Print

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

[Ribs]

I also defend coinage. Dwarves and metal coins in fantasy go together like spagetti and meatballs. Also, most proto-villages in video-game rpgs use some sort of finate material currency, and it's something we're all familiar with.

Not that DF needs to do something just because everyone else does it, but I just think it would be a lot more fun that way. Having your dwarves storing currency and being able to accumulate it in the long run would be entertaining to see. Just think about the consequences: you're having a casual long playthrough and realise that one of your random dwarves is absurdly rich for no apparent reason. Then you have to look back and see why did that happen... maybe he had a lucky break at gambling. Maybe he had a few lucky inheritances, etc. And that kind of accumulation of wealth is easier to keep track with hard currencies. It's a fun feature to have in a game like DF, where keeping track of your individual dwarves' history and achievements is a big part of the experience.

As far as everyday trade goes, I'm sure we can find simpler solutions. If we can set up a marketplace type "building" (kind of like we'll be able to set up taverns and inns), with a few dedicated traders, goods distribution wouldn't be that cumbersome.

It could even be a yearly thing for very frequent activities, such as buying food and drink (if these are indeed things your citizens need to buy). Your citizens could have a tab, that traders, inkeepers and merchants would keep, and every year or so they would require it to be paid in full, or perheaps a reasonable percentage of it. That way, there wouldn't be too much clutter with money exchanging hands frequently, and dwarves constantly having to run around collecting their coins and storing them. If the dwarf starts to accumulate too much debt, there could be legal consequences, but maybe you as the player could intervene.

[Splint]

If the dwarf starts to accumulate too much debt, there could be legal consequences, but maybe you as the player could intervene.

I have to say I like the sound of it.

In general it makes me think of a new sort of Ethics tag in addition to debt handling.

Spoiler: Spoilered for haphazard and probably poorly thought out nature. (click to show/hide)

[ETHIC:EXTREME_DEBT: SITE_LEADER_DISCRETION] < Default for dwarves, likely PUNISH_EXILE for humans, PERSONAL_MATTER for goblins, kobolds, and animal people, and PUNISH_REPRIMAND for elves.

Modded races with UNTHINKABLE (or PUNISH_CAPITAL of course,) would probably routinely have debtors executed, making such a race reliant on player input to keep everyone paid enough to avoid such a fate, but modded races are neither here nor there.

From there, they're added to the criminals tab if there's law enforcement and you can choose an appropriate punishment, or if lawdorfs aren't in place, the Mayor/Upper Noble in charge makes one based on personality - a more merciful or compassionate dwarf may simply put them on the backlog for a month in jail, while a dwarf who values martial prowess greatly may make them join the military, or particularly cruel site leader or those who have a grudge with the debtor may even have the debtor executed or beaten.

It definitely makes it useful to have a Sheriff or Guard Captain handy beforehand in the event the recent electee or whatever turns out to be a bit of a dick who would have had everyone slated for beatings for when the guard is established.

In particular, Extreme Debt can have an option for having thier negative balance removed (resetting it to 0,) in exchange for military service for x number of seasons as stated above (after the term of service you can discharge Urist McDebtor from the duty roster at your leisure, but he can't be replaced or discharged until that time's up,) in which case the punished dwarf is automatically assigned to the first squad with open space.

It would start with the militia commander's squad then going down the list of sergeants, but If no squad slots are available, they're automatically made a militia captain.

Whether or not they'd see actual battle is up to the player of course, with some players likely using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card for favorite dwarves while others (especially those like myself who prefer to deal with enemies with the deadliest weapon traps of all,) will be sending Urist McChicken the Debtor headlong into combat with the other troops.

Likewise, site leaders who habitually have dwarves beaten, executed, or jailed for an inordinate amount of time may find thier office in danger.

Lets say Assault has a value of 100, then jailing belligerent dorfs who punch people randomly for 100 days is considered the max acceptable length before people start getting irritated at the "unusually long jail sentence given to a friend/relative/Acquaintance recently," while less law-abiding dwarves start getting bad thoughts around law dwarves ("Annoyed/angered by the presence of a fortress guard/the hammerer at a party" for example.)

