Print

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

[puke]

tl;dr:  Pitching a communal fortress mode playthrough.  Different folks assume different roles, one person processes the turns (by month or by season) based on instructions from each player.

First a quick disclaimer; although I'm not a fan of folks posting grand ideas, but whom don't have the capacity to champion and lead themselves.  But I'm going to do it anyway.  I'm hoping someone else will like this idea and take up leadership of it, and I can be a participant.

So my idea is this, based on a successful multi-year phenomenon that we ran about 10 years ago with Space Empires IV:  We play a multiplayer Fortress game.  We all play the same fortress.  Instead of taking turns as with a succession game, we all play at the same time.

One person would be the leader, or Overseer if you will.  This person will do the work of issuing orders to the dwarfs, and merging instructions from all the other participants.  The Overseer would upload the save game each month, or each season, and then wait to get instructions back from each player.

The players would take on different areas of responsibility.  This could be something like "architecture, z-10 to z-12".  Or it could be something like "Military squad: The Tombs of Loving".  Or it could be all Masons.  Or whatever.

I am imagining that players in charge of architecture would compose layouts in QuickFort, so that they could easily be applied to the game.  A coordinate system would have to be devised so that peoples' layouts would match up, and maybe one person would be in charge of common connecting shafts and access ways.

Maybe one person would be in charge of traffic management systems, another could define boroughs, another zones.

If there a small number of participants, then each one would have broader responsibilities.  More participants would make each person's job more nuanced.

There is the opportunity for "abuse" as there is no real way of stopping people from "playing ahead" before issuing their orders, but it is mitigated by the fact that they cant predict other peoples orders or how the Overseer will implement their instructions.

Backroom deals and politicking can occur on a forum thread for the game, where players would barter favors and try to build support for their plans, or vie for territory (who will have control of the newly discovered caverns?  what happens when the military leader tries to draft your weaver?)

So... Any takers?  Anyone want to step up as the coordinator?

[AutomataKittay]

I've seen similar kind of fortress a few times on the forum

It's certainly viable idea, though I don't know how many players want to try to put through the effort in trying it.

[puke]

Have any of them taken off?  Any idea where the old threads are, or what to search for?
I don't look at the story forum that often.

[AutomataKittay]

Have any of them taken off?  Any idea where the old threads are, or what to search for?
I don't look at the story forum that often.

Most of them died because the manager of the fortress either stopped updating or lost interest ( Which's pretty normal for community fortresses, though ). I don't know any good search term, though, since they're pretty much community fort with an extra premise of "Dwarves get mandates", which can be any of them from time to time.

[Valrandir]

This would work well with all players in the same room, doing that.
But over the internet people go inactive and the game flow must account for that.

This idea would work better with some measures to avoid stalling the game until everyone have sent their orders. One way would be to have regular cycle, one season per week or such, regardless of orders, and one week or such per cycle.

1. Game Initialization.
   a. Post the world and backstory
   b. Dwarf players
   c. Take orders for the first cycle
2. Play the cycle based on your orders
3. Meanwhile players post their orders for the next cycle
4. Post the end-of-cycle report
5. Begin the next cycle
6. Goto 2

Only use what orders you have, and do not stall the game waiting for more.
If some players are missing, assign their dwarf to a dwarfy custom profession and bring them back if the player comes back.

Here is a link to such a fortress, masterfully done by plisskin.
There was some waiting for orders which slowed it down, but otherwise it is a great read.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=81510.msg2152272#msg2152272

[AutomataKittay]

Did a quick search using committee as keyword and limiting search to this forum. I know there're probably more if one could use mandate, but that'd turn up too many results when the nobles demands it, rather than players.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=99174.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=31373.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=47381.0

As you can see, they've pretty much died typical community deaths. I've been considered a similar gameplay style for a week or so, but I don't have the will of self to carry it out myself, much less the months to years it could run.

This would work well with all players in the same room, doing that.
But over the internet people go inactive and the game flow must account for that.

This idea would work better with some measures to avoid stalling the game until everyone have sent their orders. One way would be to have regular cycle, one season per week or such, regardless of orders, and one week or such per cycle.

1. Game Initialization.
   a. Post the world and backstory
   b. Dwarf players
   c. Take orders for the first cycle
2. Play the cycle based on your orders
3. Meanwhile players post their orders for the next cycle
4. Post the end-of-cycle report
5. Begin the next cycle
6. Goto 2

Only use what orders you have, and do not stall the game waiting for more.
If some players are missing, assign their dwarf to a dwarfy custom profession and bring them back if the player comes back.

Here is a link to such a fortress, masterfully done by plisskin.
There was some waiting for orders which slowed it down, but otherwise it is a great read.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=81510.msg2152272#msg2152272

I've considered 'time lag' method for my own community-driven game, in that, the committee gives order, but it don't get processed until the next season or year, while the game play for current timespan get done. Though to be fair, my line of thought involves a committee in the distant mountainhome trying to plan and organize the fortress all the way over there, rather than in-fort that some of them does.

[puke]

This idea would work better with some measures to avoid stalling the game until everyone have sent their orders. One way would be to have regular cycle, one season per week or such, regardless of orders, and one week or such per cycle.

Agreed, this is pretty much my thinking.  But unlike Plisskin's game, I don't think the way to go here is actually dwarfing players.  DF gives the player too little control over actual dwarfs for that to be a practical thing, you cant actually decide what those little buggers do.

What I'm suggesting is that people pitch orders, like "dig this pattern here" or "designate this area to be a dumping zone" or whatever.

To your point though, if an order does not come in, the game needs to continue.  If someone's QuickFort pattern does not match up properly, then the organizer should not try to fix it but rather put it in with all its flaws.  part of the "fun" would come from missed orders or mistaken orders.

Maybe people could still be represented by dwarfs, and could die if that dwarf died.  but I dont see how they could give instructions directly about what any given dwarf does.