Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

I'm not sure I follow here. Why does the adventurer have to be asked?

Because if the sites just create traders whenever they feel like it then there is no room in the trader role for the adventurer to fit into, as the sites have already created enough traders to meet their needs.  We have a clash between the two modes, while if we have individuals choose to become traders independantly and then be hired by the sites for their own trading purposes the two modes are then harmonised.  The adventurer is another individual that chooses to become a trader and then takes up a trader role at one or more sites, which can eventually progress to being given full control of a caravan.  If he then retires at the site, you can then play as the site and continue to have your former adventurer continue to run the caravan that he headed in adventurer mode, while if the two modes are not harmonised the adventurer simply goes back to being an ordinery dwarf. 

[Bumber]

I'm not sure I follow here. Why does the adventurer have to be asked?

Because if the sites just create traders whenever they feel like it then there is no room in the trader role for the adventurer to fit into, as the sites have already created enough traders to meet their needs.  We have a clash between the two modes, while if we have individuals choose to become traders independantly and then be hired by the sites for their own trading purposes the two modes are then harmonised.  The adventurer is another individual that chooses to become a trader and then takes up a trader role at one or more sites, which can eventually progress to being given full control of a caravan.  If he then retires at the site, you can then play as the site and continue to have your former adventurer continue to run the caravan that he headed in adventurer mode, while if the two modes are not harmonised the adventurer simply goes back to being an ordinery dwarf.

What do you mean by "whenever they feel like it", and why does that imply they already have enough? My method is no different than assigning to any other profession. Status as a caravan leader, likewise, is the same as hearthperson (edit: or performer, according to a new dev post) status or reputation.

[GoblinCookie]

What do you mean by "whenever they feel like it", and why does that imply they already have enough? My method is no different than assigning to any other profession. Status as a caravan leader, likewise, is the same as hearthperson (edit: or performer, according to a new dev post) status or reputation.

Assigning 'professions' at present is 'whenever you feel like it'.  We find any dwarf we fancy assigning to do a particular dwarf and we say 'do that job' and they do it; the problem with that situation is that it makes it very hard for an adventurer becoming a trader that is integrated into the fortress mode world unless he starts out as one and it also makes it possible to caravan spam the world with a moderately advanced fortress as you can send your whole fortress pretty much off to caravan.  My idea was to have a small number of individual dwarves choose to become traders and petition their fortress for the right to access the goods that they need to trade; if you deny them the goods they become unhappy/emigrate/. 

This results in a 'pool' of small traders from which you can then promote your caravan merchants from as you wish.  They fact the pool is limited keeps at bay the potential to spam the world with caravans and gives the AI a chance while there is also a way for the adventurer to petition a site to become one of it's merchants initially and be given control of a caravan if he does well enough, hence giving the adventurer something to accomplish career wise as he builds up his trader reputation.

[Bumber]

What do you mean by "whenever they feel like it", and why does that imply they already have enough? My method is no different than assigning to any other profession. Status as a caravan leader, likewise, is the same as hearthperson (edit: or performer, according to a new dev post) status or reputation.

Assigning 'professions' at present is 'whenever you feel like it'.  We find any dwarf we fancy assigning to do a particular dwarf and we say 'do that job' and they do it; the problem with that situation is that it makes it very hard for an adventurer becoming a trader that is integrated into the fortress mode world unless he starts out as one and it also makes it possible to caravan spam the world with a moderately advanced fortress as you can send your whole fortress pretty much off to caravan.

I still don't get how that makes it hard for an adventurer to become a fort trader. Sure, the code to integrate him isn't there yet, but the game does track his skills and entity positions. As it stands, an outsider adventurer that retires in a site becomes part of that civilization. The adventurer can then become a hearthperson for that civ. There is nothing that required the adventurer to start as a hearthperson, and it's unlikely adventurer roles will require any such thing.

If you send your whole fortress off to caravan, there's nobody left to run or defend it. There's also the accessibility of sites to consider. You can reach the sites nearby with just a few caravans, while the farther ones might take so much travel time as to not be worth it, especially if you lose the entire caravan. (Whoops, looks like your trade partner was under a goblin siege.)

[GoblinCookie]

I still don't get how that makes it hard for an adventurer to become a fort trader. Sure, the code to integrate him isn't there yet, but the game does track his skills and entity positions. As it stands, an outsider adventurer that retires in a site becomes part of that civilization. The adventurer can then become a hearthperson for that civ. There is nothing that required the adventurer to start as a hearthperson, and it's unlikely adventurer roles will require any such thing.