If the site leader continues to be a shithead, then several dwarves may simultaneous trigger "Conduct Meeting," with the site leader and once all of these dwarves are in the site leader's office, they will with an announcement, depose him and replace him with one of the group - "For his poor leadership, a group of angry citizens has removed Urist McShitheadMayor and replaced him with Urist McNiceLyeMaker!" Likewise, the same may happen if there's a severe shortage of a necessity for long enough after the economy activates.

A shortage of unworn or only xShoesx for example, would constantly irritate the populous and eventually (say, two years of only having XShoesX or footwear in worse condition for 60% of the population or more,) they'll snap and replace the mayor or baron, the replacement being the one who will then immediately mandate at least half the population's worth of the needed item over the course of a season or two if not replaced or killed, firing out production mandates for the item as rapidly as the new guy can.

[Ribs]

The problem is, you're talking about making things deviate from reality when there's no good reason to do so, and it actually makes the game worse to ignore real-life solutions to the problems that players will face in the game, itself. 

There are real-life reasons why coins were not used in everyday transactions inside a village for getting a small amount of butter to last through the next couple meals from a neighbor.  Their society, frankly, just wasn't as capitalistic as it is today, or as much as Adam Smith would like to delude himself into thinking. 

There is a reason that Dwarf Fortress pretty much HAS to start off communist, and only work in some semblance of capitalism after the fortress is well-established. 

When people make threads like these, it's because they don't understand the socioeconomic principles at work, and they're just throwing things out because they think they "should be like that", not because they actually were.

http://sciencenordic.com/ancient-coins-offer-clues-about-medieval-society

"With coins comes change
An analysis of 45,000 coins from the Norwegian Middle Ages shows that coins from the 1200s circulated more than coins from earlier centuries. Gullbekk also found that coins from urban communities were often the most frayed, suggesting coins played a less significant role in the countryside.

But coins were needed in rural areas too.

People needed coins to pay for land lease, to pay taxes, and to make sacrifices to the Church. It thus became necessary for farmers and other workers to exchange some of the goods they produced into coins, which resulted in a gradual commercialization of trade and, ultimately, society as a whole."

Yeah, in small rural villages during the middle ages, coins were less useful. But they certainly weren't useless, and became progressively more common throughout europe after the 11th century.

Also, bear in mind that your fortress is not necessarily always a tiny community. At the very beginning it certainly is, and even later there are very few people living in it, but there are frequent traders and you deal directly with the monarch. Ultimetely, the type of fort that we play is sort of like a medieval governor's palace, when it's fully mature. By itself it is relatively small, but it's projection is quite significant, as it attracts important merchants from all over the world and powerful people (and eventually we'll also have hilldwarves to add to the equation). It wouldn't be weird if the citizens of a mature fort were as familiar with wealth and abundance as people from large cities. And with that wealth and abundance of resources, the existance of metal currency becomes not only more reasonable, but almost natural. In fact, an old fortress could have an economy as robust as the 1400's venitian republic. You're right when you say that it can't start like that, but ultimetely the existence of a strong economic system that looks almost similar to ours in terms of money circulation isn't ridiculous.

I think it's very difficult to say how much medieval societies were appart from our present "capitalist ways". In fact, the tendencies of societies (from the ancient greeks and romans to the medieval english) to go from precious metals to less precious metals over time to cope with inflation, debt and State expenses shows that their economic system of trade and government was remarkably similar to ours. The book you're holding on to was written by an anarchist (David Graeber), and his political ideology could have easily influenced his work. Not that it invalidates his studies, but as a student of history I can tell you that communists often can be as delusional as you think Adam Smith was.

To add to what you've said about the medieval economy, coins truly declined in importance during the early middle ages also because wthere were very few cities standing during that time (especially in the west, away from the Byzantine empire). But When more resouces came around and more cities were back up and running again, coins came back with a vengence. In DF, resources are abundant and cities can not only exist but thrive. If anything,  the importance of coinage should be more linked to the ammount of people, cities, and goods fluctuating around the world you generate.

