Print

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

[Sorenson]

Who is it that keeps the fortress running?

Is it the miners that hew through the rock and unearth the valuable resources by which we make our livlihoods? NO.
Is it the farmers who work the mud and soil that we might have food and drink for revelry and the drowning of sorrows? NO.
Is it the craftsdwarfs, forgeworkers and other artisens who shape the weapons and tools se wield? NO.

It is only by the good grace of the mayor, EL INTENDENTE, that we can enjoy the lives we have. It is EL INTENDENTE who designates the labors to be done; it is EL INTENDENTE who determines which wares we are in most dire need of and who trades for them with outsiders; it is EL INTENDENTE that organizes our defense and is just as much the one cutting down our foes as the soldiers themselves. El Intendente is our life, El Intendente is our god, El Intendente is our EXISTANCE.

But El Intendente struggles sometimes. El Intendente must deal with the good-intending-but-naive people who insist on others being mayor of the fortress despite El Intendente being the supreme and only rational choice. El Intendente must go to great lengths to remove the troublemakers who would unbalance and destroy the society that El Intendente has labored so greatly to make a reality. El Intendente is, in short, held back by a lack of proper procedures and by certain "liberties" which prove to be more troublesome than they're worth, and thus El Intendente gives these great words of wisdom in the hopes they may be considered and implimented for the good of the fortress and the glory of El Intendente and, through him, the whole of Dwarfkind.

Option to ban the unmonitored election of civic officials: Why do you struggle against El Intendente? We all know, deep down in our hearts and beyond the filthy corrupting doubt planted by the enemies of El Intendente and Dwarfkind, that El Intendente is the supreme choice for the office of mayor. Why would you wish to burden another poor soul with the burden of being lavished with opulant and royal furnishings, burden our workers, burden yourselves, with the creation of such extravagence. No, the burden of the office of mayor belongs to El Intendente and El Intendente only, and such things as "free elections" are the the things of detestable Elven hippies. Are YOU an Elven hippie?

Ability to deport dwarfs: Sometimes there are individuals in the fortress who El Intendente simply cannot find suitable work for, or troublemakers who have worn out their welcome yet who El Intendente is too generous and merciful to invoke the most ultimate of punishments for. Allow El Intendente to expel these individuals from the fort without bloodshed and the fortress shall only become stronger - besides which, simply kicking the troublemakers out of the fortress should cause far less distress and unhappiness to others than if El Intendente were to order a more grisly fate for them.

Ability to execute dwarfs: Sometimes, however, El Intendente must make the hardest of decisions. Perhaps a worker languishes in perpetual torment as his body refuses to heal from some grave injury, or a dwarf possessed by forces unknown is left as an empty husk of his former self. Though the killing of a dwarf is a terrible thing, is it any better than permitting the unending agony of these afflicted souls? NO. There are some cases in which life is indeed more cruel than death, and as great a burden on El Intendente's soul it is to call for such, allowing these dwarves to be executed is a less cruel fate overall.

Ability to bribe dwarfs: A miserible dwarf is a dangerous dwarf, as El Intendente has seen countless times how a single weak link can lead to the destruction of an entire robust chain. Though no dwarf deserves the burden of opulance and extravagance as El Intendente must bear, the right form of motivation can quickly change a dwarf's demeanor, and anything that can spare El Intendente the travesty of a tantrum/suicide spiral should be considered vital.