If you send your whole fortress off to caravan, there's nobody left to run or defend it. There's also the accessibility of sites to consider. You can reach the sites nearby with just a few caravans, while the farther ones might take so much travel time as to not be worth it, especially if you lose the entire caravan. (Whoops, looks like your trade partner was under a goblin siege.)

The dwarf caravans are seasonal, arriving in the autumn which given that travel outside the fortress happens at adventure mode time-frame means that only about 2 months will have passed even to trade to the other side of the world.  Not all fortresses *are* threatened by imminent goblin sieges and other enemies will be no problem at all since their active period does not correspond to the active period of the dwarves.  We can just 'lock up' our fortress in the autumn and take over the whole world's trade effortlessly. 

Granted however that you did propose the solution of having the dwarves complain/emigrate if they get given trading jobs when owing to various factors they hate such jobs.  This is why I said that it was a quite functional solution if all trade was happening solely in fortress mode, the only problem with it being the coming adventure mode trading role.  The problem is the integration of the two modes; which is as follows.

At the moment the adventurer can already trade with sites, the problem with the situation being the lack of an economic model to limit buyer demand for superabundant goods and lower prices as a result of various factors, the over-abundance of free sellable goods etc.  Once the world economic model is in place, then there are no special mechanics needed for the active adventurer to become a minor trader.  The problem is that given a model where trader dwarves are simply promoted internally there is no (realistic) way for the adventurer to become anything more than the kind of independent peddler that he can be already; once he retires at a site he goes back to being an ordinary dwarf (though perhaps a fortress guard).

If the sites can just make their own people into traders, then they would never voluntarily choose to entrust any important trading matter such as a caravan to an wandering outsider because even if they tax that outsider they have little means to enforce payment of taxes should he abscond while if they sent their own people to trade they would get the whole profit from the trade rather than a portion of it.  If a site is locally short of suitable people for trading purposes all that happens is that it ends up being passively traded with by other sites with a surplus of such people, whoever they may be. 

The only way things can realistically be integrated under your model is to have the adventurer explicitly start as a trader, this being the only way to integrate the two modes under that model (integrate means continuity between the status of the individual under one mode to the other).  Under my model however where site traders are people who freely choose to become traders of a site and sites cannot simply command people to become trader, the adventurer can thus slip seamlessly from one mode to the other as he can choose to become a site trader in adventurer mode and then continues his work in fortress mode.

[Ribs]

At the moment the adventurer can already trade with sites, the problem with the situation being the lack of an economic model to limit buyer demand for superabundant goods and lower prices as a result of various factors, the over-abundance of free sellable goods etc.  Once the world economic model is in place, then there are no special mechanics needed for the active adventurer to become a minor trader.  The problem is that given a model where trader dwarves are simply promoted internally there is no (realistic) way for the adventurer to become anything more than the kind of independent peddler that he can be already; once he retires at a site he goes back to being an ordinary dwarf (though perhaps a fortress guard).

A peddler with a lot of goods to sell is essentially a merchant. If your adventurer can have a wagon and haul a lot of products around, he'd be able to sell them to the site. How's that different than being a trader?

[Bumber]

The dwarf caravans are seasonal, arriving in the autumn which given that travel outside the fortress happens at adventure mode time-frame means that only about 2 months will have passed even to trade to the other side of the world.  Not all fortresses *are* threatened by imminent goblin sieges and other enemies will be no problem at all since their active period does not correspond to the active period of the dwarves.  We can just 'lock up' our fortress in the autumn and take over the whole world's trade effortlessly.

That's only the current state of the game. Armies have been converted to real map movement, caravans are due at some point in the near future. AFAIK, megabeasts and ambushes don't have "active periods", and dwarven active periods are meaningless if players have control over the caravans. I also mentioned bandits, which you're more likely to run into the longer the route (unless you're allowed to micromanage a longer route around.) Likewise for the fort, turtling will be nerfed by digging invaders. Fun must happen.

The problem is that given a model where trader dwarves are simply promoted internally there is no (realistic) way for the adventurer to become anything more than the kind of independent peddler that he can be already; once he retires at a site he goes back to being an ordinary dwarf (though perhaps a fortress guard).

Caravans could be handled like military squads, with specific positions (leader, caravan guards, etc.) If there's something that fort mode can't handle, it can be restored later from historical data.

