Print

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

[nwob]

Okay, so the current Animal People are clearly not finished - Toady has mentioned that he probably intends to have randomised civilisations in the game which are not Tolkienesque (i.e the ones we have now) but are more random - quite possibly similar to the animal people. With this in mind:

It seems that there are approximately three levels of advancement in Dwarf Fortress:

Level 1 - Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Humans, possibly some Night Creatures

Possesses the full gamut of what medieval civilisation has to offer, or at least being intelligent enough to do so were they not more concerned about murdering poor travellers who are out after dark.

Level 2 - Animal people

Basic tool-making abilities, i.e blowpipes, but not much more.

Level 3 - Normal animals

It seems to me that level 2 could do with pulling up a bit.  I realise that this is probably intended for development in the future but there you go, that's what this forum is all about.

If animal people have the skills necessary to make weaponry like blowpipes then permanent (if small) settlements do not seem too outside the realm of possibility. Especially with the new army ark, the possibility of coexisting alongside/utterly destroying small native tribes of Animal People sounds pretty interesting.  They would (in my conception at least) be off-map, and their motivations could range from trade to aggression to simply wanting to steal your stuff.  You could trade with them (obviously they would need to be able to make things you actually wanted) or murder them and incur their wrath.  Once we gain the ability to send out armies in Fortress mode you could crush them mercilessly if you were so inclined.

There's also the possibility of a bit more granularity here.  Animal people civilisations could range from on the same level as or just a little below the Tolkienesque races all the way down to where they are now - nomadic hunter-gatherers with rudimentary tools.

Another interesting idea is the possibility that you might generate a world where all the level 1 civilisations are in fact animal people, and Dwarves, Elves and Humans are the ones living in tiny villages or under ground.  This would probably be a worldgen setting, and would most likely require being able to play other races in fortress mode, so I don't expect it anytime soon.  A compromise could be that Dwarves are always level 3, perhaps.

But all this raises other questions - if Animal people become more sentient, they shouldn't just be reskinned versions of humans.  Different groups of animal people would have to behave distinctly differently, which requires some work.  Just as an example, burrowing creatures should construct their houses just below the ground, others could build their villages around a monument.  We could have houses on stilts, houses in trees (though ideally aesthetically different to Elves), nests (looking at you, Ant People), and more. Or combinations of the above.  Ideally animal people would have skills/resources difficult to obtain elsewhere.

Thoughts?

[Godlysockpuppet]

I quite like it possible skills could involve them trading you food (mainly meat from eagle/ant men etc...) To poisons (olm men etc.. Offering to coat your weapons in poison)

[Gargomaxthalus]

     Definitely some interesting stuff here. People have already worked on fleshing the animal people out themselves, but having them be handled better in vanilla DF seems vital for the simulation to really take hold. The current animal people seem to be something that Toady just threw into the game on a whim like how people were talking about a possible HFS like mechanic, so he slapped one together because it "sounded like fun". Really all of the races would benefit from an "ethnicity" mechanic which would give us different varieties with there own tech levels and types. An example of this is how DnD has Elves that live in cities, elves that live in simpler villages, tribal Elves and of course the subterranean Elves with the grandest architecture. Toady already plans such a thing with the concept of Hill and Deep Dwarves but a larger variety across all races would make for a much more interesting simulation and such things have been explored in major mods.

     Now when it actually comes to ideas for expanding the animal people in particular, you run into a problem with the procedural generation. Without a well planned set of limitations being placed on the generator you end up with some really wacky shit. The place to start with this conversation is with the actually body structure of these beings. Currently an animal man is just an existing non-humanoid creature that has been anthropomorphized and connected to a loosely defined [ENTITY]. The question is, just how much randomization would be exceptable?  Should the current system be maintained? Should it be expanded to Chimeras being possible? Should semi and full on megabeasts be somehow applicable?

     You also need to decide whether or not Minotaurs should be given the DragonLance treatment or if they should be considered magical constructs and left to their current Greek mythology workings. The handling of any creatures such as Harpies and Gorgons is another point of contention since they also fall under the real world mythology blanket yet can be greatly expanded on. The question here is whether or not real world mythology even has a place in DF without receiving the kind of heavy tweaking and abstraction that it has in things like DnD. By this I mean to ask whether or not it can be considered appropriate to simply grab a creature like a Minotaur from mythology and to simply use it "as is" without giving it a real DF spin that makes it as distinctly DF as possible.

     Personally I've had a strong interest in anthropomorphic characters since first seeing things like Thunder Cats. Of course the large number of anthropomorphic characters going back to the first comics and animations makes them kind of boring. This leads to the question of whether or not Races such as "Ponies", Liirans and other non humanoid sentients should be included. Both listed races have a heavy reliance on telekinesis  which has many fun and !!FUN!! possibilities. Of course we could also have beings such as Star Controls sentient clams that rely on tentacles and other similar appendages.

     Well that does it for now, I know how people feel about walls of text.

[Neonivek]

To me It goes like this

-Unintelligent animal: A non-phase... it is an animal. I only included it because the OP did.

-Intelligent creature: A creature that is intelligent is recognized as such and has different patterns then that of a creature. They are also valid for induction into a society

-Intelligent Grouping: The creatures are grouping into packs with common goals, yet do not create settlements (if they do, they become part of the primitive savagery)

-Primitive savagery: Animal groups create settlements but do not possess much in terms of culture, identity, or language. These can include the sewer dwellers.

-Unadvanced Tribalism: The group creates a settlement with its own identity and culture, but lacks a geopolitical mindset (greater collective mindset). They will be acted on but mostly react.

-Civilization (which can include advanced tribalism): The group has its own identity and culture as well as acts upon the world as a group.

[nwob]

That's a much better set of distinctions for sure.  In that system, I suppose I'm suggesting that animal groups move from intelligent grouping to primitive savagery or advanced tribalism with a look in at civilization when they are made more distinct.

In response to Gargomaxthalus:

I think minotaurs and other potentially civilised night creatures/semi megabeasts should stay as they are.

I am, however, all in favour of procedurally generated races. Maybe 'chimeric' creatures could form the basis of a more broad procedural system. Of course, unless we want their culture and architecture to exactly resemble humans, that's going to require quite a leap forward in terms of some kind of procedural architecture style selector.

I think, though, that if we go in for jumbling of limbs, the most important thing is to maintain cohesive appearance.  One thing Toady has expressed concern about is that of procedurally generated stuff just becoming a gray mush of proper nouns because the player has no connection with it.  Random generation of civilisations must, in my opinion, be fairly limited in number terms or risk the same fate.  Again though, probably a worldgen slider.

I also think a lot could be done with attributes not currently associated with animal people.  I'd love, for example, to play as a bipedal, iridescent scaled rhino with claws and a one-square poisonous dust attack.  Although maybe I'm the only one.

All in all, it seems a balance needs to be struck between several factors; they need to be distinctly different to the other civilised races but at the same time not "gray mush" inducing or so wacky that the world becomes ridiculous (again, unless worldgen parameter).

Part of me thinks that a lot of the things that would really be needed to make a procedurally generated race feel as unique and different as dwarves, elves and humans are simply not in the game yet.