Ability to brainwash dwarfs: Life is but a matter of perspective, and though El Intendente is blessed with knowledge unfathomable of this world and others, with nerves of steel and spirit unquenchable, the average dwars is but a being of flesh and blood, vice and virtue, only as strong as his greatest weakness. If El Intendente could give to his fellow dwarfs but the tiniest sliver of his great willpower, however, the fortress would be rendered as solid as the stone from which it was carved. A dwarf versed in the ways of psychology could counsel his fellow dwarves, easing their miseries and teaching them the errors of their ways such that they might shrug off dire travesties and revel in even the most simple of joys. Perhaps they could even be directed as to mold the populace into a dictated mindset outlined by El Intendente himself, removing such liabilities as anxiety, anger and depression while encouraging altruism and self-discipline, such that they may best serve El Intendente and, through him, the whole of dwarfkind. Perhaps particularly skilled psychologists could rescue dwarfs from the pits of melanchology or madness, preventing their talents from being lost and their families from suffering the agony of their protracted deaths.

Though El Intendente understands that his requests are but a drop in an ocean of similar proclamations, El Intendente nevertheless asks "make it so".

[Di]

Letters, so much damned letters...
I myself believe that dwarves should have politics but it should be dwarves' not the player's, so that of course you can always end a century long feud between two noble families by a well timed pull of the lever but dwarves would keep that game of thrones rolling by themselves mostly while their collective conscience lays out plans for a new !!kitten!!-powered goblin-fryer

Also I'd be nice to see other forms of governments such as despotism and tyranny which aren't strictly a monarchy or a democracy like in Roman Republic or various city-states throughout history and so on.
As for the restl, these:
Option to ban the unmonitored election of civic officials
Ability to brainwash dwarfs
can be done by modding.
These two:
Ability to execute dwarfs
Ability to bribe dwarfs
and a fraction of Ability to brainwash dwarfs
are pretty much in game, you just send dwarf to atom smasher for the first or assign him a good room for the second. As for the last one, that "versed in psychology" dwarf is actually the mayor and consoling the unhappy citizens is one of his duties.

[NW_Kohaku]

Actually, I do like some aspects of the "Tropico Fortress" theme, here.

For one, we're supposed to BE the expedition leader/mayor/duke but whenever there's a change of power, players may hardly even notice a difference.  Having a Tropico-style need to keep your avatar dwarves popular kind of makes sense.

Further, if we are more defined as the specific dwarves holding office, we can have the individual office-holders actually exert more influence because of their specific personality traits.  A more charismatic dwarf that is hard-working and severe, themselves, might inspire the other dwarves that are disciplined to work harder, while the sorts of artistic misfit types will grow even more dejected.  Someone who can play more upon emotional chords might have a better chance of pulling the bohemians in, but offending the straight-laced types that won't want to work as hard.

A change in power would have actual consequences in the way that the fortress behaves as a whole.

Anyway, I'm rather interested in the overarching topic, myself, as you will probably tell if you look at the Class Warfare thread in my signature.

[Carp McDwarfEater]

Has it ever actually been stated that the player is the fortress' nobles? I like to think that you play as Armok, and I'm not sure about the idea of having to keep my avatar popular with the dwarves. I think the fort's politics should be managed by the dwarves and not the player, just because it seems more fun and that's sort of how it works already.

[Loud Whispers]

There would be something quite Fun about trying to outsmart political opponents "within the boundaries of Dwarven law."

How terrible it would be if the mayor were to be convicted of a string of murders of pesky Dwarves... Leaving room for office.

On the other hand,

Has it ever actually been stated that the player is the fortress' nobles? I like to think that you play as Armok, and I'm not sure about the idea of having to keep my avatar popular with the dwarves. I think the fort's politics should be managed by the dwarves and not the player, just because it seems more fun and that's sort of how it works already.

This.

[Carp McDwarfEater]

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of fighting for control over a civilization with other nobles. It's just that when I play fortress mode, I want to build a fortress, so I would find it distracting and out of place to manage politics. On top of that, adding this to fortress mode would cause a lot of overlapping with Kingdom Mode, whenever Toady gets around to making that.

