Print

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

[Ribs]

And by the way, if you want some insight on what the developer thinks about how leadership should work and what is the player's role in the fortress, here's this gem:

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.

 This kind of brings my point home. I think an early economy is important, and if you can't provide welth to your workers they should grumble a bit, but never to the point of revolt unless you completely fuck up. Especially in the beggenning. They should have some awareness of how important their work is for the fortress, and likely wouldn't just quit working when they know it's vital for everyone's survival that they don't(unless they're complete assholes)

[GreatWyrmGold]

That frontier settlements would start with economies essentially the same as towns'. At the start, dwarves should work because they were told to and because it'll help them survive. Later on, an economy would come into play, but not until everyone has their needs met, or close to it.

My biggest problem with that would be that if the economy came to play only later on in the game, someone should at least keep track of how much labor has been done and by whom. You can't just mint coins and divide them equaly to everybody. I mean, you could, but you'd expect the settlers who have been there from the begginning and have been working almost constantly since the fundation of the fort would get upset if everything they've done was ignored and only now they would start getting paid.

My point is, they should at least be a little aware that they are the ones who build the fortress and transformed it into something habitable, safe and profitable.In fact, the original seven dwarves would likely become almost mythical figures in the eyes of the general dwarven population by that point.

I'm not sure about the nigh-mythical figure thing, but some sort of behind-the-scenes thing keeping track of credit makes sense.

I think that, at the beginning, dwarves should do what's required and requested of them. Once more dwarves show up, a real economy and such can come into play, but at first dwarves should assume that the stuff the player's telling them to do is in their best interest. Otherwise, dwarves would likely go, "Why should I build this pump when we don't even have stone?" and miss that the pump is to pierce an aquifer.

[Ribs]

But there were dozens of grand idealistic revolts prior to the end of the western 1400s. Think about the great peasant rebellions - those who fought to better their lives and improve their living conditions. Think about the rebellions in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall against the English - the one in Cornwall began, legend has it, to the beating of an anvil by the blacksmith who led the rebellion himself to liberate his country.

I don't know about this... the idea of "country" didn't really come to place until the 1800's. This is really going off-topic now, but it's kind of like saying "Braveheart" was an accurate depiction of history. It really wasn't, as far as our current understanding of the ideals and societies of the time. In the end, it was just a bunch of lords fighting for titles and claims. And the lords of scotland were not all that different from the english lords. The whole idea that they were incredibly different even back then really cames from modern, eighteen century nationalism. Trying to distinguish your own people and finding an origin story was a driving force in the eighteenth/nineteenth century for a lot of countries, in some cases to justify their independence or strengthen the country's union. Before that, you could say that a group of peasants could even fight for their insatisfaction with the local nobility, but never for the "love of their country". That would be ridiculous. Liberate it from whom? To what end?

There was very little a man at that time knew about the world around him. He couldn't read or write, and he probably couldn't even point his "country" in a map if you showed him one. He only knew that there was christianity. He knew he had a king, and that there was a pope in rome. He could have a general idea of other lands and peoples, but that's about it. They could perhaps have some insatisfaction with the nobility if said nobility was entirely composed by people with a culture completely diferent from their own. Say, when the normans conquered england there was probably some cultural shock between the peasants and the nobility for a while. But in the end, they didn't care as much as people would now, because the nationalist sentiment simply wasn't there. The normans were still christians and their rule wasn't all that different than what it was before with the saxons, so things remained relatively the same for your average sheep herder.

I don't know too much about grand peasant rebelions pre-french revolution, but it is my understanding that they usually went like this:

There's not enough food, taxes are to harsh or both - peasants would go to the castles and cities and would start sacking. Then the nobility would have to organise a force to deal with them. They were not all that idealistic. Even with the french revolution, really...while there was a whole elite and bunch of intellectuals that knew what they were doing, the masses were virtually bestialized about what was really going on.

[Ribs]

I'm not sure about the nigh-mythical figure thing, but some sort of behind-the-scenes thing keeping track of credit makes sense.

I think that, at the beginning, dwarves should do what's required and requested of them. Once more dwarves show up, a real economy and such can come into play, but at first dwarves should assume that the stuff the player's telling them to do is in their best interest. Otherwise, dwarves would likely go, "Why should I build this pump when we don't even have stone?" and miss that the pump is to pierce an aquifer.

