Print

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

[IndigoFenix]

I made a suggestion a while back to handle who we can or cannot control be based on a "loyalty value" mechanism: you can control (in later games) anyone who was perfectly loyal to you or your fortress (in earlier games).  This makes it theoretically possible to control any existing figure, but prevents easy abuse by ensuring you can only take control of someone important if you have risen to a significantly high-ranking position of that civ in an earlier game.  It also gives the player greater overall control of the world as they continue to play in it.

Here's a link for anyone interested.

[KittyTac]

I made a suggestion a while back to handle who we can or cannot control be based on a "loyalty value" mechanism: you can control (in later games) anyone who was perfectly loyal to you or your fortress (in earlier games).  This makes it theoretically possible to control any existing figure, but prevents easy abuse by ensuring you can only take control of someone important if you have risen to a significantly high-ranking position of that civ in an earlier game.  It also gives the player greater overall control of the world as they continue to play in it.

Here's a link for anyone interested.

What's wrong with the ability to mess up the game world? DF is a singleplayer game.

[GoblinCookie]

What's wrong with the ability to mess up the game world? DF is a singleplayer game.

What's wrong is that it is too easy and we are doing so by means of something that is outside of the logic of the plot.  Immortal spirit can possess whoever they wish in the hapless world to cause mayhem and nobody can do anything about it.  Now that is the plot and the actual plot does not matter.

[KittyTac]

What's wrong with the ability to mess up the game world? DF is a singleplayer game.

What's wrong is that it is too easy and we are doing so by means of something that is outside of the logic of the plot.  Immortal spirit can possess whoever they wish in the hapless world to cause mayhem and nobody can do anything about it.  Now that is the plot and the actual plot does not matter.

What plot? DF has no plot. It's a sandbox world simulator. You should be able to do whatever you wish with the world.

[GoblinCookie]

What plot? DF has no plot. It's a sandbox world simulator. You should be able to do whatever you wish with the world.

Dwarf Fortress is a plot generator.

[KittyTac]

What plot? DF has no plot. It's a sandbox world simulator. You should be able to do whatever you wish with the world.

Dwarf Fortress is a plot generator.

But won't my scenario qualify for a plot? If all else fails, Toady could make the possession of historical figs optional.

[Dorsidwarf]

What plot? DF has no plot. It's a sandbox world simulator. You should be able to do whatever you wish with the world.

Dwarf Fortress is a plot generator.

It’s not a railroad plot generator though

[GoblinCookie]

But won't my scenario qualify for a plot? If all else fails, Toady could make the possession of historical figs optional.

It is a plot based upon a mechanic that exists outside of the plot.  Making it part of the story makes a plot in the same way that a massacre is a battle, unless we give the locals some means to resist the player, along the lines IndigoFenix proposed.

[KittyTac]

But won't my scenario qualify for a plot? If all else fails, Toady could make the possession of historical figs optional.

It is a plot based upon a mechanic that exists outside of the plot.  Making it part of the story makes a plot in the same way that a massacre is a battle, unless we give the locals some means to resist the player, along the lines IndigoFenix proposed.

If all else fails, Toady could make the possession of historical figs optional.

For those who want to rampage unhindered. Those who want loyalty values could just select an option.

[GoblinCookie]

For those who want to rampage unhindered. Those who want loyalty values could just select an option.

Maybe players should not always be given what they think they want, for their own good?

[KittyTac]

For those who want to rampage unhindered. Those who want loyalty values could just select an option.

Maybe players should not always be given what they think they want, for their own good?

How would it harm the players in any way? DF has plenty of room for features. A lot of people play DF in an extremely destructive way already, and Toady accepts it.

[GoblinCookie]

How would it harm the players in any way? DF has plenty of room for features. A lot of people play DF in an extremely destructive way already, and Toady accepts it.

Yes, but they play destructively *within* the limitations of their own power.  In effect what you propose is more akin to giving people cheat-codes to cause mayhem, that allowing them simply to cause mayhem.  If I can simply change character strategically, then it is no longer about playing a series of characters and more about being an invincible demonic spirit that cannot be exorcised or warded against. 

To sort-of return to topic, if it takes a long time to rise to power and a lot of effort, then we lose something if we for instance decide to start a suicidal war.  If we can simply possess an already powerful person, then nothing is lost if we lead them to ruin because we just jump to the next powerful person.  In effect you get given the political power to create mayhem and we can lose it, so we have an incentive not to create mayhem just because we feel bored. 

Plus there is the hybrid situation where if I lose I can possess characters in order to bring them to ruin, so as to allow me to escape from the consequences of my diplomatic mistakes in the actual game.  That makes your proposal also basically akin to adding reloading into the game; I win I win, if I lose I possess the hostile leader and have my enemies self-destruct.

[KittyTac]

How would it harm the players in any way? DF has plenty of room for features. A lot of people play DF in an extremely destructive way already, and Toady accepts it.

Yes, but they play destructively *within* the limitations of their own power.  In effect what you propose is more akin to giving people cheat-codes to cause mayhem, that allowing them simply to cause mayhem.  If I can simply change character strategically, then it is no longer about playing a series of characters and more about being an invincible demonic spirit that cannot be exorcised or warded against. 

To sort-of return to topic, if it takes a long time to rise to power and a lot of effort, then we lose something if we for instance decide to start a suicidal war.  If we can simply possess an already powerful person, then nothing is lost if we lead them to ruin because we just jump to the next powerful person.  In effect you get given the political power to create mayhem and we can lose it, so we have an incentive not to create mayhem just because we feel bored. 

Plus there is the hybrid situation where if I lose I can possess characters in order to bring them to ruin, so as to allow me to escape from the consequences of my diplomatic mistakes in the actual game.  That makes your proposal also basically akin to adding reloading into the game; I win I win, if I lose I possess the hostile leader and have my enemies self-destruct.

You are ignoring my main proporsal. Why not add a switch to this effect?

[Starver]

Maybe players should not always be given what they think they want, for their own good?

If I heeded all the advice I've had over the years, I'd have written 18 books about Rincewind. Absolutely true.

Didn't get as far as 18 (the count was 5 or 6 at the time of saying) and I think it was a good choice. Although...

The most common plea in my mail right now is 'when are we going to read about Rincewind in XXXX?'

As it happened this did happen. But many asked-for things didn't. For various reasons.

[Dorsidwarf]

I still don’t get why you’re so against this idea? Like, you say it’s a terrifying cheat-code to be able to take control of your civl leader x and make them kill them self to end a war... but there’s equally nothing stopping you for creating a brand new hearthperson  of that leader, walking up to him and stabbing him with the free iron dagger.