If the sites can just make their own people into traders, then they would never voluntarily choose to entrust any important trading matter such as a caravan to an wandering outsider because even if they tax that outsider they have little means to enforce payment of taxes should he abscond while if they sent their own people to trade they would get the whole profit from the trade rather than a portion of it.  If a site is locally short of suitable people for trading purposes all that happens is that it ends up being passively traded with by other sites with a surplus of such people, whoever they may be.

Isn't it you who is proposing to entrust random mercenaries to guard the caravans? An adventurer that retires at a site is not necessarily a wandering outsider. An adventurer trader in adv mode must be trusted on his merit, because he has proved himself in some way.

The only way things can realistically be integrated under your model is to have the adventurer explicitly start as a trader, this being the only way to integrate the two modes under that model (integrate means continuity between the status of the individual under one mode to the other).  Under my model however where site traders are people who freely choose to become traders of a site and sites cannot simply command people to become trader, the adventurer can thus slip seamlessly from one mode to the other as he can choose to become a site trader in adventurer mode and then continues his work in fortress mode.

There's no reason why a retired adventurer couldn't start as a trader, then be told by the overseer to do something else. The same is true for the reverse.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Ah! I think I see your position now, GoblinCookie! (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You don't like how the overseer can just say "you are a butcher" or "you are a soldier" or "you are a cook" (I think) but even worse is being told "you are a merchant now go out into the wilderness." But keep in mind that dwarves are extremely lawful and loyal, and right now any dwarf can be told to do anything. So you don't see much of anything wrong with the suggestion of "send out caravans" but you do see a problem with the idea of just assigning dwarves professions.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think perhaps you should start another thread, enveloping all the jobs you don't want to just be 'assignable'. Perhaps a cat-loving dwarf shouldn't just be told to be a butcher, or a nature-loving dwarf to cut down every tree, or a scaredy-cat dwarf to go bravely defend the fortress. They will simply refuse.

However, I would be against that suggestion, because as I have said, dwarves are very loyal and lawful. If told to do something, they will do it. They might get a bad thought,  but only in the rarest of cases would they actually refuse. Of course, some jobs might create more stress than others, and depending on the dwarf's views on the subject at hand, lawfulness and loyalty, and their resistance to stress, they might just stop doing it. If they are a merchant, they might either return home without any profit, or even just abandon their fortress and live in the nearby hillock.

[GoblinCookie]

A peddler with a lot of goods to sell is essentially a merchant. If your adventurer can have a wagon and haul a lot of products around, he'd be able to sell them to the site. How's that different than being a trader?

He is, but the problem is that he is not integrated into fortress mode; mechanically he can trade provided that there are not so many caravans active that all demands are already met, (okay that assumes the realistic model of limited demands that has not been implemented yet).  The problem is that there is presently no way to have his trader status continue after retirement as it were, as he never was anything formal at all in the game mechanics. 

That's only the current state of the game. Armies have been converted to real map movement, caravans are due at some point in the near future. AFAIK, megabeasts and ambushes don't have "active periods", and dwarven active periods are meaningless if players have control over the caravans. I also mentioned bandits, which you're more likely to run into the longer the route (unless you're allowed to micromanage a longer route around.) Likewise for the fort, turtling will be nerfed by digging invaders. Fun must happen.

Remember that not everybody is threatened by megabeasts and ambushes Bumber. 

If the game does not define an active period, then the player will simply create their own based upon how long it takes to saturate the market.  There is little point of talking about the 'current state of the game' without being able to point to any concrete development plans to change things. 

Caravans could be handled like military squads, with specific positions (leader, caravan guards, etc.) If there's something that fort mode can't handle, it can be restored later from historical data.

That is my idea too.

Isn't it you who is proposing to entrust random mercenaries to guard the caravans? An adventurer that retires at a site is not necessarily a wandering outsider. An adventurer trader in adv mode must be trusted on his merit, because he has proved himself in some way.

There can be no adventurer mode trader if the market has already been saturated by caravan spam, since there is nothing left to buy and sell which has not already been bought or sold. 

I propose we enlist random merceneries not only in order to limit the number caravans but because we need something for merceneries to actually do that regular militia dwarves cannot do. 

There's no reason why a retired adventurer couldn't start as a trader, then be told by the overseer to do something else. The same is true for the reverse.

Indeed, the retired trader adventurer could be laid off if it is more profitable for him to be employed doing something else.  Adventurers are allowed to retire in sites other than their home site though, which means we need there to be a reason why a site would hire an outsider to become their trader rather than simply migrating in someone with trader skills.  It is clearly inefficiant to have adventurer traders when you can simply send your own dwarves off to trade and keep all the profits. 