Sure. Did you read Toady One's general thoughts on this? I just posted it a little earlier

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.

[Owlbread]

But there were dozens of grand idealistic revolts prior to the end of the western 1400s. Think about the great peasant rebellions - those who fought to better their lives and improve their living conditions. Think about the rebellions in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall against the English - the one in Cornwall began, legend has it, to the beating of an anvil by the blacksmith who led the rebellion himself to liberate his country.

I don't know about this... the idea of "country" didn't really come to place until the 1800's. This is really going off-topic now, but it's kind of like saying "Braveheart" was an accurate depiction of history. It really wasn't, as far as our current understanding of the ideals and societies of the time. In the end, it was just a bunch of lords fighting for titles and claims. And the lords of scotland were not all that different from the english lords. The whole idea that they were incredibly different even back then really cames from modern, eighteen century nationalism. Trying to distinguish your own people and finding an origin story was a driving force in the eighteenth/nineteenth century for a lot of countries, in some cases to justify their independence or strengthen the country's union. Before that, you could say that a group of peasants could even fight for their insatisfaction with the local nobility, but never for the "love of their country". That would be ridiculous. Liberate it from whom? To what end?

There was very little a man at that time knew about the world around him. He couldn't read or write, and he probably couldn't even point his "country" in a map if you showed him one. He only knew that there was christian. He knew he had a king, and that there was a pope in rome. He could have a general idea of other lands and peoples, but that's about it. They could perhaps have some insatisfaction in the nobility was entirely composed by people with a culture completely diferent from their own. Say, when the normans conquered england there was probably some cultural shock between the peasants and the nobility for a while. But in the end, they didn't care as much as people would now, because the nationalist sentiment simply wasn't there. The normans were still christians and their rule wasn't all that different than what it was before with the saxons, so things remained relatively the same for your average sheep herder.

I don't know too much about grand peasant rebelions pre-french revolution, but it is my understanding that they usually went like this:

There's not enough food, taxes are to harsh or both - peasants would go to the castles and cities and would start sacking. Then the nobility would have to organise a force to deal with them. They were not all that idealistic. Even with the french revolution, really...while there was a whole elite and bunch of intellectuals that knew what they were doing, the masses were virtually bestialized about what was really going on.

I'm not talking about Braveheart.

The thing is though - Scotland's conflict was quite unique, along with the Welsh and Cornish and to a lesser extent the Irish - in that it is an example of early nationalism. The fact that people were rising up specifically against the English who were oppressing them and ruling them was an indicator of this - if the lords weren't that different, we wouldn't have seen the kind of popular support the pro-independence groups gathered, nor would we have seen the extremely strong emotional connection people had (and still do) to that time. Our declaration of independence is actually so close to the modern idea of a "country" that it is reminiscient of the American declaration of independence. I will point you to one particular line at the end, very famous: "...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." People in these isles fought out of loyalty to one's lord, one's family, one's "Tribe" and eventually one's nation. During the wars of independence, the "prototype" for nationalism began to appear.

[Ribs]

The thing is though - Scotland's conflict was quite unique, along with the Welsh and Cornish and to a lesser extent the Irish - in that it is an example of early nationalism. The fact that people were rising up specifically against the English who were oppressing them and ruling them was an indicator of this - if the lords weren't that different, we wouldn't have seen the kind of popular support the pro-independence groups gathered, nor would we have seen the extremely strong emotional connection people had (and still do) to that time. Our declaration of independence is actually so close to the modern idea of a "country" that it is reminiscient of the American declaration of independence. I will point you to one particular line at the end, very famous: "...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." People in these isles fought out of loyalty to one's lord, one's family, one's "Tribe" and eventually one's nation. During the wars of independence, the "prototype" for nationalism began to appear.

I see. Well, I clearly don't know as much about your country's history as you do, so I won't even try. But I think that was an exception other than a general rule when it come's to medieval revolts. But I haven't read enough on the subject, so I won't even try and make a fool of myself.