[Ribs]

If the dwarf starts to accumulate too much debt, there could be legal consequences, but maybe you as the player could intervene.

I have to say I like the sound of it.

In general it makes me think of a new sort of Ethics tag in addition to debt handling.

Spoiler: Spoilered for haphazard and probably poorly thought out nature. (click to show/hide)

[ETHIC:EXTREME_DEBT: SITE_LEADER_DISCRETION] < Default for dwarves, likely PUNISH_EXILE for humans, PERSONAL_MATTER for goblins, kobolds, and animal people, and PUNISH_REPRIMAND for elves.

Modded races with UNTHINKABLE (or PUNISH_CAPITAL of course,) would probably routinely have debtors executed, making such a race reliant on player input to keep everyone paid enough to avoid such a fate, but modded races are neither here nor there.

From there, they're added to the criminals tab if there's law enforcement and you can choose an appropriate punishment, or if lawdorfs aren't in place, the Mayor/Upper Noble in charge makes one based on personality - a more merciful or compassionate dwarf may simply put them on the backlog for a month in jail, while a dwarf who values martial prowess greatly may make them join the military, or particularly cruel site leader or those who have a grudge with the debtor may even have the debtor executed or beaten.

It definitely makes it useful to have a Sheriff or Guard Captain handy beforehand in the event the recent electee or whatever turns out to be a bit of a dick who would have had everyone slated for beatings for when the guard is established.

In particular, Extreme Debt can have an option for having thier negative balance removed (resetting it to 0,) in exchange for military service for x number of seasons as stated above (after the term of service you can discharge Urist McDebtor from the duty roster at your leisure, but he can't be replaced or discharged until that time's up,) in which case the punished dwarf is automatically assigned to the first squad with open space.

It would start with the militia commander's squad then going down the list of sergeants, but If no squad slots are available, they're automatically made a militia captain.

Whether or not they'd see actual battle is up to the player of course, with some players likely using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card for favorite dwarves while others (especially those like myself who prefer to deal with enemies with the deadliest weapon traps of all,) will be sending Urist McChicken the Debtor headlong into combat with the other troops.

Likewise, site leaders who habitually have dwarves beaten, executed, or jailed for an inordinate amount of time may find thier office in danger.

Lets say Assault has a value of 100, then jailing belligerent dorfs who punch people randomly for 100 days is considered the max acceptable length before people start getting irritated at the "unusually long jail sentence given to a friend/relative/Acquaintance recently," while less law-abiding dwarves start getting bad thoughts around law dwarves ("Annoyed/angered by the presence of a fortress guard/the hammerer at a party" for example.)

If the site leader continues to be a shithead, then several dwarves may simultaneous trigger "Conduct Meeting," with the site leader and once all of these dwarves are in the site leader's office, they will with an announcement, depose him and replace him with one of the group - "For his poor leadership, a group of angry citizens has removed Urist McShitheadMayor and replaced him with Urist McNiceLyeMaker!" Likewise, the same may happen if there's a severe shortage of a necessity for long enough after the economy activates.

A shortage of unworn or only xShoesx for example, would constantly irritate the populous and eventually (say, two years of only having XShoesX or footwear in worse condition for 60% of the population or more,) they'll snap and replace the mayor or baron, the replacement being the one who will then immediately mandate at least half the population's worth of the needed item over the course of a season or two if not replaced or killed, firing out production mandates for the item as rapidly as the new guy can.

Sure. But I think that other races within the fortress should abide dwarven law (ethics). So even if you make a goblin as your debt collector, he should probably be expected to behave as a dwarf would, or else he'd be arrested! Think about it: if most of your citizens are dwarves and most of them believe that it is wrong to kill people for not paying their debts, if it were to happen they would all see it as a tyranical or barbaric act.

Maybe if you manage to make your fortress majority snakeman or something, the laws of the realm would change. Or maybe if eventually racial ethics become dinamic and could change over time...

[Splint]

Sure. But I think that other races within the fortress should abide dwarven law (ethics). So even if you make a goblin as your debt collector, he should probably be expected to behave as a dwarf would, or else he'd be arrested! Think about it: if most of your citizens are dwarves and most of them believe that it is wrong to kill people for not paying their debts, if it were to happen they would all see it as a tyrannical or barbaric act.

