Print

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

[Lidku]

Eh, I don't know, what you say seems kinda stretched. Only a few sqaunt things (as you mention with it being "loose") suggests in Fort Mode that your the "top noble" or "collective wisdom of the government," it mostly frames it that your some sort of preternatural force guiding the Fortress. If all your dwarves die and only a child is left, is that really a "collective" wisdom of government? No, not really. Every embark starts with an expedition leader, but are *you* that character? No. When you play a character, that's Adv. Mode. The incoming embark arc of development when we'll finally get a more defined site theme to go by will be just that; scenario. It still doesn't mean your a specific character within Fort Mode.

And yes despite the exact "force" the player in Fort Mode is, it doesn't account for everything such as going missing or vampires- but even then when such things are discovered, the entire fort knows instantly while you ALSO know the new information instantly. Something I'd want is that info would be straggled from unit to unit as it goes down the network of general information to add to mechanical roleplay and watching it go around in a "stream" pattern, that'd be awesome. But for the player? No, not really.

Part of the fiat of Fort Mode is that your some near-omniscient (key word near) force that influences Dwarves behind the scenes and catches every interesting detail of what goes on the fort. Limiting fun little minutiae information in a simulationist game in DF makes no sense, at least for the mode we're talking about (Adv. is the inverse where you want to be immersed as possible in a SINGLE character).

[Shonai_Dweller]

Yes, it's not correctly defined yet but it's the way Toady wants it to be and somewhere along the next 30 years of development it may becone more so. The intent is not an omnipotent force, even if that's what we have right now.

How would rebelling against the "omnipotent force" for incompetent managenent (an actual stated goal, not something I made up) make any sense at all?

Anyway. The suggestion is what it is. I'm just remarking on reasons why it might not be implemented exactly as the op suggests so won't add any more here.

[Lidku]

Easy. The units rebel and just change the power structure. The game carries on; however though it certainly will be interesting when Toady does put in a real system for rebellions than the pseudo ones we have in the form of loyalty cascades. Though I could be wrong on this and MAYBE that goal you brought up could be a new "game" over than the singular that is current in the game where the trigger is everyone dying. Though with how DF is really- its a storyteller generator and simulation game. It wouldn't be fun and it'll be "gamey" for a game over for a mere rebellion.

I also sincerely doubt new features will clammer or lessen complexity, I'm of the thought it'll add more. To say the future features in the development page will crack down or give little narrative in the long-run is.. again.. pretty iffy when we take in the contexts of the modes we're speaking about.

Fort Mode is very much about observational-omniscience as a PLAYER influencing things an OOC peternormal fashion. We're overseeing 100+ units at once and viewing every tidbit or their lives and fun information in the background. That's the main appeal of Fort Mode. Adv is about being immersed in a SINGULAR character who is IC and the facet that you discover and unearth things through exploration- hence Adventure Mode as the namesake suggests. Certain stuff will be unknown or non-doable for your character because he or she doesn't have the right skills or attributes to warrant it. In Fort Mode, you don't have this facet or need because its exploring a whole different dynamic as I said earlier.

Fort and Legends Mode would do for some more narrative stuff if possible as OP suggests.

[MC]

It seems to me like just increasing  the frequency/expanding the scope of named "non-artifacts" would be a good step that would satisfy both people who want as much info as possible and people who want some lore consistency, as well as not requiring the game to track every useless sock. Maybe also letting fortress players designate items to be named like you can in adventure mode. (kinda silly how the axe my dwarf used to singlehandedly fight off over 30 necro experiments is just treated as a normal axe because he died of his wounds before he could name it).

Honestly though I feel like a lot of this could be improved a lot without actually changing anything but the interface. Making the rumors screen in fort mode more like it is in ADV (well, ok, better than in adv. probably more like the tell story menu) and just letting the player examine tracked/legendary items through it. As it is there's plenty of knowledge that the player in fort mode is not privy too despite even the mason in making blocks down in the mines supposedly knowing it as common knowledge in adv mode.

[Pillbo]

How would rebelling against the "omnipotent force" for incompetent managenent (an actual stated goal, not something I made up) make any sense at all?

How does it make sense at all that an incompetent "top noble" has access to every thought, emotion and opinion of every citizen updated in real time? Or that they can examine the inventory and skills of invading goblins? Or the wounds on a magma crab in a volcano? Or read hundreds of pages of battle logs for a Forgotten Beast in walled off caverns?

The fort mode depends on the player having access to information they couldn't have as a citizen. Story telling doesn't improve with less information.

[Lidku]

Not only that since Fort Mode is player driven, it goes by the experience of the player not a specific character in the Fort itself. This mode is going by the fiat that the player is an OOC director of Fort events. Wouldn't it be weird that this "noble" is highly competent all the time with little to no mistakes that seems near-omnipotent and has facts and details on a drop of a hat? An experienced DF player save some variables will always have a good running Fort almost no matter what.

