Quantifying insanity.

I guess you have played "dont starve" given the game design. The very simple system they use works fine for that setting.

If you want to make it more complicated that works of course, but why is 10 000 max? Seems arbitrary. Will it be shown to the player? Then use 0-100 or some other more understandable number. Adding more zeroes usually just annoys the player. If you want higher precision show decimals (when needed), but dont clutter the screen with useless information (such as super high precision).

If only used internally, why not use 0-1 for this meter? (1 usually means full).

I guess you have played "dont starve" given the game design. The very simple system they use works fine for that setting.

If you want to make it more complicated that works of course, but why is 10 000 max? Seems arbitrary. Will it be shown to the player? Then use 0-100 or some other more understandable number. Adding more zeroes usually just annoys the player. If you want higher precision show decimals (when needed), but dont clutter the screen with useless information (such as super high precision).

If only used internally, why not use 0-1 for this meter? (1 usually means full).

1. A single percentage is too large of an increment. This moves extremely slowly in both directions, and it feels bigger to read, for instance, that your insanity rose by 26 points than 0.26 points, even if it means the exact same thing overall.

2. For most of the game if you pay any attention to it you will be below 1,000. When you first start off, the game actually only shows you a 0-1000 meter. It's only when you pass the 1000 point mark that it shows more, and then it's only 2000. Then 3000, 4000, 5000 and so on up to 10000. 1000 feels like a number that should be the maximum. All the needs scales are based on 1000, and even the scales for which that's not possible due to real-world units have decimals in place to give the same effect. (Radiation, for instance, has the most it'll read for you as 10.00gy.) Pushing past it feels really significant, as does each additional time your character gets so crazy the game has to make the scale bigger to accommodate them.

You are trying to measure insanity by increasing a value, but I think it'd be easier if you accumulated specific problems. Like having holes in your armor, they're nothing but a detriment. The reason is people are diagnosed with specific disorders, they don't collect insanity.

What I thought it resembled at first was Sanity's Requiem, and in that case they just had the sanity start at a given number and drop to 0, which allowed the player to understant, sanity hits 0 you start to die. There's also Don't Starve as a reference now, very similar.

Sleep deprivation and low will cause dissociation in the player,

Might not be important, but you missed a word after low.

I noticed there was very little to defend or recover against insanity. Also having positive drugs that make you worse at first is a bit much to figure out.

It's only when you pass the 1000 point mark that it shows more, and then it's only 2000. Then 3000, 4000, 5000 and so on up to 10000.

Sounds cool, but it still feels like more of a reward. You collect 4000 insanity points, but there more!

You are trying to measure insanity by increasing a value, but I think it'd be easier if you accumulated specific problems. Like having holes in your armor, they're nothing but a detriment. The reason is people are diagnosed with specific disorders, they don't collect insanity.

What I thought it resembled at first was Sanity's Requiem, and in that case they just had the sanity start at a given number and drop to 0, which allowed the player to understant, sanity hits 0 you start to die. There's also Don't Starve as a reference now, very similar.

No, for an important reason. You aren't developing psychological problems throughout the game. There's just the one psychological problem, dissociation, and you have it from the start. It's a pre-existing condition. The meter is just measuring your pre-existing condition getting worse as time goes on, not you accumulating more conditions.

Oh, and actually, once you hit 10,000 you get a chance to use your dissociation to your advantage. You can, with a little effort, get a permanent hallucination of a small child, a tiny imaginary friend (that looks suspiciously like you) that helps you regulate your stress and emotions, keeping your character calm and focused and helping them deal with their other hallucinations.

Might not be important, but you missed a word after low.

No, I didn't. Other "will". As in "willpower". It's one of your three major expendable derived stats along with health and stamina, losing will causes skills to drop and in this case also increases your level of dissociation.

I noticed there was very little to defend or recover against insanity. Also having positive drugs that make you worse at first is a bit much to figure out.

The two ways this work are simple. There are emergency anti-psychotics, like iloperidone and asenapine, that are useful when you're having a major episode but dependency on them is problematic and their side effects increase your stress, which is a problem since your dissociation is stress-related. The others are psychoactive drugs, like marijuana and LSD, that are going to make you hallucinate but will also relieve your stress, reducing the stress-triggered hallucinations you suffer once it wears off.