Well, of course those who reside in your fortress would abide by the dwarven way.

[GoblinCookie]

This thread has the same problem that most of the other economic suggestions have, it proposes introducing a whole set of economic institutions into the game, with all their rather realistic consequences but provides no reason why any of those institutions are in any way rational.  In Dwarf Fortress we create a whole new society from the ground up, we do not simply inherit institutions from the past, so irrational insitutions do not make sense.  It also has the usual package bundle setup by which a whole set of things are thrown in together that happen to exist in the real-world, even though the vast majority of these things are quite capable of being implemented independantly without eachother. 

Fact is that as things presently stand the communist status quo is not only the optimal economic system but it will be so even if (theoretically) there were a million dwarves in your fortress.  In order to have other insitutions make sense we have to model some kind of flaw into the economic model or else all we are doing by introducing 'capitalistic' institutions is making the game less rational and less functional.  Also this is not a package deal, you do not get the whole bundle of institutions all at once but instead someone has to set the institutions up one by one.  Historically this process took millenia to complete. 

[Ribs]

This thread has the same problem that most of the other economic suggestions have, it proposes introducing a whole set of economic institutions into the game, with all their rather realistic consequences but provides no reason why any of those institutions are in any way rational.  In Dwarf Fortress we create a whole new society from the ground up, we do not simply inherit institutions from the past, so irrational insitutions do not make sense.  It also has the usual package bundle setup by which a whole set of things are thrown in together that happen to exist in the real-world, even though the vast majority of these things are quite capable of being implemented independantly without eachother. 

Fact is that as things presently stand the communist status quo is not only the optimal economic system but it will be so even if (theoretically) there were a million dwarves in your fortress.  In order to have other insitutions make sense we have to model some kind of flaw into the economic model or else all we are doing by introducing 'capitalistic' institutions is making the game less rational and less functional.  Also this is not a package deal, you do not get the whole bundle of institutions all at once but instead someone has to set the institutions up one by one.  Historically this process took millenia to complete.

It deppends on what do you mean by "capitalistic institutions". If by that you mean currency and individual accumulation of it, than it's not that complicated (although getting individual dwarves to "invest" their capital in anything other than food, clothing, and maybe some trinkets could be difficult to realise as a concept).

But if you mean dwarves somehow going full capitalist and start to invest their money in manufactures, hiring other dwarves, wearing tophats and smoking cigars, then I would agree that would be too much, and obviously out of place. Although, we did have dwarves buying shops on their own back in 40d, so some form of "dwarven entrepreneurship" is not out of the question.

Also, we presently don't create any society from the ground up in DF. All the institutions are already there:

1. The estabilished monarchy and feudal system, where vassals run smaller vassals (dukes who own counts who own barons and mayors).
2. The whole legal system. In fact, you have no influence over your civilization's ethics.
3. The economic system, which we are currently discussing.
4. The government and political system, as the buerocratic positions and mayoural system is already there without our imput.
5. The nobility: DF is not really a communist game. There is a very clear class system, and nobles are above peasants and don't need to work.

As for flaws in the current "communist" model... Well, if anything it's too micro intensive. If dwarves start making their own choices in what they want to work or produce based on their own wants and needs as well as the wants and needs of the fortress they could make more rational decisions and maybe we could have have less idlers without having to micromanage too much. Of course, this could be done automatically by a 'auto-labor' function(that exists in df hack but isn't very efficient), but there are reasons to do it differently: most importantly, becuase there's the idea that (some) dwarves could want to choose their own line of work and could be annoyed if you just forced them to do what you as the player think is "most efficient". That could create an intersting dynamic between having your people do certain jobs that are in high demand. Maybe you'd have to "pay" them more...

[GoblinCookie]

It deppends on what do you mean by "capitalistic institutions". If by that you mean currency and individual accumulation of it, than it's not that complicated (although getting individual dwarves to "invest" their capital in anything other than food, clothing, and maybe some trinkets could be difficult to realise as a concept).

