Print

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

[Bromor Neckbeard]

I consider myself a sort of intangible Doom-like figure.  (In the senses of both the comic villain and the archaic use meaning "fate")  I love my dwarves in DF, but not because I care for their hopes and their dreams.  I love them because they're MINE.

I try to make them happy, but their desires only matter to a point.  I'm truly sorry if your only goal in life is to be the best damned cheesemaker the Mountainhomes ever saw, MY fortress needs a moat, grab that extra pick and get to work!

This is distinctly different from the communal will of the fort (though I quite like that idea, as well as the dabbling possessive spirit one).  I find that if I allow it, the communal will of the fort is "everybody party all the time and no work gets done", so the meeting hall table is mysteriously un-designated from time to time.

I used to think of myself as the leader of the fort, and name a dwarf after me as I've so often seen done in succession games, but I don't do that anymore.  So many times, the "avatar" that I picked for myself tried to subvert my will.

We do have some operational parameters as players that are outside the functions of Dwarven Gods, so that title isn't accurate either.  We can only be in one place at a time, and only range as far as the limits of a single fortress.  So in that respect, we are less than gods.  But then, we are greater than gods too, for we can create and destroy entire game worlds on a whim.  Whatever we are, we are extremely powerful, but we can't subvert Free Will, and we have an extremely narrow focus.

This is a really interesting philosophical consideration.  I highly approve of this topic, because I've never really given this much thought until now.

[pushy]

+ Is the player a kind of dwarven god, that dwarves will listen to?
+ Is the player "the groupmind", however as mind completly unaltered by any individual dwarf?

I tend to go with an idea of something between these two. Dwarves have their own free will and will do as they please up to a certain point, but you have some power to instil ideas into their heads and someone (anyone with the suitable labour) will have an urge to see those ideas through to completion. You are never in direct control but you have indirect control over the will of pretty much every dwarf in the fortress.

However...

its IMHO an important question the justify or invalidate on what some said to this suggestion http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=25248.0 Some said that "possessing" a dwarf would be against the "feeling of what the player is in the DF world".... and I think so far this discussion just proofed that possessing a dwarf fits extremly well in the DF Fortress mode... considering what most players here consider what the playeris.

I disagree with this. The ability to take total control over a single dwarf does rather go against the feeling of what the player is in Fortress Mode.

[Massam]

Is it just me, or does the mountain god and the benevolent/vengeful parasitic spirit seem to be very similar?

[catpaw]

The ability to take total control over a single dwarf does rather go against the feeling of what the player is in Fortress Mode.

That is the question indeed. I mean it often sounds like "well cannot really exactly say what the player is, but this would go against what the player is"

[pushy]

The ability to take total control over a single dwarf does rather go against the feeling of what the player is in Fortress Mode.

That is the question indeed. I mean it often sounds like "well cannot really exactly say what the player is, but this would go against what the player is"

Ahem, you're selectively quoting things to suit your own argument...and doing a pretty shit job of it, too. I explicitly stated in that same post that "You are never in direct control but you have indirect control over the will of pretty much every dwarf in the fortress", ergo having total control over the actions of a single dwarf is against the feeling of what the player is in Fortress Mode.
When you say "Jump", your dwarves do not ask "How high?". Instead, they down a barrel of wine and say "Yeah, I'll do it after I've eaten this plump helmet roast, spent some time at that party by the statue, gone to sleep, harvested a plump helmet and spent some more time at that party by the statue".

[catpaw]

The ability to take total control over a single dwarf does rather go against the feeling of what the player is in Fortress Mode.

That is the question indeed. I mean it often sounds like "well cannot really exactly say what the player is, but this would go against what the player is"

Ahem, you're selectively quoting things to suit your own argument...and doing a pretty shit job of it, too. I explicitly stated in that same post that "You are never in direct control but you have indirect control over the will of pretty much every dwarf in the fortress", ergo having total control over the actions of a single dwarf is against the feeling of what the player is in Fortress Mode.
When you say "Jump", your dwarves do not ask "How high?". Instead, they down a barrel of wine and say "Yeah, I'll do it after I've eaten this plump helmet roast, spent some time at that party by the statue, gone to sleep, harvested a plump helmet and spent some more time at that party by the statue".