Ah! I think I see your position now, GoblinCookie! (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You don't like how the overseer can just say "you are a butcher" or "you are a soldier" or "you are a cook" (I think) but even worse is being told "you are a merchant now go out into the wilderness." But keep in mind that dwarves are extremely lawful and loyal, and right now any dwarf can be told to do anything. So you don't see much of anything wrong with the suggestion of "send out caravans" but you do see a problem with the idea of just assigning dwarves professions.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think perhaps you should start another thread, enveloping all the jobs you don't want to just be 'assignable'. Perhaps a cat-loving dwarf shouldn't just be told to be a butcher, or a nature-loving dwarf to cut down every tree, or a scaredy-cat dwarf to go bravely defend the fortress. They will simply refuse.

However, I would be against that suggestion, because as I have said, dwarves are very loyal and lawful. If told to do something, they will do it. They might get a bad thought,  but only in the rarest of cases would they actually refuse. Of course, some jobs might create more stress than others, and depending on the dwarf's views on the subject at hand, lawfulness and loyalty, and their resistance to stress, they might just stop doing it. If they are a merchant, they might either return home without any profit, or even just abandon their fortress and live in the nearby hillock.

I definately do not have a problem with dwarves being assigned to do jobs in general but the question here is: why do we have adventurers at all? 

Since adventurers do something that site dwarves never do, namely leave their site area it follows that the reason we have adventurers is that they unlike the other site dwarves are willing to go off beyond their site.  We cannot have the "you do X" system of the fortress mode work too well or else the adventurer would logically be crowded out completely, since why send a small group of unreliable adventurers to kill the dragon when you send 50 militia dwarves to do so and unlike the adventurers they bring the dragons treasure horde back to the site. 

[Bumber]

Remember that not everybody is threatened by megabeasts and ambushes Bumber.

If it's happening away from your fort there's nothing you can do about it but add more caravan guards. (And still, Fun will find a way.)

If the game does not define an active period, then the player will simply create their own based upon how long it takes to saturate the market.  There is little point of talking about the 'current state of the game' without being able to point to any concrete development plans to change things.

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
It's all there under "Adventurer Role: Trader". Digging invaders is under "Improved sieges". Anything missing is part of the suggestion.

There can be no adventurer mode trader if the market has already been saturated by caravan spam, since there is nothing left to buy and sell which has not already been bought or sold. 

I propose we enlist random merceneries not only in order to limit the number caravans but because we need something for merceneries to actually do that regular militia dwarves cannot do.

Caravan spam and market saturation is a separate issue. It has nothing specifically to do with adventurers.

The point of mercenaries is that you don't have to train or equip them.

Indeed, the retired trader adventurer could be laid off if it is more profitable for him to be employed doing something else.  Adventurers are allowed to retire in sites other than their home site though, which means we need there to be a reason why a site would hire an outsider to become their trader rather than simply migrating in someone with trader skills.  It is clearly inefficiant to have adventurer traders when you can simply send your own dwarves off to trade and keep all the profits.

You're assuming they have access to someone with those skills. The adventurer is, in effect, that migrant or mercenary they are looking for.

I definately do not have a problem with dwarves being assigned to do jobs in general but the question here is: why do we have adventurers at all?

Player interaction with the world.

Since adventurers do something that site dwarves never do, namely leave their site area it follows that the reason we have adventurers is that they unlike the other site dwarves are willing to go off beyond their site.

There are dev arcs devoted to changing this.

We cannot have the "you do X" system of the fortress mode work too well or else the adventurer would logically be crowded out completely, since why send a small group of unreliable adventurers to kill the dragon when you send 50 militia dwarves to do so and unlike the adventurers they bring the dragons treasure horde back to the site.

Because adventurers are dispensable. If you fail you're down 50 dwarves, their equipment, you get nothing, and now you're defenseless.

[GoblinCookie]

If it's happening away from your fort there's nothing you can do about it but add more caravan guards. (And still, Fun will find a way.)

This transforms the situation how?

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
It's all there under "Adventurer Role: Trader". Digging invaders is under "Improved sieges". Anything missing is part of the suggestion.

That is kind of the point; there is supposed to be adventure mode trader role, which complicates thing that would otherwise be simple.  If all we had was fortress mode, then your basic concept of just creating caravans using our ordinery dwarves+materials+animals would work just fine since we want the whole market demand to be met simply by the sites themselves without the need for any external element since there is no such element.

Caravan spam and market saturation is a separate issue. It has nothing specifically to do with adventurers.

The point of mercenaries is that you don't have to train or equip them.