By 'capitalistic institutions' I naturally mean anything that potentially makes some dwarves rich and other dwarves poor, things that are presently absent.  Implementing some of those things is not hard, the problem is that they do not make any sense at the moment.

But if you mean dwarves somehow going full capitalist and start to invest their money in manufactures, hiring other dwarves, wearing tophats and smoking cigars, then I would agree that would be too much, and obviously out of place. Although, we did have dwarves buying shops on their own back in 40d, so some form of "dwarven entrepreneurship" is not out of the question.

Those are however the kind of institutions that inherently change the economic setup into one where it 'makes sense' to have mechanics for things like rich dwarves and poor dwarves.

Also, we presently don't create any society from the ground up in DF. All the institutions are already there:
1. The estabilished monarchy and feudal system, where vassals run smaller vassals (dukes who own counts who own barons and mayors).
2. The whole legal system. In fact, you have no influence over your civilization's ethics.
3. The economic system, which we are currently discussing.
4. The government and political system, as the buerocratic positions and mayoural system is already there without our imput.
5. The nobility: DF is not really a communist game. There is a very clear class system, and nobles are above peasants and don't need to work.

1. That is not how the monarchy works at the moment.  There is no feudal hierarchy among the nobles, they all answer directly to the king.  Ranks are based upon the relative importance of the settlement to which the belong, not how many subordinates you have.
2. The legal system and ethics are essentially irrelevant to the game at present.
3. You create the economic system (build workshops, set labours, assign work orders).  There is no economic activity in the fortress when the player arrives on the scene.
4. Aside from the expedition leader and the mayor, the offices are empty until filled up.  The government positions start off as ideas as opposed to anything else.
5. You do not appear to understand the concept of a class system, a ruling class is *not* the same thing as the authorities.  Nobles do work exactly the same as other dwarves do at present despite the (non-functional) menial work exemption tag in the raws and there is no noble social class separate from the individual positions.

As for flaws in the current "communist" model... Well, if anything it's too micro intensive. If dwarves start making their own choices in what they want to work or produce based on their own wants and needs as well as the wants and needs of the fortress they could make more rational decisions and maybe we could have have less idlers without having to micromanage too much. Of course, this could be done automatically by a 'auto-labor' function(that exists in df hack but isn't very efficient), but there are reasons to do it differently: most importantly, becuase there's the idea that (some) dwarves could want to choose their own line of work and could be annoyed if you just forced them to do what you as the player think is "most efficient". That could create an intersting dynamic between having your people do certain jobs that are in high demand. Maybe you'd have to "pay" them more...

The problem with the system derives from the limitations of the game interface and the lack of automation.  The mechanics for effective automation of fortress production to meet demand are implementable quite separately from the need for an kind of internal currency and trading system. 

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=150555.0

As I point out in this thread, it is quite possible to have production happen autonomously in a realistic manner without needing any kind of internal commercial activity.

[Ribs]

By 'capitalistic institutions' I naturally mean anything that potentially makes some dwarves rich and other dwarves poor, things that are presently absent.  Implementing some of those things is not hard, the problem is that they do not make any sense at the moment.

That's a simplistic way of viewing and describing capitalism. Are you suggesting that there was no social-economic distinctions in feudal societies? And if there were, is it because of some sort of  proto-capitalistic inclinations present in those societies? Because I don't think you don't even need money to have a society where some are wealthier than others.

1. That is not how the monarchy works at the moment.  There is no feudal hierarchy among the nobles, they all answer directly to the king.  Ranks are based upon the relative importance of the settlement to which the belong, not how many subordinates you have.
2. The legal system and ethics are essentially irrelevant to the game at present.
3. You create the economic system (build workshops, set labours, assign work orders).  There is no economic activity in the fortress when the player arrives on the scene.
4. Aside from the expedition leader and the mayor, the offices are empty until filled up.  The government positions start off as ideas as opposed to anything else.
5. You do not appear to understand the concept of a class system, a ruling class is *not* the same thing as the authorities.  Nobles do work exactly the same as other dwarves do at present despite the (non-functional) menial work exemption tag in the raws and there is no noble social class separate from the individual positions.