Since Toady has also stated that he wants all the game modes to be able to smoothly transition to each other, I imagine you could build a small fortress of fifty or so dwarves and retire. Then, you could create an adventurer, do a few quests, and then have him move to the fortress you built and become the duke. After that, you could switch back to fortress mode and continue to build your little city until it becomes the capital and your king arrives, after which an unfortunate accident could be arranged to have your adventurer, the next highest noble, become king. From there, you could switch to Kingdom Mode and wage wars, get involved in politics, and all that from your awesome capital.

But the thing is that the above scenario involved switching game modes, which is something good in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I like having what you do in one mode having a potential effect on what you do in others, but I just feel that each mode should be well defined and not overlap with the others. Leave the city management and building things to fortress mode, and the politics and such to Kingdom Mode.

[NW_Kohaku]

Has it ever actually been stated that the player is the fortress' nobles? I like to think that you play as Armok, and I'm not sure about the idea of having to keep my avatar popular with the dwarves. I think the fort's politics should be managed by the dwarves and not the player, just because it seems more fun and that's sort of how it works already.

From an old FotF:

Would you even consider changing the relationship that the player has with the dwarves right now (as unquestioned overlord and direct allower and denier of all things dwarves can and cannot do), so that dwarves can become more autonomous and individual, and possibly create a better simulation, while on the other hand, potentially dramatically upping the potential for Fun because dwarves are stupid and very likely to hurt themselves unless continually babysat, or perhaps more importantly, if it meant that the player had less direct control over his fortress, and had to rely more on coaxing the ants in his/her antfarm to do his/her bidding?

Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander.  I don't think coaxing is the way I'm thinking of it though, as with a game like Majesty which somebody brought up, because your orders would also carry the weight of being assumed to be for survival for the most part, not as bounties or a similar system.  Once your fortress is larger, you might have to work a little harder to keep people around, but your dwarves in the first year would be more like crew taking orders from the captain of a ship out to sea or something, where you'd have difficulty getting them to do what you want only if you've totally flopped and they are ready to defy the expedition leader.

Or in other words, you're the expedition leader/mayor/whatever.

Beyond that, I don't think we're going to see a completely distinct Kingdom Mode.  I'm fairly sure that part of the whole point of eventually getting a king/queen in your fort is that suddenly, you get to make national-level decisions.  Hence, the "smoothly transitioning" part can happen without having to abandon/retire a fortress to manage a kingdom, you just order some kingdom-level things from the seat of your fortress.

Besides, Adventurer Mode isn't going to be completely distinct for all that long, either, when you get the opportunity to make your own sites as an Adventurer and all the Fortress skills come into play there, and you can get followers that will work on a site the way that a fortress dwarf would.  That's what makes it a smooth transition.

[Owlbread]

When it becomes possible for us to take control over any dwarf adventure-mode style this suggestion would be very possible indeed.

[Di]

Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander.  I don't think coaxing is the way I'm thinking of it though, as with a game like Majesty which somebody brought up, because your orders would also carry the weight of being assumed to be for survival for the most part, not as bounties or a similar system.  Once your fortress is larger, you might have to work a little harder to keep people around, but your dwarves in the first year would be more like crew taking orders from the captain of a ship out to sea or something, where you'd have difficulty getting them to do what you want only if you've totally flopped and they are ready to defy the expedition leader.

Or in other words, you're the expedition leader/mayor/whatever.

To me his quote sounds like you're that quiet voice in the phone that tells dwarven government what to do. The personality of any given official may matter somewhat but as long as office is occupied your orders will be carried out.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Our eventual goal is to have the player's role be the embodiment of positions of power within the fortress, performing actions in their official capacity, to the point that in an ideal world each command you give would be linked to some noble, official or commander.  I don't think coaxing is the way I'm thinking of it though, as with a game like Majesty which somebody brought up, because your orders would also carry the weight of being assumed to be for survival for the most part, not as bounties or a similar system.  Once your fortress is larger, you might have to work a little harder to keep people around, but your dwarves in the first year would be more like crew taking orders from the captain of a ship out to sea or something, where you'd have difficulty getting them to do what you want only if you've totally flopped and they are ready to defy the expedition leader.