There cannot be any adventure mode trade if the sites have already saturated the market without any adventurers being needed at all; that is why it is quite important to restrict the supply of trader individuals to a number that the sites cannot simply create an overabundance of.

Merceneries have to be trained or equipped by somebody else, why would that somebody else train merceneries at all?  When merceneries settle down at a site, why would they not simply be treated as ordinery migrants with weapons skills, what is special about their role that justifies them continuing to be 'something different' even if they have been at a site for over a hundred years (can happen). 

You're assuming they have access to someone with those skills. The adventurer is, in effect, that migrant or mercenary they are looking for.

Those merceneries were trained and equipped by somebody else.  Why did that somebody else train and equip them as anything other than regular fortress dwarf militia? 

Player interaction with the world.

If the player can do everything the adventurer can with just ordinary fortress dwarves, then there is no need for adventure mode in order for the player to interact with the world at all.  In a broader sense, there is no reason for sites to tolerate and support adventurers at all, since they can do everything that they can more reliably.

There are dev arcs devoted to changing this.

Indeed, the question is how should those arcs be implemented.  I believe that those arcs should be implemented the player in the fortress interacting with individuals carrying out adventure mode roles as opposed to simply have fortress dwarves doing all those roles themselves. 

Because adventurers are dispensable. If you fail you're down 50 dwarves, their equipment, you get nothing, and now you're defenseless.

Adventurers are no more dispensable to the sites that created them than any other dwarves.  Indeed they are normally extremely valuable dwarves with plenty of valuable skills; why would create 50 adventurers that all get killed off seperately rather than just creating elite 50 soldiers that work together?  50 elite soldiers is going to far much better against the dragon than a whole raft of individual adventurers, indeed pretty much no dragon would actually survive such a confrontation. 

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Ah! I think I see your position now, GoblinCookie! (Correct me if I'm wrong.) You don't like how the overseer can just say "you are a butcher" or "you are a soldier" or "you are a cook" (I think) but even worse is being told "you are a merchant now go out into the wilderness." But keep in mind that dwarves are extremely lawful and loyal, and right now any dwarf can be told to do anything. So you don't see much of anything wrong with the suggestion of "send out caravans" but you do see a problem with the idea of just assigning dwarves professions.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think perhaps you should start another thread, enveloping all the jobs you don't want to just be 'assignable'. Perhaps a cat-loving dwarf shouldn't just be told to be a butcher, or a nature-loving dwarf to cut down every tree, or a scaredy-cat dwarf to go bravely defend the fortress. They will simply refuse.

However, I would be against that suggestion, because as I have said, dwarves are very loyal and lawful. If told to do something, they will do it. They might get a bad thought,  but only in the rarest of cases would they actually refuse. Of course, some jobs might create more stress than others, and depending on the dwarf's views on the subject at hand, lawfulness and loyalty, and their resistance to stress, they might just stop doing it. If they are a merchant, they might either return home without any profit, or even just abandon their fortress and live in the nearby hillock.

I definately do not have a problem with dwarves being assigned to do jobs in general but the question here is: why do we have adventurers at all? 

Since adventurers do something that site dwarves never do, namely leave their site area it follows that the reason we have adventurers is that they unlike the other site dwarves are willing to go off beyond their site.  We cannot have the "you do X" system of the fortress mode work too well or else the adventurer would logically be crowded out completely, since why send a small group of unreliable adventurers to kill the dragon when you send 50 militia dwarves to do so and unlike the adventurers they bring the dragons treasure horde back to the site. 

There is a distinct difference between player and NPC fortresses at the moment. Frequently dwarves in other fortresses will stay as lye makers for all of their lives! That almost never happens in player fortresses. Player fortresses thrive from the player input, but even the player cannot expect everything. And now this is going to the "why adventurer":

Because there is a need for Fun.

Players like to play roguelikes, and they like the ordered chaos that is the DF world they just generated. Adventure mode gives you a chance to actually go see that titan (and hopefully slay it), to go see the capital and talk to the king, to drive off ambushes and bandits. It is more "in the world" than dwarf mode, because you can move around the world.

However, just like any other person, you might be drafted into being a caravan guard or merchant. Depending on what you, the player, want, you might not like this, and could possibly run away. Now wouldn't some other people do the same? They will, so:

Sites will have a higher chance of losing merchants, (expensively)-armored guards, expensively-bought trade goods, and the food that the merchants and guards needed, if they draft people into those jobs.

So naturally if someone just walks up and volunteers to do it? Of course they can be a merchant/guard.