1. http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/dwarf_holdings_3c.png   <--- Yes it is. The capital (the one who gives out purple lines) commands several holdings, and some of those holdings (the ones who produce red lines) control other holdings who in turn can control other holdings (orange lines).

2. No they're not. You can't decide who goes to jail for what, or what's a punishable crime and what isn't. Sure, you can ignore it and never make jails or appoint a sheriff, but that's about as influential as you can be.

3. Sure. I guess I should have said "commercial" instead of "economic". You can't decide how trading works, and are stuck with the trade agreement limitations the game bounds you to. When people refer to dwarven economy, they generally think of the classic dwarven economy of old, when  internal commerce was first (unsuccessfully) implemented into the game, with internal trading, currency and a tax system.

4. You can't create your own "custom positions" in the game. You're stuck with what you got. You could say that "my dwarves don't believe in death penalties or corporeal punishent because I never appointed a hammerer or a captain of the guard", but that's you roleplaying. Dwarven institutions are dead set, and it reflects on what Toady imagined what dwarven society and culture would be like. You could also refrain from cutting trees and say that your dwarves are in fact elves wearing fake beards, but again that is just you being creative.

The institutions in the game are not really just "suggestions". Players can roleplay if they want to by ignoring some of them, but the game doesn't support or recognize these actions.

5. You do not appear to understand how the nobility works in DF. Nobles literally get mad when some "lesser dwarf" has nicer accomodations, and feel entitled to better rooms and furniture. They can make arbitrary demands and arrest dwarves for not meeting them. They only work now because of a bug, and it's silly to put it foward as if it were a feature. Nobles are a class, whether you like it or not. There is more mobility than in most (frankly, all) ancient societies, but it's still a class.


Let me be clear about a few things:

A lot of people seem to believe that dwarf fortress is build to be some sort of socialism simulator, and was intentionally made so we would see a society without class, without economic distinction, without individuals being rich while others being poor, etc. That is simply not the case. When the economy was first introduced, we saw some dwarves getting rich while others being poor, deppending on what kind of jobs they had. I see absolutely no evidence for that changing when the economy is reimplemented (whenever that is). Of course, one can hope it will be more balanced and that the player will be able to set up a system where even citizens who have less valued work or work less will be able to sustain themselves, but the idea of wealth inequality remains.

Of course, in the old system you also had things like legendary craftsdwarves (as well as nobles) being exempt from the economy, which was weird and also caused problems. But judging how dwarves view craftsmanship as the most valued thing in the world it's kind of understandable why would they do that.

You see, I'm not suggesting DF to become "High Fantasy Capitalism Simulator 3000". It's just that me and a lot of people (apparently, including the developers) find the idea of having coins in the game, and a class system where some are rich and others poor interesting in a society simulator like DF. If it was just about "efficiency", why don't we also start complaining about dwarves throwing tantrums and being emotional about things? That makes them less efficient, but it's an interesting feature.

You never adressed my point about the possibility that some dwarves wouldn't enjoy living in a place where they are not being properly compensated for their talents or hard work. Should a mason that works hard and costantly be happy about recieving the same treatment as a dwarf who is constantly idle or is more lazy? Again, making dwarves think that way would make them less efficient, but it would bring more to the game. Of course, you could work that in with different consumer damand as you suggested, without the need of coins, but as I argued before, coins are more interesting to me and a lot of people.

[Alfrodo]

Another thing.. how should this "new" economy treat exemptions and such?

One route could be, nobles and economy exempt folk should have their money provided by taxes. And Legendary folk get a high income, perhaps as a natural result of them pumping out masterwork after masterwork.

[Splint]

Another thing.. how should this "new" economy treat exemptions and such?

One route could be, nobles and economy exempt folk should have their money provided by taxes. And Legendary folk get a high income, perhaps as a natural result of them pumping out masterwork after masterwork.