Or in other words, you're the expedition leader/mayor/whatever.

To me his quote sounds like you're that quiet voice in the phone that tells dwarven government what to do. The personality of any given official may matter somewhat but as long as office is occupied your orders will be carried out.

To me, it sounds like the player is, if not actually the mayor or whomever, a sort of driving force behind the assorted nobles.

-----

The actual ideas:
Banning elections--Meh. Once we get to the point where the dwarf in office matters, I'd rather have the dwarves in power enact this. Of course, if we're supposed to be the ones in charge of the fortress, it could make sense, but I think you should need a specific kind of leadership to do that.
Deportation: Planned, eventually, as much to be rid of the excess cheesemakers as anything. This will come coupled with or following emmigration.
Execution: Reasonable. I can think of many uses past keeping "El Intendente" in office.
Bribing: Meh. Maybe once greed, the economy, and dwarves not doing what you want come into play.
Brainwashing: How and why?

Oh, and the title...is terrible, bluntly put. Take out the "Vote for El Intendente (OR ELSE)" and it would be a lot less ludicrous.

[Reanor]

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of fighting for control over a civilization with other nobles. It's just that when I play fortress mode, I want to build a fortress, so I would find it distracting and out of place to manage politics. On top of that, adding this to fortress mode would cause a lot of overlapping with Kingdom Mode, whenever Toady gets around to making that.

As a player, you could have an avatar in dwarf fortress mode, and be in risk of loosing control over the fortress only when you prove to be an awful manager. For example, when lots of dwarves die due to water shortage, freeze, or starve. This way, gameplay in fortress mode shouldn't be much different of what it is already.

[10ebbor10]

Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of fighting for control over a civilization with other nobles. It's just that when I play fortress mode, I want to build a fortress, so I would find it distracting and out of place to manage politics. On top of that, adding this to fortress mode would cause a lot of overlapping with Kingdom Mode, whenever Toady gets around to making that.

As a player, you could have an avatar in dwarf fortress mode, and be in risk of loosing control over the fortress only when you prove to be an awful manager. For example, when lots of dwarves die due to water shortage, freeze, or starve. This way, gameplay in fortress mode shouldn't be much different of what it is already.

And how does the game determine when you're a terrible manages. By deaths (making hard embarks impossible), dwarf sentiment, wealth produced? It's terribly hard for a computer to determine anything that isn't a number fed into it, and each of the above would lock someone in a specific playstyle.

Also, it makes no sense for being able to have your avatar voted out resulting in a gameover but the sudden accidental death of your avatar being no problem.

[NW_Kohaku]

And how does the game determine when you're a terrible manages. By deaths (making hard embarks impossible), dwarf sentiment, wealth produced? It's terribly hard for a computer to determine anything that isn't a number fed into it, and each of the above would lock someone in a specific playstyle.

Also, it makes no sense for being able to have your avatar voted out resulting in a gameover but the sudden accidental death of your avatar being no problem.

Why would those things be different?

Having your avatar voted out of office is game over in Tropico because being a dictator clinging to power is basically half the point of the game.  DF could simply have a lot of social chaos when your avatar is voted out of power, and you are suddenly given a new avatar with different powers.  (I.E. You lose your dilligent artisans support bonus but might get some artsy dwarf bonus because you're getting a different avatar in.)

Having the option to choose either in some form or another might be interesting, especially since we can play Adventurer Mode and "adventure" as a mayor where we really do have a vested interest in staying in power. 

However, if we're playing as the collective will of the fortress administrators, as in Fortress Mode, we might actually have more fun having the capacity to hire and fire dwarves with different bonuses or drawbacks that influence how they do their jobs and how the fortress as a whole reacts to them.

It would also be quite interesting in succession play to have people actually capable of selecting which avatar is "mayor for the year" to be themselves in the game.