One thing you might want to consider, not in quantifying insanity but in presenting it as part of the gameplay, is to make the hallucinations actually seem believable to the player, so the player actually believes them.

If I see a ghost in a game, and I already know that ghosts only appear when hallucinating, then I won't be distracted by it (unless it can physically attack me, in-which-case it's not really a hallucination).

But if I'm fighting zombies (or whatever enemies your game has), and I hallucinate another zombie (but maybe without a cast shadow), and I run up and try to hit it and it just disappears, that'd be a fantastic hallucination because you tricked *me* the player, instead of the character I'm playing. Alot more trippy.

Next time I see a zombie, I'd have to stop and think, "Am I hallucinating, or is that real?". I'd be thinking the thought that the character himself would actually be thinking.

Imagine hearing footsteps behind you in-game but nothing is there. Or suddenly losing a weapon (one of your weapons disappears from your inventory when you aren't looking), that you suddenly find again later (it reappears after 30-45 minutes or the next time you log in).

Imagine walking in a grassy field, and turning around to find a forest (or even a single large tree) four feet behind you that wasn't there previously. It's solid (in your mind), and you can walk around it, and the next time the tree is out of your cone of view, it's gone again.

Or a large tiger snarling and leaping towards you out of nowhere that, when it leaps on you, just disappears (but your character falls to the ground from fright and has to get back on his feat).

One thing you might want to consider, not in quantifying insanity but in presenting it as part of the gameplay, is to make the hallucinations actually seem believable to the player, so the player actually believes them.

If I see a ghost in a game, and I already know that ghosts only appear when hallucinating, then I won't be distracted by it (unless it can physically attack me, in-which-case it's not really a hallucination).

But if I'm fighting zombies (or whatever enemies your game has), and I hallucinate another zombie (but maybe without a cast shadow), and I run up and try to hit it and it just disappears, that'd be a fantastic hallucination because you tricked *me* the player, instead of the character I'm playing. Alot more trippy.

Next time I see a zombie, I'd have to stop and think, "Am I hallucinating, or is that real?". I'd be thinking the thought that the character himself would actually be thinking.

Imagine hearing footsteps behind you in-game but nothing is there. Or suddenly losing a weapon (one of your weapons disappears from your inventory when you aren't looking), that you suddenly find again later (it reappears after 30-45 minutes or the next time you log in).

Imagine walking in a grassy field, and turning around to find a forest (or even a single large tree) four feet behind you that wasn't there previously. It's solid (in your mind), and you can walk around it, and the next time the tree is out of your cone of view, it's gone again.

Or a large tiger snarling and leaping towards you out of nowhere that, when it leaps on you, just disappears (but your character falls to the ground from fright and has to get back on his feat).

Some of this is done and some of it isn't. The player *knows* their character is crazy and should be able to predict it with some experience, but they have to initially figure out what's fake and what isn't. For example, they might start with a new character after losing an old one, and see their old character wandering around the map, wandering in circles and periodically pausing to look around confused. So they turn around and see them in front of them again, about the same distance. They turn back to where they were and see them there again. After scratching their head a bit, the player turns back around and finds them right in their face, eyes wide, head tilted to the side, look of confusion on their face again. Now every time they turn around they're right there in front of them, and this persists until they return to the place the previous character died, or to the previous character's home.

Hallucinations also include, but are not limited to: Snow, wind, animal calls (particularly barks, yips and howls as the maps are overrun with canids), rain, human and inhuman voices, thunder, gunshots and explosions, crying, doors opening and closing, blades being unsheathed or sharpened, guns being cocked, knocking, and door bells.

As for whether hallucinations can inflict damage, no. They sure can fake it, though. The game has a number of status effects that act as fake damage, and two of them (fatigue and pain) combine quite well to mimic the effects of actually have parts of your body broken without actually being injured. You can end up with all the effects of crippled limbs and it'll seem quite real. In fact, it'll even seem like it is real until the effects go away entirely too quickly to be actual damage and it becomes quite clear you were never injured. Your stamina and will are also subject to their attacks, especially your will as it is a mental trait. Emotional counters (which are status-effecting) can be impacted, and your dissociation can be increased.