And what about if you don't want to be part of a caravan, just a peddler? Supply and demand have not reached an equilibrium, because of the many dangers associated with bringing a wagon laden with precious goods all over the landscape. So certainly one man/dwarf/elf could go into the wilderness, kill some beasts, and sell their corpses for quite a lot of gold, then use that gold to buy, say, a bunch of silk. Then go over that hardy, desolate mountain range, across deep rivers, and through thick forests, where few wagons can make it, to the human town of Seraelophual, where nobody has ever figured out how to make silk.

See? Trader adventurer, here we come! And we didn't have to neglect dwarf mode players, either!

EDIT: fixed weird quote hijinks

[Bumber]

If it's happening away from your fort there's nothing you can do about it but add more caravan guards. (And still, Fun will find a way.)

This transforms the situation how?

You can't use fort layout and traps, you don't have control, you will incur losses. You will not take control of the entire world's trade effortlessly. And with digging invaders your fort will be left defenseless if you try the turtling strategy you mentioned.

That is kind of the point; there is supposed to be adventure mode trader role, which complicates thing that would otherwise be simple.  If all we had was fortress mode, then your basic concept of just creating caravans using our ordinery dwarves+materials+animals would work just fine since we want the whole market demand to be met simply by the sites themselves without the need for any external element since there is no such element.

You keep mentioning meeting "market demand", but the specifics are only a thing that exists in your head at the moment. It's not a flaw in my model, it's an issue in of itself that would affect every profession if such a system were improperly balanced.

There cannot be any adventure mode trade if the sites have already saturated the market without any adventurers being needed at all; that is why it is quite important to restrict the supply of trader individuals to a number that the sites cannot simply create an overabundance of.

Why do you presuppose the sites have the means to saturate the market? Maybe some sites have a skilled labor shortage due to living in a world where people are dying all the time.

Merceneries have to be trained or equipped by somebody else, why would that somebody else train merceneries at all?  When merceneries settle down at a site, why would they not simply be treated as ordinery migrants with weapons skills, what is special about their role that justifies them continuing to be 'something different' even if they have been at a site for over a hundred years (can happen).

It's like you're asking why somebody would train and equip bandits. It's because that somebody is the bandits/mercenaries. Mercenaries are visitors who can be hired for coin. If they settle permanently at a site, they're not mercenaries anymore.

Those merceneries were trained and equipped by somebody else.  Why did that somebody else train and equip them as anything other than regular fortress dwarf militia?

See above. They trained themselves because they didn't have/desire the opportunity to be trained as a fancy militia.

If the player can do everything the adventurer can with just ordinary fortress dwarves, then there is no need for adventure mode in order for the player to interact with the world at all.  In a broader sense, there is no reason for sites to tolerate and support adventurers at all, since they can do everything that they can more reliably.

You can't assume direct control of ordinary fortress dwarves. If you do, then they're no longer ordinary fortress dwarves, they're adventurers.

Indeed, the question is how should those arcs be implemented.  I believe that those arcs should be implemented the player in the fortress interacting with individuals carrying out adventure mode roles as opposed to simply have fortress dwarves doing all those roles themselves.

There is no practical difference, other than that you're trading availability for responsibility (stresses/needs.)

Adventurers are no more dispensable to the sites that created them than any other dwarves.  Indeed they are normally extremely valuable dwarves with plenty of valuable skills; why would create 50 adventurers that all get killed off seperately rather than just creating elite 50 soldiers that work together?  50 elite soldiers is going to far much better against the dragon than a whole raft of individual adventurers, indeed pretty much no dragon would actually survive such a confrontation.

That's where you're mistaken. The average adventurer leaves a site (often a hamlet) with very little skill and hones it on the road. I'm pretty sure the hamlets are glad to be rid of them, especially if there's an small chance they'll return home someday being actually worth something.

[GoblinCookie]

There is a distinct difference between player and NPC fortresses at the moment. Frequently dwarves in other fortresses will stay as lye makers for all of their lives! That almost never happens in player fortresses. Player fortresses thrive from the player input, but even the player cannot expect everything. And now this is going to the "why adventurer":

Because there is a need for Fun.

Players like to play roguelikes, and they like the ordered chaos that is the DF world they just generated. Adventure mode gives you a chance to actually go see that titan (and hopefully slay it), to go see the capital and talk to the king, to drive off ambushes and bandits. It is more "in the world" than dwarf mode, because you can move around the world.