 I was under the impression that at least for nobles, that was (in essence, if not fully implemented,) the case - they got thier money via taxing the populace, while legendary soldiers and workers just didn't need to pay for stuff in recognition of thier skill, though simply having them get a higher base income would probably work much better in any sort of reimplementation.

[StagnantSoul]

By 'capitalistic institutions' I naturally mean anything that potentially makes some dwarves rich and other dwarves poor, things that are presently absent.  Implementing some of those things is not hard, the problem is that they do not make any sense at the moment.

That's a simplistic way of viewing and describing capitalism. Are you suggesting that there was no social-economic distinctions in feudal societies? And if there were, is it because of some sort of  proto-capitalistic inclinations present in those societies? Because I don't think you don't even need money to have a society where some are wealthier than others.

1. That is not how the monarchy works at the moment.  There is no feudal hierarchy among the nobles, they all answer directly to the king.  Ranks are based upon the relative importance of the settlement to which the belong, not how many subordinates you have.
2. The legal system and ethics are essentially irrelevant to the game at present.
3. You create the economic system (build workshops, set labours, assign work orders).  There is no economic activity in the fortress when the player arrives on the scene.
4. Aside from the expedition leader and the mayor, the offices are empty until filled up.  The government positions start off as ideas as opposed to anything else.
5. You do not appear to understand the concept of a class system, a ruling class is *not* the same thing as the authorities.  Nobles do work exactly the same as other dwarves do at present despite the (non-functional) menial work exemption tag in the raws and there is no noble social class separate from the individual positions.

1. http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/imgs/dwarf_holdings_3c.png   <--- Yes it is. The capital (the one who gives out purple lines) commands several holdings, and some of those holdings (the ones who produce red lines) control other holdings who in turn can control other holdings (orange lines).

2. No they're not. You can't decide who goes to jail for what, or what's a punishable crime and what isn't. Sure, you can ignore it and never make jails or appoint a sheriff, but that's about as influential as you can be.

3. Sure. I guess I should have said "commercial" instead of "economic". You can't decide how trading works, and are stuck with the trade agreement limitations the game bounds you to. When people refer to dwarven economy, they generally think of the classic dwarven economy of old, when  internal commerce was first (unsuccessfully) implemented into the game, with internal trading, currency and a tax system.

4. You can't create your own "custom positions" in the game. You're stuck with what you got. You could say that "my dwarves don't believe in death penalties or corporeal punishent because I never appointed a hammerer or a captain of the guard", but that's you roleplaying. Dwarven institutions are dead set, and it reflects on what Toady imagined what dwarven society and culture would be like. You could also refrain from cutting trees and say that your dwarves are in fact elves wearing fake beards, but again that is just you being creative.

The institutions in the game are not really just "suggestions". Players can roleplay if they want to by ignoring some of them, but the game doesn't support or recognize these actions.

5. You do not appear to understand how the nobility works in DF. Nobles literally get mad when some "lesser dwarf" has nicer accomodations, and feel entitled to better rooms and furniture. They can make arbitrary demands and arrest dwarves for not meeting them. They only work now because of a bug, and it's silly to put it foward as if it were a feature. Nobles are a class, whether you like it or not. There is more mobility than in most (frankly, all) ancient societies, but it's still a class.


Let me be clear about a few things:

A lot of people seem to believe that dwarf fortress is build to be some sort of socialism simulator, and was intentionally made so we would see a society without class, without economic distinction, without individuals being rich while others being poor, etc. That is simply not the case. When the economy was first introduced, we saw some dwarves getting rich while others being poor, deppending on what kind of jobs they had. I see absolutely no evidence for that changing when the economy is reimplemented (whenever that is). Of course, one can hope it will be more balanced and that the player will be able to set up a system where even citizens who have less valued work or work less will be able to sustain themselves, but the idea of wealth inequality remains.

Of course, in the old system you also had things like legendary craftsdwarves (as well as nobles) being exempt from the economy, which was weird and also caused problems. But judging how dwarves view craftsmanship as the most valued thing in the world it's kind of understandable why would they do that.