It's fairly clear to me that you've put a lot more thought and [research? personal experience?] into the fine points of this mechanic than the average forum reader, so I'm not sure if you're going to gain much defending your ideas against the superficial criticisms we can provide.

Nevertheless, here is my superficial criticism: it seems like you haven't made a clear distinction between the "real" mental health of the avatar and the perceived mental health of the player.

If I have a lot of concrete statistics to manage and specific rules and interactions to consider, along the lines of a pen and paper rpg, then I expect to be loosely bound to my avatar. I get plenty of information (more than he would reasonably have access to, e.g. his precise level of healthiness) but my means of acting on that information are mediated by the rules of the game and his current state. A crazy avatar, in this sort of game, might do things I don't expect.

On the other hand, if I am forced to perceive things exactly as the avatar does, then I would expect to be more tightly bound to my avatar (there should be relatively few cases where I don't have control) but at the cost of my unrealistic introspection with respect to statistics. In this sort of game, I would not expect my avatar to go crazy, so much as the game to try to convince me that I was crazy.

Both could be enjoyable games. In the past, I've played survival games that hewed towards either side (not with respect to mental health, just in general), and enjoyed them. But a sort of middle ground option might easily get confusing.

It's fairly clear to me that you've put a lot more thought and [research? personal experience?] into the fine points of this mechanic than the average forum reader, so I'm not sure if you're going to gain much defending your ideas against the superficial criticisms we can provide.

That's not why I'm doing this. I put up the forum post hoping that the community would notice something Jeremy and I missed.

EDIT:
And there's no personal experience, but my ex's family suffers from stress-triggered dissociation. My ex's little sister especially tends to see her dead father when she's stressed out.

Nevertheless, here is my superficial criticism: it seems like you haven't made a clear distinction between the "real" mental health of the avatar and the perceived mental health of the player.

If I have a lot of concrete statistics to manage and specific rules and interactions to consider, along the lines of a pen and paper rpg, then I expect to be loosely bound to my avatar. I get plenty of information (more than he would reasonably have access to, e.g. his precise level of healthiness) but my means of acting on that information are mediated by the rules of the game and his current state. A crazy avatar, in this sort of game, might do things I don't expect.

On the other hand, if I am forced to perceive things exactly as the avatar does, then I would expect to be more tightly bound to my avatar (there should be relatively few cases where I don't have control) but at the cost of my unrealistic introspection with respect to statistics. In this sort of game, I would not expect my avatar to go crazy, so much as the game to try to convince me that I was crazy.

Both could be enjoyable games. In the past, I've played survival games that hewed towards either side (not with respect to mental health, just in general), and enjoyed them. But a sort of middle ground option might easily get confusing.

The issue here is that I can't account for how deep in character the player is. If they're deep in character a few hints of failing sanity will push them into the realm of madness. (As they, for example, have their character rush up the stairs into their attic with a gun, searching for the source of an imaginary creaking sound.) If they don't get into character at all, there is no amount of effort on my part that will get them to behave like a crazy person. This mechanic is really just some non-standard encounters and interface screws. It relies on player immersion to be any more than that.

As for the amount of information, all information in this game is skill-dependent. (For instance, medicine determines health information.) The speech skill determines how much information you have on your mental health and emotions. Only at 100 speech do you actually get a number. The rest of the time you rely on descriptive words.

The issue here is that I can't account for how deep in character the player is.

So, this is not strictly true. In fact, there are entire genres built around accounting for exactly that. To be sure, game design based on player immersion is much more artistic and subjective than game design based on systems, but it is definitely not out of reach.

It relies on player immersion to be any more than that.

Player immersion is not something that the player chooses to engage in. They have to set the conditions for it, but you as the developer have to actually create it, if that's the route you want to take. And keep in mind, it may not be the best option. Immersion and entertainment are orthogonal attributes of game design. Particularly in a sandbox or procedural game, it could be incredibly difficult to construct an immersive experience, and even if you did it might not be as entertaining as a more rule-driven experience.

