Print

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

[IndigoFenix]

I get that Armok is the God of Blood and all, but in a game with such a deep personality, conversation, and values system, it's kind of frustrating that no matter how high my adventurer's charisma is, and no matter how skilled they are at arguments, there's simply no way of completing the majority of quests, or making any real significant impact on the world, without slaughtering all those involved.  Of course DF is an incomplete game right now, but I'd love to see at least some basic alternate solutions to common quests, as this would greatly increase the number of things that a player can do in adventure mode.

Some examples:

Disbanding or reforming a bandit/criminal group

One dialogue option when talking to a bandit or criminal group member could be "Tell them to leave [group name here]".  If all the members of a group have left, that group is considered destroyed and a quest to destroy them is fulfilled just as if they were dead.  Instead of telling citizens that "[X] is dead", the player can tell them "[X] has come clean".  (Some citizens might still want revenge against them personally, especially if the particular bandit killed people, but this could be handled by the personal grudge mechanics.)

The formation and behavior of bandit gangs and criminal organizations could be tied to particular personal values.  If someone feels that one should follow the law at all times and that violence is wrong, they probably won't be a very good bandit.  By convincing a criminal of certain values, it would be easier to convince them to leave the group.

Some bandit groups are not in conflict with the civilization they broke off from.  Convincing enough bandits that wielding power over others and violence are wrong could make the group stop terrorizing nearby citizens.

Or, should that fail, getting them to fear you can also work.  Either by having a high enough reputation or beating the snot out of them.

Ending wars by debating the leaders

Wars start due to the values of the group's leaders.  Similarly, if the player manages to change these values, it should be possible to end them.  The POWER and martial prowess values seem to be the most critical here, but for wars that break out over conflicting values, managing to convince the leader of one civilization to follow the values of the other can also facilitate the creation of a treaty.  (Imagine ending a war between dwarves and elves by convincing the elf leader that nature isn't all that important

Befriending or reforming intelligent night creatures and beasts?

Maybe?  Maybe not?  I'm not sure if it's intentional or a bug but it feels kind of incongruous that you can have conversations with night creatures and even debate them but they just go right back to killing you.  I do think it would be cool if they weren't so one-note.

Also in fort mode!

If convincing people of values creates a practical in-game effect, it would also make sense to be able to designate a messenger to debate with leaders of another civilization or group.  Much like raids, but where social skills come into play.  The player can select which particular arguments they want the messenger(s) to make, or it could be determined automatically based on the diplomat's own personal beliefs.

[Miles_Umbrae]

If a criminal had such high moral values then they wouldn't have joined the gang to begin with .. and if they are actively participating members then if they are easily persuaded out of their criminal ways by only a bit of conversation then they are equally easily persuaded back into it again...

Likewise, if a civilization are willing to go to war with another civilization over differing values then their conviction that those values are worth killing and dying for isn't something a complete stranger can argue them out off.

[IndigoFenix]

If a criminal had such high moral values then they wouldn't have joined the gang to begin with .. and if they are actively participating members then if they are easily persuaded out of their criminal ways by only a bit of conversation then they are equally easily persuaded back into it again...

Likewise, if a civilization are willing to go to war with another civilization over differing values then their conviction that those values are worth killing and dying for isn't something a complete stranger can argue them out off.

You do realize arguments use a skill check, right?  Some NPCs might be convinced after "a bit of conversation" but for the more stubborn ones you need to level up persuasive skills.  A legendary persuader can even get a demon to change their values, which I think is just as awesome if not more so than beating them in combat.  It's just that nobody bothers to level up social skills in Adventure mode since, as stated above, there's no real point.

You are right about the point that NPCs should be able to convince deserters to rejoin, especially if they are still living on-site.  Convincing a bandit to desert their group should take numerous factors into account:

How much their values clash with the values of the group (can be affected by changing their values)

Whether their friends and family are part of the group (can be affected by convincing other group members to leave, or by reducing the value they place on friends and family)

Whether their are other available groups to join, and how strongly they need to be part of a group at all (in addition to telling NPCs to leave a group, the player could also advise them to join a different one)

Their current personal investment in the group (group loyalty shouldn't be an either/or thing, there should be different levels of loyalty)

How much they fear retaliation for desertion (can be affected by seeing you as the greater threat, or by killing or convincing the most threatening group members)

Disbanding a group could be a tricky puzzle, in which the player has to work with the relationships between group members in order to figure out the most effective way of convincing everyone.  Or they could become a legendary conversationalist and just disband a threat through their charisma alone.