You see, I'm not suggesting DF to become "High Fantasy Capitalism Simulator 3000". It's just that me and a lot of people (apparently, including the developers) find the idea of having coins in the game, and a class system where some are rich and others poor interesting in a society simulator like DF. If it was just about "efficiency", why don't we also start complaining about dwarves throwing tantrums and being emotional about things? That makes them less efficient, but it's an interesting feature.

You never adressed my point about the possibility that some dwarves wouldn't enjoy living in a place where they are not being properly compensated for their talents or hard work. Should a mason that works hard and costantly be happy about recieving the same treatment as a dwarf who is constantly idle or is more lazy? Again, making dwarves think that way would make them less efficient, but it would bring more to the game. Of course, you could work that in with different consumer damand as you suggested, without the need of coins, but as I argued before, coins are more interesting to me and a lot of people.

*Small applause*

I was trying to think last night how to say everything you have. Thanks.

[Ribs]

Another thing.. how should this "new" economy treat exemptions and such?

One route could be, nobles and economy exempt folk should have their money provided by taxes. And Legendary folk get a high income, perhaps as a natural result of them pumping out masterwork after masterwork.

 I was under the impression that at least for nobles, that was (in essence, if not fully implemented,) the case - they got thier money via taxing the populace, while legendary soldiers and workers just didn't need to pay for stuff in recognition of thier skill, though simply having them get a higher base income would probably work much better in any sort of reimplementation.

Another thing you could do would be simply to exempt those special dwarves from paying taxes. The problem with any of these is that we could potentially have a fortress where 90% of the population would be exempt from taxation...

Maybe the best answer to this would be a set-number of people who could recieve these benefits, instead of every legendary-dwarf. Like, say, 10% of the population. Maybe only high-ranking guild members would be qualified and a select number of elite soldiers that you could choose as we do the current 'champion', so to symbolize "knights" or soldiering nobles.

[Ribs]

*Small applause*

I was trying to think last night how to say everything you have. Thanks.

No problem, I had fun writing it. Thank you for coming up with the thread, too; it's always nice to see people who are also interested in having a currency based economy in DF, and it gives us an opportunity to discuss it with people who seem to be against it.

[Splint]

Another thing.. how should this "new" economy treat exemptions and such?

One route could be, nobles and economy exempt folk should have their money provided by taxes. And Legendary folk get a high income, perhaps as a natural result of them pumping out masterwork after masterwork.

 I was under the impression that at least for nobles, that was (in essence, if not fully implemented,) the case - they got thier money via taxing the populace, while legendary soldiers and workers just didn't need to pay for stuff in recognition of thier skill, though simply having them get a higher base income would probably work much better in any sort of reimplementation.

Another thing you could do would be simply to exempt those special dwarves from paying taxes. The problem with any of these is that we could potentially have a fortress where 90% of the population would be exempt from taxation...

Maybe the best answer to this would be a set-number of people who could recieve these benefits, instead of every legendary-dwarf. Like, say, 10% of the population. Maybe only high-ranking guild members would be qualified and a select number of elite soldiers that you could choose as we do the current 'champion', so to symbolize "knights" or soldiering nobles.

Some kind of setting in the int files would be nice to control that (like, maximum [TAX_EXEMPT_POP:80] (percent), minimum of 20 (so the nobility and upper echelons always collect at least a fifth of the population in taxes; no cheating the upper crust of all thier money. )

And technically, soldiering nobles would be the officers - Generals, Captains, Lieutenants, and MCOMs, though I usually rename them to Colonel since unless the General shows up they're the Army's active hammers and blades in your fortress and thus the highest ranking officer likely to enter the fray, and Militia Captains, who I think would be better named as Sergeant, Militia Captain sounds too fancy for a militia squad leader or more like what the commander's title should be.

And not even because they're listed as "nobles," but because as both non-coms and commissioned officers they'd be the most likely to be on direct Monarchy payroll rather than the fortress itself or otherwise get special treatment due to thier rank as squad leaders and officers in the military. After all, the cities pay the government, and the government pays the soldiers, which could be abstracted in some way as them being exempt or receiving higher wages than regular soldiers.


I dunno. Been up since 2 AM. Take that with some salt, cause I rambled a bit.