The distinct difference is not 'supposed to be there' but is the result of memory limitations/the undeveloped nature of the game.  The reason that fortress dwarves do not stay as lye makers their whole lives is that that the agriculture arc is not done yet, meaning that food is never really an issue; so fertilisers are not needed.  As for the rest of your post, yes there is a gameplay reason to have adventurers but that in itself does not harmonise the two modes as one single world. 

However, just like any other person, you might be drafted into being a caravan guard or merchant. Depending on what you, the player, want, you might not like this, and could possibly run away. Now wouldn't some other people do the same? They will, so:

Sites will have a higher chance of losing merchants, (expensively)-armored guards, expensively-bought trade goods, and the food that the merchants and guards needed, if they draft people into those jobs.

So naturally if someone just walks up and volunteers to do it? Of course they can be a merchant/guard.

And what about if you don't want to be part of a caravan, just a peddler? Supply and demand have not reached an equilibrium, because of the many dangers associated with bringing a wagon laden with precious goods all over the landscape. So certainly one man/dwarf/elf could go into the wilderness, kill some beasts, and sell their corpses for quite a lot of gold, then use that gold to buy, say, a bunch of silk. Then go over that hardy, desolate mountain range, across deep rivers, and through thick forests, where few wagons can make it, to the human town of Seraelophual, where nobody has ever figured out how to make silk.

See? Trader adventurer, here we come! And we didn't have to neglect dwarf mode players, either!

EDIT: fixed weird quote hijinks

If we can simply send fortress dwarves off to kill beasts and trade there will not be any trade routes left to develop nor will there be any beasts left to kill.  Having the system limited by abstact personality factors is going to be confusing and frustrating to new players.  If we explicitly tell the new player that this will not work, the effective result is the same as just prohibiting them from doing so outright. 

The dangers thing is kind of where I was coming from though.  Fortress dwarves refuse to go on long journeys over hostile terrain, this means that while it would be possible to send ordinery fortress dwarves off to trade locally guarded by ordinery militia to trade within a short distance of the fort, for instance to the local hillocks it would not be possible to send ordinery fortress dwarves to go on long trading journeys.  This is where the traders/merceneries come in, they are willing to go an indefinate distance away from the fortress and the adventurer trader can simply slip into that kind of role. 

You can't use fort layout and traps, you don't have control, you will incur losses. You will not take control of the entire world's trade effortlessly. And with digging invaders your fort will be left defenseless if you try the turtling strategy you mentioned.

Yes you will not be able to take over the whole world's trade effortlessly, because somebody else will have done it before you.  We are not talking about the player fortress in particular here, but all sites in the world.  Threats from enemies is not going to change anything, because somewhere in the world is a completely safe site that does not face any major threats from any serious adversities, that site then promptly takes over the whole world's trade.
[/quote]

Yes you may not be able to take over the whole world's trade effortlessly, but only because somebody else will have done it before you.  We are not talking about the player fortress in particular here, but all sites in the world.  Threats from enemies is not going to change anything, because somewhere in the world is a completely safe site that does not face any major threats from any serious adversities, that site then promptly takes over the whole world's trade. 

The effect of external threats is solely to move ownership of trade from the less safe to the more safe sites; that situation as a whole remains unchanged.

You keep mentioning meeting "market demand", but the specifics are only a thing that exists in your head at the moment. It's not a flaw in my model, it's an issue in of itself that would affect every profession if such a system were improperly balanced.

It does not matter what the specifics are.  If the sites have been independantly able to meet all demands that can be met given the total resources available to the accessable area as a whole then the adventurer trader cannot exist. 

Why do you presuppose the sites have the means to saturate the market? Maybe some sites have a skilled labor shortage due to living in a world where people are dying all the time.

I pressupose the existance of surplus value because without it there is no trade at all.  If no site produces more of anything than they themselves consume then there is no trade at all for anyone and the topic is hence redundant. 

It's like you're asking why somebody would train and equip bandits. It's because that somebody is the bandits/mercenaries. Mercenaries are visitors who can be hired for coin. If they settle permanently at a site, they're not mercenaries anymore.

That is not how the game works, merceneries do settle at a site and they remain merceneries.  Unless merceneries do something for the site that ordinery militia dwarves do not do then that does not make any sense.  They are more than just migrants for hire, they are distinct group that is quite happy to join up with adventurers that visit their site unlike regular dwarves. 

See above. They trained themselves because they didn't have/desire the opportunity to be trained as a fancy militia.

To what end?  Nobody particularly cares for them nor their services since they are just fancy militia in social function.  When people hire 'merceneries' they are merely thinking of what one more militia dwarf is worth; the answer would be virtually nothing.