So, this is not strictly true. In fact, there are entire genres built around accounting for exactly that. To be sure, game design based on player immersion is much more artistic and subjective than game design based on systems, but it is definitely not out of reach.

You can give some people the most immersive possible experience and they won't get drawn in even the tiniest bit. Some other people could get deeply immersed in solitaire. I can plan to immerse as many people as possible, but I can't acvount for them. There will always be people for whom it holds no meaning, it's just a toybox to roll around in. (That group will NOT like this game.)

Player immersion is not something that the player chooses to engage in. They have to set the conditions for it, but you as the developer have to actually create it, if that's the route you want to take. And keep in mind, it may not be the best option. Immersion and entertainment are orthogonal attributes of game design. Particularly in a sandbox or procedural game, it could be incredibly difficult to construct an immersive experience, and even if you did it might not be as entertaining as a more rule-driven experience.

"Immersive" and "rule-driven" and not contradictory terms. In fact, consistency is a vital part of immersion. Ignoring you own world's rules is the fastest way to break immersion. The rules in this game are gospel, and any rules for player dissociation must be consistent, or they'll break immersion too.

I think we're sort of talking past each other at this point. In any case, I love survival games and psychology so I look forward to playing whatever you come up with. Best of luck!

I think we're sort of talking past each other at this point.

This happens a lot with me. And it irritates me to no end.

In any case, I love survival games and psychology so I look forward to playing whatever you come up with. Best of luck!

I also love survival games, and I would say I enjoy psychology at least in theory, but the word brings my mind to the ridiculous, confirmation-bias ridden, anti-scientific and worse than useless way it is researched, and then brings up the word "psychologist" and the ridiculous, confirmation-bias ridden, corrupt pill-pushing sellouts that use the it like "Modern Warfare" type games use the word "realistic", which is the kind of use with "ab-" attached to the front of it, so I guess I really can't say that. So I guess I'll just say I enjoy survival games and the human mind.

(As they, for example, have their character rush up the stairs into their attic with a gun, searching for the source of an imaginary creaking sound.) If they don't get into character at all, there is no amount of effort on my part that will get them to behave like a crazy person

An example was already brought up.

But if I'm fighting zombies (or whatever enemies your game has), and I hallucinate another zombie (but maybe without a cast shadow), and I run up and try to hit it

Killing zombies is a gaming trope, if players saw hordes of real or fake looking zombies and were given a shotgun they'd attack them all.

The trope is not much different from a learned response. A sane or fearful person runs away from zombies, but someone who's gained knowledge will behave differently.

For this exact same response, you need to reward the player for going to the danger, doing nothing when they run away is sufficient to make a smart player change their mind. Get nothing for doing nothing is a common assumption.

Killing zombies is a gaming trope, if players saw hordes of real or fake looking zombies and were given a shotgun they'd attack them all.

I can't really argue with you on the player's behaviour, but I can tell you that's a bad idea. Zombies present in this setting work differently, in a way more practical for the setting that came out as something between "voodoo zombie", "fantasy zombie" and "wild animal". Shooting at these bipedal animals is picking a fight you don't need to have. At least, assuming we mean wild zombie humans, because there are people who use zombies for labour or warfare, and then there are zombie dogs, and either way those tend to be more aggressive.

The trope is not much different from a learned response. A sane or fearful person runs away from zombies, but someone who's gained knowledge will behave differently.

In this case, somebody who has gained knowledge (and feels like putting out the effort) will look for the zombies' alphas, kill them (or just kick the crap out of them), put down any resistance, and then take control of the pack. And now they own a pack of zombies.

For this exact same response, you need to reward the player for going to the danger, doing nothing when they run away is sufficient to make a smart player change their mind. Get nothing for doing nothing is a common assumption.

I think you are missing something. A lot of somethings, if you think avoiding a fight is doing nothing. This game rewards accomplishing your ends while avoiding a fight more than by starting one, though they both have their benefits. And it has to, because accomplishing your means without fighting is more difficult, takes longer and requires more effort.

I think you are missing something. A lot of somethings, if you think avoiding a fight is doing nothing. This game rewards accomplishing your ends while avoiding a fight more than by starting one, though they both have their benefits. And it has to, because accomplishing your means without fighting is more difficult, takes longer and requires more effort.

