Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CaptApollo12]

I don't go on this sub forum much anymore because of the redundancy and because of the amount of escaped lunatics. BUT when I was driving home today thinking about mods a thought struck me that I simply had to share.

Just as the title suggests I feel that adding a new token to be able to put in a reaction would be an excellent way for additional flavour in mods and even in vanilla if Toady so wished.

Tag: [Limit:X] where X is an integer that allows the item to be created only X amount of times. (Typically once)
This can be used to allow items to only be made once.

Example 1: Using a Candy Bar to allow the creation of a figure of Armok to be placed as a workshop or room that allows prayer.

Example 2: Creating a unique weapon that has higher stats and additionally made out of a unique inorganic that causes a unique syndrome.

This is a masterwork Goblinbane blade...
This is a Finely-crafted Kings Crown...

Additional research while I am writing this points me towards mods that have weapons that cannot be created unless it is with a mood. I still feel this is a valid suggestion because of the capability of using this mechanic to create flavour that can be accessed from any embark. Please tell me what you think.

[Orange Wizard]

It would be cool to have unique and powerful items. However, it doesn't really fit with the theme of the game, because nothing is stopping the dwarves from making another of the item apart from an arbitrary limit.
Instead, what if you were to use a custom reaction at a custom workshop that creates your item? The reaction can be as complex as is appropriate for the item. Absurdly powerful items would require absurd amounts of raw materials or dwarven sacrifices, making them difficult (but not impossible) to re-create.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Why would anything be impossible to recreate? If you know enough to create something, why would you be arbitrarily unable to recreate it?
Would this limit apply to the whole world, or just one race, or just one civilization, or just one settlement, or just one "reclaim," or just one year, or just one dwarf?
It doesn't make sense.

((Note that as artifacts are created in entirely irreproducible circumstances, it makes sense if we can't directly recreate them. A facsimile, certainly, but that's more mimicking the end result than the process to make it.))

[CaptApollo12]

Well the idea is an artifact-like item that is available to any embark. For me it would be like a one shot building material for a workshop designed to only be available once. One would not want to rely on moods for this item as it may never come up in fort mode and it would be designed to come up in fort mode. Others may want to recreate their favorite unique item from a DND campain without being able to mass produce the item. A super high item value tagged onto a "Kings Crown" would invite thieves to come and take it and provide flavour. (Item vaults etc.)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Um.
Well, read my post again. I'll highlight the important parts.

Why would anything be impossible to recreate? If you know enough to create something, why would you be arbitrarily unable to recreate it?
Would this limit apply to the whole world, or just one race, or just one civilization, or just one settlement, or just one "reclaim," or just one year, or just one dwarf?
It doesn't make sense.

[Hyndis]

I like the artifact system as is. Its completely random, but that is most of the charm of the game. So many random things can somehow manage to form a unique and interesting narrative, all through sheer chance. Its almost magical in how those coincidences add up to form a very compelling narrative.

[10ebbor10]

It's suggested as a modder's tool.

Besides, the allpowerfull unique wonderfull artefact of doom is a common trope in fantasy anyway.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Problem is, these won't be unique artifacts. They'll basically be "Oh, look, a mundane sword of a specific design which can arbitrarily never be replicated."

[CaptApollo12]

...arbitrarily never be replicated."

Well I see your point and I see it as very valid. But I disagree with using the term "arbitrarily." The reason being is that any mod that holds up has reasonable changes to it with enough flavour as to be considered for playing over vanilla. My examples above are items of (to my tastes) substance in gameplay. I cede my opinion as it would not, in the larger scale of things, fit with the procederally generated sandbox style that is Dwarf Fortress.

[zwei]

Problem is, these won't be unique artifacts. They'll basically be "Oh, look, a mundane sword of a specific design which can arbitrarily never be replicated."

Which means that rathen than token capping this item count there should be other mechanic to dramatically reduce amount of this item being produced:

 * Cultural (What it is) - Only one "Royal Executioner axe" or "Head Priest Staff" because only one is needed because it is tied to position. Making more would be pointless.
 * Technological (How is it made) - There are reasons why item can not be massproduced: Divine inspiration or otherwordly insight is needed to craft it (current artifacts), Sword blade needs to be tempered in heart of demon king, Gem from which helmet is carved is extremelly rare.
 * Design (Who made it) - Spear bearing mark of certain weaponsmith. Replicated item is not truly replicated because someone else made it.
 * Historical (How it was used) - Shield used by great hero to deflect dragonfire. Crossbow which was used by head assassin of nercomancer cult. Things that can not be replicated.

All of theese (ideally in combination) should result in unique items, not MAX_COUNT tag.

[Orange Wizard]

By that logic, if a dwarf uses a specific weapon to kill a powerful/notorious enemy, the weapon should be given a name/title either by the bearer or by the RNG. This would actually be friggin' awesome, and I'm all for it, particularly if it means we can name Adventurer mode weapons.

[zwei]

By that logic, if a dwarf uses a specific weapon to kill a powerful/notorious enemy, the weapon should be given a name/title either by the bearer or by the RNG. This would actually be friggin' awesome, and I'm all for it, particularly if it means we can name Adventurer mode weapons.

It sorta happens - weapon can get named, but it can get named from "just" sparring or killing wild animals.

[Orange Wizard]

By that logic, if a dwarf uses a specific weapon to kill a powerful/notorious enemy, the weapon should be given a name/title either by the bearer or by the RNG. This would actually be friggin' awesome, and I'm all for it, particularly if it means we can name Adventurer mode weapons.

It sorta happens - weapon can get named, but it can get named from "just" sparring or killing wild animals.

Yeah, but you can't do that in Adventurer mode, and dwarves name weapons they get 'attached' to. I'd like to see the system expanded to include weapons used by famous heroes being named and registered as 'artifacts' even if they're essentially a normal sword.

[GreatWyrmGold]

By that logic, if a dwarf uses a specific weapon to kill a powerful/notorious enemy, the weapon should be given a name/title either by the bearer or by the RNG. This would actually be friggin' awesome, and I'm all for it, particularly if it means we can name Adventurer mode weapons.

It sorta happens - weapon can get named, but it can get named from "just" sparring or killing wild animals.

Yeah, but you can't do that in Adventurer mode, and dwarves name weapons they get 'attached' to. I'd like to see the system expanded to include weapons used by famous heroes being named and registered as 'artifacts' even if they're essentially a normal sword.

That's already what happens in Fortress Mode. Dwarves just aren't that good at deciding what makes a legendary hero...

[Orange Wizard]

Dwarves just aren't that good at deciding

... at all.