This also doesn't even account for as your Fort progresses, the IC leadership shifts to different units as it gets recognized status from the monarch and changes leaders (and also when said units also die in some way). Then to begin with as I referenced before, you as the player aren't even any single unit to begin with; rather a force managing multiple units at once subliminally by peternatural OOC means. Why should information in this mode be lessened when that's contrary to what its trying to achieve? Doesn't make sense to me at all.

[Shonai_Dweller]

This bard is wearing earrings made from the bones of a dwarf he killed and feasted on last month while masquerading as a bard at the mountainhome.

Do you suppose he's the vampire? Sorry, where is the "improved storytelling" in telling someone the secret vampire is a vampire? Don't forget to clearly label all the Villains "person who wants to take over your fortress". After all what's the sense in withholding information.

[Lidku]

I guess at the helm of this discussion is that there certainty can be a balance between having more information to read-on, while some still things are withholden to the conceit that the player is only near-omniscient, but not enough to know almost anything for things such as agents or vampires. This I admit is a problem in the current update where Intelligent Undead that are sent to infiltrate your fortress are clearly identifiable or Necromancers themselves who come to visit already have it known they can raise undead- those could definitely use some tinkering.

The bard analogy though is something that'd an observant player who finds it will suspect such a person to a Vampire anyway in the base-game already even with the increased information stuff OP is asking for; since having a dwarf bone earring alone is a big tell of something being off. Though this should be considered an award for players who pay attention to specific details than anything negative.

[Nilsolm]

I suppose this feature would be interesting if it was tied to some gameplay element in a way that makes sense. Say, if you could appoint something like a chronicler or a chief historian whose job would be to find out more about particular items (or people) by collecting information from visitors or by sending out spies or what have you. Or maybe have the new dungeon master do it since they are already supposed to be responsible for counter-espionage I think.

That might also make it feel less like the player gaining more information than he should, because it would be the dwarves themselves discovering it and they could react to it without player intervention, for instance by organising a witch hunt if they find out that someone is a vampire.

[Lidku]

I suppose this feature would be interesting if it was tied to some gameplay element in a way that makes sense. Say, if you could appoint something like a chronicler or a chief historian whose job would be to find out more about particular items (or people) by collecting information from visitors or by sending out spies or what have you. Or maybe have the new dungeon master do it since they are already supposed to be responsible for counter-espionage I think.

That might also make it feel less like the player gaining more information than he should, because it would be the dwarves themselves discovering it and they could react to it without player intervention, for instance by organising a witch hunt if they find out that someone is a vampire.

This idea is perfect!

[Pillbo]

This bard is wearing earrings made from the bones of a dwarf he killed and feasted on last month while masquerading as a bard at the mountainhome.

Do you suppose he's the vampire? Sorry, where is the "improved storytelling" in telling someone the secret vampire is a vampire? Don't forget to clearly label all the Villains "person who wants to take over your fortress". After all what's the sense in withholding information.

You've made a straw man argument- you're arguing against revealing creature secrets when this suggestion is about adding to item information.  It no more reveals a creature is a vampire if he's wearing a "dwarf bone earring" or an "earring made from the bones of dwarven thresher Urist McDurist."

This suggestion is even more relevant when considering the items made in your fort from named creatures. If my dwarves made a totem out of a FB skull then the name of the beast should at least be in the description, instead it just says "This is a forgotten beast skull totem". I've never had a fell mood but I'd guess it's the same thing, where you can't see who the artifact was made from.

[IndigoFenix]

Seems to me that historical information about an item should be transmitted as rumors ("The legendary sword Evilhammer struck down the ettin Wandersthroat in the year 602"), and one kind of rumor could be a "description of the item" that allows you to identify the item on sight, once you have the rumor.  (Logically you should be able to piece the information together once you have enough knowledge, but that sounds a lot harder to code.)

You can get the "item identity" rumor verbally, or read about it in a book.  A character may also identify an item they are holding to those present ("This is the legendary sword Evilhammer"), giving them access to the rumor.

If your character knows the "item identity" rumor, then the item should be identified automatically when you see it.  If you see the item but don't have the rumor, you can only see its physical description - you might be able to tell it is an artifact ("This is a steel longsword of masterful quality.") but you wouldn't be able to identify it.

As with the personal alias system, it would also be possible to lie about the identity of an item to people, which could fool people who knew things about the item but couldn't identify the item itself.

[Azerty]

Seems to me that historical information about an item should be transmitted as rumors ("The legendary sword Evilhammer struck down the ettin Wandersthroat in the year 602"), and one kind of rumor could be a "description of the item" that allows you to identify the item on sight, once you have the rumor.  (Logically you should be able to piece the information together once you have enough knowledge, but that sounds a lot harder to code.)

There's the Sourcing subdivision in topics about history; maybe historians might be able to discernate worthy and worthless rumors.