But really, of course there were general cultural conflicts. The romans knew what they were, and they know what the greeks were and what the "barbarian" tribes were, as they created labels and distinctions between lands and people. And I'm sure the greeks and the balcanic/iberian and northen european tribal societies and kingdoms could be very upset with their new roman overlords for a multitude of reasons. But I still think nationalism is a lot more complex than cultural and tribal "pride" and self-recognition, as it was a very specific, modern phenomena.

[Owlbread]

The thing is though - Scotland's conflict was quite unique, along with the Welsh and Cornish and to a lesser extent the Irish - in that it is an example of early nationalism. The fact that people were rising up specifically against the English who were oppressing them and ruling them was an indicator of this - if the lords weren't that different, we wouldn't have seen the kind of popular support the pro-independence groups gathered, nor would we have seen the extremely strong emotional connection people had (and still do) to that time. Our declaration of independence is actually so close to the modern idea of a "country" that it is reminiscient of the American declaration of independence. I will point you to one particular line at the end, very famous: "...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." People in these isles fought out of loyalty to one's lord, one's family, one's "Tribe" and eventually one's nation. During the wars of independence, the "prototype" for nationalism began to appear.

I see. Well, I clearly don't know as much about your country's history as you do, so I won't even try. But I think that was an exception other than a general rule when it come's to medieval revolts. But I haven't read enough on the subject, so I won't even try and make a fool of myself.

But really, of course there were general cultural conflicts. The romans knew what they were, and they know what the greeks were and what the "barbarian" tribes were, as they created labels and distinctions between lands and people. And I'm sure the greeks and the balcanic/iberian and northen european tribal societies and kingdoms could be very upset with their new roman overlords for a multitude of reasons. But I still think nationalism is a lot more complex than cultural and tribal "pride" and self-recognition, as it was a very specific, modern phenomena.

But the kind of nationalism we're talking about here - medieval, even pre medieval as you rightly referred to the barbarians (the ancient Britons who would later become the Welsh resisted the Romans much harder than the Scots ever resisted the English) - can be applied to the DF world without much problem. The ideas of cultural and tribal pride and self-recognition are all we really need in order to do the kinds of things we've discussed in this thread on the subject of rebellions and revolts. We don't really need anything more than that - we're not going to be setting states up Westphalian-doctrine style.

[Ribs]

There we go, then.

I think that if your fortress was conquered by humans, a later popular revolt would make perfect sense. Having the dwarves revolting against their own nobility and tradition to form a completely new system of goverment? Not so much. If the dwarves were to revolt against your own leadership, say, overthrowing the bureaucrats and government officials as well as the noble houses and guild leaders, the new "government", as soon as a certain period of anarchy ended, would have a similar style of administration as the one before, even if the main body of the new administration was hadpicked by the revolting mob's own leadership. I see dwarven society as very proud and harsh about their traditions and laws.

I think that a truly "cummunal" type of society would only make sense if in the very beggenning of the game your dwarves revolted against the expedition leader and decided to make a little isolated comunity with only a couple of families lving toguether without complex government. In a larger fort, though, the pressig need for administration would come up pretty quickly. Sure, maybe they would even abandon the idea of a high nobility, but they would probably look for a central figure to lead them.

So my only real problem here is that I don't think this new appointed leader would try and implement, against all tradition, a proto-socialist administration. But to be honest it wouldn't bother me all that mcuh, as long as it was handled very carefully, and I can't even begin to wonder how would that be.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Define" Socialist." I define it  as a mixed economy near the command-economy end of the spectrum. This seems reasonable for dwarves.

[loose nut]

The thing is that a dwarf fortress is small enough that its politics would be organized around factional or clan lines more than class or nation, and the presiding noble would either be head of the dominant local faction, or possibly an appointed outsider who then has to negotiate the power struggles of the factions within the fortress. I would like to see these local factions of the fortress form organically out of family or friendship ties. It is then these factions who would compete for the lion's share of goods and wages, the best housing, the various fortress offices, etc., rather than having the same overarching structure (duke to mayor to knights to peasants) descend from above the same way each time. The player would then have to balance the interests of these ad-hoc factions of dwarves as the game progresses, or risk having them go at each others' throats and get blood all over the dining halls. That is a way that challenge can be maintained in the game as the fortress is completed and outside threats neutralized.