time I would ever ask for something to not be included in the base game.

[keylocke]

I think it wouldn't be worthwhile to add kids, yet. The game needs more end-game content to make player play for over 10 years.

actually players can already play for more than 10 years even in older alphas, and now that we have a16 and the ability to travel the world and start new colonies, instead of starting a "new game" with brand new colonists, players can simply just use the same colonists they had previously. this means that kids would have plenty of time to grow up naturally.

besides, time passes fast during world travel. heck, a player who decides to do a nomadic playthrough would advance the time so fast a year can go by easy. this gives the players a multi-generational playthrough instead of just random people they recruit and don't really care about, like new cogs in a machine to be replaced when one is broken.

but family ties are heavy bonds since family members tend to be irreplaceable. so when a pawn's dad is dead, they're dead forever. while death to random recruits are just.. meh.