Ok, you did reveal more info about the game here than I originally had available.

I'll have to think about this a little while.

My original response was just hinting at how one would think before the discovery of what you told me :). Indeed a new player misses things by making false associations, or not trying enough experimentation. This is more about how you can't predict every move a player will make from start to the finish of one game session, but you can set up the environment.

Ok, you did reveal more info about the game here than I originally had available.

I'll have to think about this a little while.

My original response was just hinting at how one would think before the discovery of what you told me . Indeed a new player misses things by making false associations, or not trying enough experimentation. This is more about how you can't predict every move a player will make from start to the finish of one game session, but you can set up the environment.

If it'll help, I'm talking about using things like stealth. Sneaking into an encampment to steal resources is generally better than attacking it, especially in the long run, but attacking it is faster, simpler and rather a lot easier. If the encampment is of creatures capable of speech, such humans or troglodytes (which are technically also human) you might also try talking to them, using persuasion or bartering to get what you need. If you pull it off, these get you those resources without being injured, killing anyone (a major factor in your dissociation) or creating a power vacuum. (An important concept, because the random encounter system is tied to existing encampments. Clearing out an encampment removes its associated encounter from the table, making all the other possibilities more likely to come up.)

But if I'm fighting zombies (or whatever enemies your game has), and I hallucinate another zombie (but maybe without a cast shadow), and I run up and try to hit it

Killing zombies is a gaming trope, if players saw hordes of real or fake looking zombies and were given a shotgun they'd attack them all.

That was just an example. He said it was a survival game, and I wasn't sure whether it was a zombie-survival or wilderness survival or something else.

My point was more, if the game is to have long-term gameplay, then you can't use an "illusion" that the player knows is an illusion, or it won't work well.
If the game is filled with zombies but no ghosts, and the player sees a ghost, the player knows (by already being experienced with the game) that ghost = illusion, and he just ignores the ghost because it can't harm him. The illusion (on the player) doesn't exist, because you might as well just make floating text say "ILLUSION" instead of a ghost.
But if the game is already filled with real zombies, then having an identical zombie appear as an illusion would actually trick the player, and the illusion would be effective. Same with having a tree appear behind you: Because there are other trees in the game, the player can't file away in his mind "tree = illusion", because 90% of the trees he encounters aren't illusions.

But, if the game isn't a campaign game and is designed for replayability or long-term playing, if a ghost only appears during illusions, then 'ghosts = illusion', and can be dismissed by the player without changing the gameplay or affecting the player's actions. It might as well not exist (unless it is only ever used once, such as in a campaign). A ghost-illusion appearing in a game without ghost-enemies is as pointless as illusions changing the texture of a wall from a grey stone texture to a brown stone texture... after being encountered once, it can be ignored by the player, mentally filtered out, and no player-behavior or gameplay is affected. It adds nothing to the experience after the first encounter - and players are very very good at automatically filtering from their conscious data that they don't care about; like internet banner ads, 'seeing' them but not 'noticing' them until they choose to.

The trope is not much different from a learned response. A sane or fearful person runs away from zombies, but someone who's gained knowledge will behave differently.

Yes - which is why illusions, if they are to have long-term gameplay effects, must be able to be mistaken for the real thing in the game, which means the real thing must also be in the game (and be vastly more common than the illusion version). Or you just gain knowledge that, hey, ghosts can be ignored.

If the game doesn't have zombies, then a zombie-illusion is just as bad a choice as a ghost-illusion.
If the game already has ghosts-as-real-enemies, then a ghost-illusion is a good choice - because then it can actually be mistaken for the real enemy.

But it'd be nice to add some very very subtle hint that it is an illusion, so rewarding players who learn to be extra observant in your game. Like zombies who don't cast shadows must be an illusion, or zombies that are only a tiny smidgen bit transparent (97% opaque instead of 100% opaque).

For this exact same response, you need to reward the player for going to the danger, doing nothing when they run away is sufficient to make a smart player change their mind. Get nothing for doing nothing is a common assumption.

That's a very good point.

