Print

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

[NEANDERTHAL]

Right now, the player has the ability to assign dwarves rooms and offices, and that's it. But why not use the same interface to assign all kinds of things to all kinds of entities?
A player or other entity could "gift" (or perhaps exchange?) an item or room to entities such as guilds, squads, offices, etc.
Conversely, items/rooms could be "seized", causing the entity to send themselves/their executives (military) to confiscate the item.
EXAMPLE:
A player, representing the site gov't (perhaps acting thru the mayor? but that's another suggestion) could order a set of cloaks made and have it "gifted" to the guard to stop civies from wearing them
A player could gift a guard dog to the office of the bookkeeper, protecting whoever holds that office
The humans could exchange one of their cities for your fortress
The mountainhome could seize artifacts from your fort
The player could seize an attached training sword from a recruit
bandits could actually mug you
stressed dwarves could "seize" (steal) from other dwarves
dwarves might seize resources from the fortress and gift the resulting craft to loved ones?
artifact theft would be much cleaner as well

Most of the mechanics are there, save for fort/adv mode seizing and offices as entities, it only needs an interface

[Starver]

I've been thinking (for another context, admitedly) about transfer of "goods, titles and remes"[1] focussing on the initiation of the transfer being focused on either the giver or receiver[2] on both voluntary and involuntary grounds[3]. Maybe I should add a third-party initiator, too in my musings.  And maybe "exchange" can also apply here (though not in my original construct, save as a paired set of transactions, with similar overall flexibility).

I like the flexibility you already have in your DF-tailored ideas. Just posing my own pre-existing thoughts in case they are also of some conceptual use.




[1] Goods: Things that are items, destroyable, damagable, enhancable and used as components, but have a definite single existence; Titles (as in 'deeds', though might include positional 'titles' insofar as holding of rights/responsibilities) that are more nominal and could be split/overlapped by sufficiently pursuasive competing claims (but any one individual recognises just one possessor, whether they strictly agree with anyone else or not); "Remes" is my current catch all term for trivially/necessarily duplicatable 'stuff' (like genes and memes, but with the root of "reality", existence) that actually covers everything from knowledge/beliefs through to diseases, so maybe I need to split/offshoot memes again, but they all share so many of the same key qualities, like mutability.

[2] Some things are givable or takable, depending on circumstance, but something desired (greater wanting pressures than having, e.g. loot/vital knowledge) might be more taken/received, whereas others (greater having pressures than those for obtaining, e.g. a disease/credo) might be given/inflicted. With a chance success (or the complimentary chance of foiling) applicable to all. Did you find those pocketed gems? Were you convinced of an argument? Did they infect you? Could you properly understand the directions you asked for?

[3] A teacher with a willing pupil is different from a preacher with one they wish to convert. Palming a precious relic from an accomplice, to confuse the guards now stirred up like a hornet's nest, is a different thing from that item being planted upon you, unwittingly.

[Azerty]

I posted proposals about a civil law system, which had rules about property, how to get it, how to hold it and how to transfer it.

For exemple, we could attack an office and a room to a position, give a temple to a religious congregation or how to lease farmland and mine claims.