[Miles_Umbrae]

Being able to, as a complete stranger, argue someone into desertation, or an entire nation into stopping their war, it's just not realistic .. especially not considering how little time you are technically spending on arguing your case.

The ONLY place something like that happens is in games .. and then it is basically as follows: the player selects a dialogue-option, the game does a hidden dice-roll and checks the result against the relevant skills/traits of all participants, and then it takes instant effect.

[Bumber]

Yet our dwarves' personalities can change from getting rained on.

[GoblinCookie]

If a criminal had such high moral values then they wouldn't have joined the gang to begin with .. and if they are actively participating members then if they are easily persuaded out of their criminal ways by only a bit of conversation then they are equally easily persuaded back into it again...

Likewise, if a civilization are willing to go to war with another civilization over differing values then their conviction that those values are worth killing and dying for isn't something a complete stranger can argue them out off.

Actually no.  Most bandits historically were really just orphaned soldiers forced to steal from the local population to survive.  They tended to really overlap with mercenaries, so a peaceful solution to banditry would often just be to find somebody willing to hire them.  Of course given it is dwarf fortress, the solution is rather simple, just find a suitably depopulated site and convince the local government to accept the whole bandit group as immigrants. 

[Fishyfire]

I find it very unsatisfactory that all the current were-cursed people are completely casual about their current situation. not even any signs of lack of social interactions.
The whole interaction with the cursed individual should be more of a moral dilemma depending on the cursed individual's personality.
Maybe they are ashamed of becoming the thing that they once hated and feared, so when you interact with them they will be more timid or afraid of the player, fearing that they would be seen as merely a bloodthirsty monster who wished nothing more than to kill innocents mercilessly.(Which is how the player reacts to them anyways, by saying that they are a vile creature of the night and that you will slay them where they stand.). Perhaps to solve this problem there were-beast selves could be restrained and then trained? or the cursed individual could encouraged to force their will over the will of their curse?
The one-note-ness also could apply to the insane, where someone could have gone insane but if they where treated they may be able to regain some semblance of their previous life (although this might only make sense with the stark raving mad one).
But if someone who was cruel and has no regard for what others think of them and would have no problem killing people if they were a were-beast, then it wouldn't be much of a moral dilemma, I'd gladly smite them where they stand.

And maybe after you slay the horde of zombies, you could convince the necromancers to return to society and contribute to it as scholars and give up their necromancing, maybe they hadn't know that they caused the death of one of their family members, that should certainly make them sad and rethink something (if they value family maybe?).

And I know that psychopathy and sociopathy and their traits aren't things in the game, but they are generally the ones who are in positions of authority, relatively lots of CEOs, world leaders, police and reporters are like this but so are pilots, surgeons and special operatives. You wont ever be able to change their minds unfortunately. but I don't know what traits DF looks for to find the leaders, or if it even cares.

With bandits and criminals, some may have just joined up out of fear of being on the receiving end of the banditry, others may have joined up because they were poor and had no other ways of sustaining them selves, others may have been looking to use the easy way to obtain wealth, and some may just enjoy being cruel. But the bandit leaders are the ones holding it together, if you would do this the easiest way with killing the least amount of people and solving the most amount of future problems, just killing the bandit boss would ideally be the solution. But i don't know if DF currently selects any random dude to be a bandit or the people with the right traits, same with the bandit boss and leaders in general.

[FantasticDorf]

A rare & 'where-adequate' optionality to confront a were beast with something valuable to it such as a trinket owned & given by a spouse or family member as part of either the starting quest dialogue or asking people about the quest would be nice to bring them back through emotional trauma and some other conditions.

Of course in the vein of the OP's idea it might lift the metaphorical curse based off magic rules (which will probably factor in very heavily whether it is curable/restrained or not, as fun as on command controlled were-beast transformations would be for typically murderous people) or just force them back into their normal civilian state where you can open up some dialogue options like

> "I accuse you of being a night creature. Die!" - (typical quest resolution)

> "You should go home to your family" - (family might express gratitude but you will have technically failed the quest, maybe there will be a particular reward like a artifact next made will be gifted to you instead or alternative payment for quest completion) while the night creature might yet appear again in the next lunar cycle.

> "You are afflicted by a foul curse, seek a wizard to cure your ails" - (Or volunteer to do it yourself if your adventurer is adept in magic and has the required objects) resulting in quest completion and the person non-lethally being cured eventually after running off or being party-escorted to the nearest relevant tower.