Makes me almost think of will-o-wisps, which would make for good illusions. Some game-real will-o-wisps could lead you to treasures, but an illusion-wisp could lead you into an ambush or just get you lost in the woods and then disappear (and up your hallucinations high enough so you get really disoriented).

That was just an example. He said it was a survival game, and I wasn't sure whether it was a zombie-survival or wilderness survival or something else.

Post-apocalyptic, kinda. Hard to really put the setting into a single term, it's rather complicated and there is 70 years of alternate history I'd need to cover first. I can say that most of European civilization has collapsed as the result of massive nuclear bombardment (in the '90s, mostly from the US) and the game takes place while the EU is trying to recover, what's left of the US is being forced the clean up its mess, and Russia is doing most of the US's job but also trying to annex the region. The game itself takes place in the Black Forest, a wooded mountainous region in south-western Germany, during the winter of 2015.

This region isn't real important to all of that, though. The player's main threats are the environment, various regions where the fallout has settled that haven't been cleaned up, the bizarre wild-life and their own slipping sanity.

My point was more, if the game is to have long-term gameplay, then you can't use an "illusion" that the player knows is an illusion, or it won't work well.
If the game is filled with zombies but no ghosts, and the player sees a ghost, the player knows (by already being experienced with the game) that ghost = illusion, and he just ignores the ghost because it can't harm him. The illusion (on the player) doesn't exist, because you might as well just make floating text say "ILLUSION" instead of a ghost.

That's wrong for a couple reasons.

1. You are assuming that ghosts are obvious, and they're not. All the ghosts present look like regular people when they're initially seen, and their behavioural differences are subtle. As there are regular NPCs in the game, and the only initial hint is that it's an NPC they've seen before (and there aren't any generic NPCs in the game), this makes it extremely likely they'll have no idea if the person they're seeing is a real person or not.
2. You keep assuming that an illusion can't affect you. That is not true. Their presence consistently has an impact on your character. Just because they can't inflict real damage doesn't mean that you can just ignore them. I already said this once.

But if the game is already filled with real zombies, then having an identical zombie appear as an illusion would actually trick the player, and the illusion would be effective. Same with having a tree appear behind you: Because there are other trees in the game, the player can't file away in his mind "tree = illusion", because 90% of the trees he encounters aren't illusions.

This kind of thing is done a lot. For instance, the densest pockets of radiation in the game give off a faint blue glow, and if you have a geiger counter (not hard to find) you'll be able to detect radiation from its ticking. Hallucinations can make you see a blue glow where there isn't one and hear ticking when your geiger counter isn't ticking. Most of your auditory hallucinations seem a lot like real things, as do visual ones.

But, if the game isn't a campaign game and is designed for replayability or long-term playing, if a ghost only appears during illusions, then 'ghosts = illusion', and can be dismissed by the player without changing the gameplay or affecting the player's actions. It might as well not exist (unless it is only ever used once, such as in a campaign). A ghost-illusion appearing in a game without ghost-enemies is as pointless as illusions changing the texture of a wall from a grey stone texture to a brown stone texture... after being encountered once, it can be ignored by the player, mentally filtered out, and no player-behavior or gameplay is affected. It adds nothing to the experience after the first encounter - and players are very very good at automatically filtering from their conscious data that they don't care about; like internet banner ads, 'seeing' them but not 'noticing' them until they choose to.

This game doesn't have a story or a campaign. Now we can stop talking about if it did.

Yes - which is why illusions, if they are to have long-term gameplay effects, must be able to be mistaken for the real thing in the game, which means the real thing must also be in the game (and be vastly more common than the illusion version). Or you just gain knowledge that, hey, ghosts can be ignored.

If the game doesn't have zombies, then a zombie-illusion is just as bad a choice as a ghost-illusion.
If the game already has ghosts-as-real-enemies, then a ghost-illusion is a good choice - because then it can actually be mistaken for the real enemy.