You can't assume direct control of ordinary fortress dwarves. If you do, then they're no longer ordinary fortress dwarves, they're adventurers.

Or active militia dwarves. 

There is no practical difference, other than that you're trading availability for responsibility (stresses/needs.)

I propose that fortress dwarves be modelled as a seperate group to a group to adventurers but that adventurers that settle/retire at a site be able to do jobs related to the world outside of the fortress borders, which includes manning caravans.  Fortress dwarves sometimes decide to become adventurers of a given type in the wider world, normally going off for a time to explore the world and if they survive coming back to become on-site adventurers with can be made us of for their functions.  If the player gives them lots of stuff when they set off then they will almost certainly retire back at their home fortress, if the player does not facilitate their choice however they would end up someplace else instead. 

That's where you're mistaken. The average adventurer leaves a site (often a hamlet) with very little skill and hones it on the road. I'm pretty sure the hamlets are glad to be rid of them, especially if there's an small chance they'll return home someday being actually worth something.

I do not know what you are talking about; an adventurer is usually a highly skilled warrior and can also be a fortress guard too.  While they are off wandering the world on adventurers, enjoying a near 100% chance of coming to a sticky end they are putting their home hamlet at risk and depriving it of his protection.  Why would they put up with this state of affairs unless as an adventurer he were willing to do tasks for them that their own core population are unwilling/unable to do. 

[Bumber]

Yes you may not be able to take over the whole world's trade effortlessly, but only because somebody else will have done it before you.  We are not talking about the player fortress in particular here, but all sites in the world.  Threats from enemies is not going to change anything, because somewhere in the world is a completely safe site that does not face any major threats from any serious adversities, that site then promptly takes over the whole world's trade. 

The effect of external threats is solely to move ownership of trade from the less safe to the more safe sites; that situation as a whole remains unchanged.

Having a safe site does not protect caravans through unsafe lands.

It does not matter what the specifics are.  If the sites have been independantly able to meet all demands that can be met given the total resources available to the accessable area as a whole then the adventurer trader cannot exist.

If.

Why do you presuppose the sites have the means to saturate the market? Maybe some sites have a skilled labor shortage due to living in a world where people are dying all the time.

I pressupose the existance of surplus value because without it there is no trade at all.  If no site produces more of anything than they themselves consume then there is no trade at all for anyone and the topic is hence redundant.

I'm not talking about surplus value, I'm talking about surplus labor and logistics. A mountain of trinkets is worthless if you can't facilitate its safe delivery.

It's like you're asking why somebody would train and equip bandits. It's because that somebody is the bandits/mercenaries. Mercenaries are visitors who can be hired for coin. If they settle permanently at a site, they're not mercenaries anymore.

That is not how the game works, merceneries do settle at a site and they remain merceneries.  Unless merceneries do something for the site that ordinery militia dwarves do not do then that does not make any sense.  They are more than just migrants for hire, they are distinct group that is quite happy to join up with adventurers that visit their site unlike regular dwarves.

What mercenaries are you talking about? They don't exist until the next version. I don't know what causes some dwarves to be more willing than others, but I suspect it's tied to personality and skills.

See above. They trained themselves because they didn't have/desire the opportunity to be trained as a fancy militia.

To what end?  Nobody particularly cares for them nor their services since they are just fancy militia in social function.  When people hire 'merceneries' they are merely thinking of what one more militia dwarf is worth; the answer would be virtually nothing.

Think about why mercenaries exist IRL. Keep in mind your militia dwarves will also need pay once the economy rolls out. Think about coffins, families, and tantrum spirals.

You can't assume direct control of ordinary fortress dwarves. If you do, then they're no longer ordinary fortress dwarves, they're adventurers.

Or active militia dwarves.

You can't control your militia dwarves in combat, you can only point them to the enemy. You can't do any personal roleplaying as them.

That's where you're mistaken. The average adventurer leaves a site (often a hamlet) with very little skill and hones it on the road. I'm pretty sure the hamlets are glad to be rid of them, especially if there's an small chance they'll return home someday being actually worth something.

I do not know what you are talking about; an adventurer is usually a highly skilled warrior and can also be a fortress guard too.  While they are off wandering the world on adventurers, enjoying a near 100% chance of coming to a sticky end they are putting their home hamlet at risk and depriving it of his protection.  Why would they put up with this state of affairs unless as an adventurer he were willing to do tasks for them that their own core population are unwilling/unable to do.

They can't all be demigods, you know.