[NJW2000]

This really leads to the grand question of whether DF is an RPG or a simulation game.

If it's an RPG, the OP has a point, a game with deep conversation and value systems ought to have charisma check-esque conflict resolution as a bare minimum. If it's a simulation, then the only realistic "solution" to many of the horrors of the DF universe is blood drenched murder, or at least vicious maiming.

Additional thoughts: more diplomacy would be nice, think that's intended. Also the prophesied  mythgen update might give us a violence slider in worldgen, making peaceful options necessary for some worlds to have any quests at all.

[GoblinCookie]

With bandits and criminals, some may have just joined up out of fear of being on the receiving end of the banditry, others may have joined up because they were poor and had no other ways of sustaining them selves, others may have been looking to use the easy way to obtain wealth, and some may just enjoy being cruel. But the bandit leaders are the ones holding it together, if you would do this the easiest way with killing the least amount of people and solving the most amount of future problems, just killing the bandit boss would ideally be the solution. But i don't know if DF currently selects any random dude to be a bandit or the people with the right traits, same with the bandit boss and leaders in general.

Killing the leader in itself would likely achieve nothing more than to split the existing bandit gang into several bandit gangs, which would eventually merge together all over again. 

The better solution would be to then become the leader and then basically order the bandit group to either migrate into an underpopulated site as immigrants or set up their own site. 

[IndigoFenix]

This really leads to the grand question of whether DF is an RPG or a simulation game.

If it's an RPG, the OP has a point, a game with deep conversation and value systems ought to have charisma check-esque conflict resolution as a bare minimum. If it's a simulation, then the only realistic "solution" to many of the horrors of the DF universe is blood drenched murder, or at least vicious maiming.

Additional thoughts: more diplomacy would be nice, think that's intended. Also the prophesied  mythgen update might give us a violence slider in worldgen, making peaceful options necessary for some worlds to have any quests at all.

Don't try to tell me what's realistic in a game where a legendary warrior can wrestle a dragon .  There are times when you can't solve a problem without violence but that's simply a question of skill vs difficulty.

"If it bleeds, we can kill it" should be no more and no less true than "if it talks, we can charm it". That's the essence of what I'm getting at.

As much as I'd like to see more exxpanded night creature behavior, I don't expect we'll be seeing that before the mythgen revamp. Whereas I'd really like to see at least some implementation of peaceful solutions before the Big Wait.

[NJW2000]

If realism is intended, failure to properly "balance" combat doesn't justify the creation of entirely new, RPG-style, unrealistic systems.

I'm pretty sure recent changes to the combat system have reduced the efficiacy of wrestling creatures fifty times your size.

Re: "If it talks, we can charm it": this simply isn't true of someone or something that refuses to engage in dialogue, or is not going to change their mind. There have been many situations in history where diplomacy and argument were hopeless. Imagine persuading a Spanish inquisitor who had you hanging by your toes above an open fire that his religious convictions/life choices were irrational. Would he let you escape? No, he'd become infuriated and kill you in a blind rage, or he'd agree but recognise that his bloodthirsty superiors still required one (1) mangled heretic corpse at the end of the process. Sure, maybe if you pressed exactly the right psychological buttons in everything you said he'd let you go, but that's more like magic/hypnotism than charisma.

Some peaceful solutions would be nice, but better to have none than ones that hurt the game's claim to realistic simulation of a fantasy universe.

[Dorsidwarf]

I don’t see why this has to be construed as some arbitrary magic-like system. If you’re a godly enough debater to pull off the near-impossible task of arguing the inquisitor interrogating you into renouncing his faith then why should you be barred from doing that? (Or some less outrageous example). It would never be a full replacement because as you say, some people just won’t or can’t  listen to you, especially if they’re in the middle of fighting, but the ability for non-deadly resolutions to some of these quests by changing peoples minds would enrich the game.

[NJW2000]

The inquisitor might renounce their faith, but there will still be people with swords who will kill him if he doesn't deal with prisoners correctly. He's one of thousands trapped in a system built upon violence, and you can't argue with the people controlling that system, because their thousands of terrified underlings would kill you first.

You're right though, implementing more non-lethal resolutions would enrich the game, if the argument system was fairly in-depth. I'm just scared of a "roll to seduce" type button, I suppose.

[Bumber]

[...] you can't argue with the people controlling that system, because their thousands of terrified underlings would kill you first.

Unless you manage to infiltrate your way in. Arguer's Creed.