This wasn't really a good argument to begin with for a lot of reasons. One being that the hallucinations are not a constant thing and most players will have doubts until they happen multiple times. Another is that hallucinations seem very real, even when attacking you. This isn't something I made up, either. Schizophrenics, for instance, experience hallucinations with all of their senses, and can hallucinate pain and injury even when it doesn't exist. My ex, for instance, once heard a gunshot behind her (a real gunshot, but that's not the point) and suffered a flashback. She seriously believed she had been shot again when she very clearly hadn't, complete with shortness of breath, pain and bleeding. It took some convincing to get her to realize it wasn't real, and the pain still didn't go away for over an hour. Your character isn't necessarily a schizophrenic, but their hallucinations feel extremely real as well. Ignoring hallucinations, both in-game and in real life, is a BAD IDEA.

But it'd be nice to add some very very subtle hint that it is an illusion, so rewarding players who learn to be extra observant in your game. Like zombies who don't cast shadows must be an illusion, or zombies that are only a tiny smidgen bit transparent (97% opaque instead of 100% opaque).

There's one hint. Your perception highlights objects and gives them outlines, with your perception score determining the strength and range of this effect. Imaginary objects are not highlighted and are not given outlines. If a person you're looking at doesn't have an outline, and isn't a bit brighter than their surroundings would suggest, they are a figment of your imagination.

That's a very good point.

Makes me almost think of will-o-wisps, which would make for good illusions. Some game-real will-o-wisps could lead you to treasures, but an illusion-wisp could lead you into an ambush or just get you lost in the woods and then disappear (and up your hallucinations high enough so you get really disoriented).

I'm not putting in wisps. There's already plenty of deceitful illusions.

The other parts of the game sound airtight. Looking back at the dissociation points. You mentioned there would be a meter.

2. For most of the game if you pay any attention to it you will be below 1,000. When you first start off, the game actually only shows you a 0-1000 meter. It's only when you pass the 1000 point mark that it shows more, and then it's only 2000. Then 3000, 4000, 5000 and so on up to 10000. 1000 feels like a number that should be the maximum. All the needs scales are based on 1000, and even the scales for which that's not possible due to real-world units have decimals in place to give the same effect. (Radiation, for instance, has the most it'll read for you as 10.00gy.) Pushing past it feels really significant, as does each additional time your character gets so crazy the game has to make the scale bigger to accommodate them.

What strikes me the oddest is probably the way you refer to the dissociation meter. I'm guessing that is because it's new, the meter just feels like it's being tacked on. The player is presented this meter, which creates an augmented reality. So I wonder if this plays into the appearance the game already has.

The scale is 0-10000, and as it increases you have a higher chance of having certain hallucinations, these hallucinations become stronger, and once you pass certain thresholds you begin seeing newer, crazier hallucinations. For instance, with the rules he sent me, at 200 you have a 20% chance of seeing ghosts on a number of cues, and at 2000 you start occasionally seeing shoggoths when you try to sleep. The maximum is 10000.

I understand this was meant to be a way to impact the game. So more on the subject of if it impacts the player. The player will eventually discover how much control they have.

Here are some things to consider

• Are there limits to the number of points increasing/decreasing in a short span, ~2 seconds, of time? You might take drugs and find out they're less effective while overdosed, maybe.
• Can the character's dissociation suddenly increase dramatically? Like, doubled value under extreme stress.
• There (probably) is a life meter as well. Does dying have an impact, and how could surviving death be justified?
• In the case you'd just die and get a permanent game over, I'd have to wonder how long players are expected to survive.
• Would multiple hallucinations trigger all at once? Or were the cues you mentioned already covering that, like you'd only see one, with a % chance.
• Is the dissociation ignored at any point? Is there a cue when the character always acts sane? You mentioned there's no story, so maybe this was avoided.

It may be too complicated to keep everything in check, like a death and checkpoint system, you might just load the dissociation you had at that point. But the reason I thought about that is if there's any continuity flaws

I went around executing friendly people in Sanity's Requiem just because, I looked forward to my head popping off randomly or having daydreams. By that point I had already gotten over the consequences and saw the gameplay in a different light, one where I could be a crazy person. There were scripted points in that game where you actually slipped between reality and a dream world. And plenty of places where you got trapped into a rift dimension.

I'm not sure if I can help more than this. I'll look forward to seeing more ideas like it. (I'm immune to fear)