Print

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

[Rowanas]

That would add fun, but too much fun? Possibly.

It might end up that you have to kill lesser dwarves before they manage to hire hits on better dwarves, but on the other hand, they might hit the noble for his crazy exploits, and then you can quietly deconstruct the "mandate processing lever" you had built for Urist mcretardednoble.

P.S. Running a fascist state under the guise of a democratic one is easiest, look at America and Britain.

[Antsan]

Leave it as it is. Dont add extra mechanics to the phenomenom. Killing another dwarf gives a bad thought. Losing a loved one gives a bad thought, etc..

Why add complicated adittional mechanics which depend in heavily IC matters and the maker of the suggestion's opinions to begin with?

Someone else said this elsewhere and I can only agree: Exactly which game are you playing? For me the most awesome part of this game is it's sheer complexity and if there is any where to add some more without making it unplayable I will happily ask for it to be implemented.

Highlighted for emphasis. You are trying to impose on my gameplay your opinions on how dwarves should react, which in no small measure depend on your way of playing the game, and your thoughts while playing it. Hence I say that the system should be open to interpretation, not closed to a particular POV.

I am not saying that the system shouldnt be improved. I just think that limiting the social system to fit a single POV is not the way to go.

Okay, for someone who hasn't got English as mother tongue: what are IC matters?

As it currently is, it is not near to the reality of social groups at all. There are no murders and no executions, and those were reality and still are. Just make some suggestions on how to improve it instead of complaining, that the system is complex enough! I'm not saying, my way is the only way of doing it, it's just the best and easiest I can think of.
And I would like to hear, why this idea is bad. At which point would gameplay suffer? The system leaves enough room for imagination and it wouldn't give the player to much control. Misuse is at least punished with tantrum spirals (the emotion-system has to be rebalanced either way), so I don't see the downsides.

By the way, it would add complexity to the social life without changing the mechanisms that are already there. It could be made possible to switch this feature off, just as you can do with weather, sieges, ...

@Rowanas:
signed

[Sowelu]

Well, see, remember:  There IS a single valid POV, and that is "whatever your civilization is like, based on the raws and random chance".  Allowing for all players' interpretations is less important than putting together a coherent and playable game, even if that game does have a lot of options in it.

[ChairmanPoo]

Okay, for someone who hasn't got English as mother tongue: what are IC matters?

In-character. In this particular case, dependent on the ways you suppose dwarves should react. (which kind of substracts from the sandbox factor).

As it currently is, it is not near to the reality of social groups at all

It wouldn't be following your idea either.

There are no murders

Yes there are.

and no executions

yes there are. Haven't you seen the hammerer yet?

And I would like to hear, why this idea is bad. At which point would gameplay suffer? The system leaves enough room for imagination and it wouldn't give the player to much control.

I fail to see the point of adding an "execute" tag. IMHO it does give the player too much control (as it is now you only have indirect control over dwarven society, and that's allright by me), and I feel it diminishes  the sandbox factor, particularily in the long run.

Sure, it could be modded away. For that matter you could add a "butcherable" tag to dwarves and thus  get a homemade execution method.

Personally I like the current justice system better. It could use some improvement, but I feel that what you propose alters the very basis of it.

Well, see, remember:  There IS a single valid POV, and that is "whatever your civilization is like, based on the raws and random chance".  Allowing for all players' interpretations is less important than putting together a coherent and playable game

Certainly, but I hold that this does NOT add to coherence and playability. And that in fact, open-endedness is linked to the former.

[Antsan]

In-character. In this particular case, dependent on the ways you suppose dwarves should react. (which kind of substracts from the sandbox factor).

I only at one point made a reference to one exact personality-trait and this one has been "loyalty".
Substracting from the sandbox factor? It adds to the sandbox factor - and even more, when there are generated civilizations and races.
With this, society grows more complex. As long as reasons and rules for murder and execution aren't hardcoded there is more sandbox than anyone could imagine. We just need the possibility.

It wouldn't be following your idea either.

Why?

Where are murders? There are accidents, but they really don't have anything to do with grudges. They've got no reason in society but in physics. Those aren't murders, or was I missing something?
Oh, yes, I am talking about FortressMode, of course.

And the hammerer is not really doing execution. He is hammering at random people for stupid reasons. We currently do not have any difference between execution and a fight in self-defence and the current system cannot model this difference - not even with the ethics-tags.
You could rework my system, so the hammerer is the only one, who has the executioner job. And you could even remove the option on the player to order dwarfes to be killed.

For that matter you could add a "butcherable" tag to dwarves and thus  get a homemade execution method.

I guess, then my dwarfes would eat meals made out of dwarfen meat. Wouldn't the butcher doing this commit a crime? And still dwarfes wouldn't be murdering each other.

Personally I like the current justice system better. It could use some improvement, but I feel that what you propose alters the very basis of it.

I don't want to alter or remove the current system, I want to add in a new and independent system on top of the old.

[ChairmanPoo]

yeah, I got that, but I think that this proposed system alters the gameplay significatively and not in a good way.

Where are murders?

attacking another dwarf is punishable. There are berskerers, too. And fell moods. At the moment these last ones are not being punished, though. :/

And the hammerer is not really doing execution. He is hammering at random people for stupid reasons.

YOU DARE TO QUESTION DWARVEN LAW?!??!

[Antsan]

Well, Law should be described in the RAWs. And what the hammerer is punishing how is *not* in the RAWs. So the game is more restrictive, because the Hammerer is hardcoded and thus it is less sandboxy.

I do not question dwarfen law - I just think, dwarfen law is not simulated in the game properly.

attacking another dwarf is punishable.

Yes. But they only attack each other, when they tantrum and then they just attack random dwarfes, not based on how they feel about them and who may be responsible for the tantrum.

In terms of imagination: I just described a story I played so far and suddenly my two best friends are fighting against each other, because one of them is tantruming about loosing another friend lately. Not very sandboxy (because there is no simulation of social structures) and not very story-friendly (because the story needs a most likely really artificial twist, to say, why those two where fighting).

And berserkers and fell moods are not murdering. Berserkers went crazy and fell moods are more of a natural event then murder.

[Rowanas]

Wait. you can make dwarves butcherable?

Urist mccannibal ate a legendary noble lately.