Yes lets get it personal by calling shitty and so! Right! 

No this is wrong, dwarves will ask how high! If I take a dwarf in a room, and say "you are not going through this door, ok?".. He will sit there and die of thirst before he just opens the door to get a drink. Also he will always cancel every party when the player asks to. The player has plently control over a dwarf.

A dwarf running alone is only "programmed" to do what he makes his mood as good as possible. If you hinder a dwarf to get a drink/food/sleep or to a party it pisses him of, if by door or by control. If he is too muched pissed he throws a tantrum.

[SeanTucker]

The player is Armok.

[Nesoo]

Will of the community sounds good, or you could say "overmind."

Awaken my child and embrace the glory that is your birthright. Know that i am the Overmind; the eternal will of the Swarm and that you have been created to serve me.

Sorry, had to. 

Aww, beat me to it. I was going to say, simply:

Spawn more overlords.

[pushy]

The player has plently control over a dwarf.

But not direct control, and that is the point that I am trying to stress. If you've got a dwarf standing in a room with exits to the north, south, east and west, and you want the dwarf to only go through the west door then you can't just say to them "Go through the west door" and they'll do it. You've got to instead block their passage through the north/south/east doors (either by locking the doors, putting impassable objects in the way behind those doors or by screwing around with traffic routes) so that the only way (or the 'shortest' way) out of the room is via the west door.

[catpaw]

The player has plently control over a dwarf.

But not direct control, and that is the point that I am trying to stress. If you've got a dwarf standing in a room with exits to the north, south, east and west, and you want the dwarf to only go through the west door then you can't just say to them "Go through the west door" and they'll do it. You've got to instead block their passage through the north/south/east doors (either by locking the doors, putting impassable objects in the way behind those doors or by screwing around with traffic routes) so that the only way (or the 'shortest' way) out of the room is via the west door.

Actually once again you can.. You can make a high traffic area through the west door and resticted areas through the other doors. The dwarves will take the west door.

I know what you want to point at. And I don't know if the sense of frustration when your military squad rather sleeps than to stop the dragon that is eating all dwarves in the main hall should be made as elementary part of the game. But I'd rather have that detailed disussion in the suggestion forum about possesing. Lets concentrate here on ideas to, what actually is the player? Okay?

[i2amroy]

Don't forget about adventure mode, where the player is named as "forces unknown." But I personally go with the possessing spirit idea as it explains fortress mode and adventure mode. The only difference being that in fortress mode you are trying to exert your energies over an entire fort, so you can only make suggestions, no matter how strong they might be. In adventure mode, you are only exerting your energies over a single creature, so you obtain complete domination over their mind. Also, what you do when you lock a door is really cast the illusion over the door that it doesn't exist to dwarves. For example when you lock a dwarf in the room you stop suggesting things to it except that the door doesn't exist, so it just sits there freaking out about how the door could vanish until you remove the illusion by unlocking the door.

[Erom]

I reject that. If I wanted to cast illusions on doors, I would go play some other game that has illusions and ghosts. We do not go to the illusions menu and "cast doorblank", we just mark the door as locked.

[John Johnston]

I reject that. If I wanted to cast illusions on doors, I would go play some other game that has illusions and ghosts. We do not go to the illusions menu and "cast doorblank", we just mark the door as locked.

Hmm... and it does actually happen, instantly.  The player is clearly a poltergeist.

[catpaw]

The door is not marked "illusionised" or "locked" it is *forbidden*. So you seem to be able to tell dwarves commands!

[pushy]

The door is not marked "illusionised" or "locked" it is *forbidden*. So you seem to be able to tell dwarves commands!

You're still refusing to acknowledge that any control you have over the dwarves is indirect. Going back to my previous example, you're not telling them "Go through the west door", you're basically saying "You can leave the room if you wish, but you can't use the north, south or east doors", logically only leaving them with the option of using the west door...if they even choose to leave the room in the first place.

Actually once again you can.. You can make a high traffic area through the west door and resticted areas through the other doors. The dwarves will take the west door.

I mentioned "screwing around with traffic routes" in the post you quoted. Might be an idea to read things properly before you reply to them Also, this doesn't guarantee that they'll use the west door, it's just encouraging leaving via the west door being easier than leaving via any other door. If you've got an object outside the east door of the room and you've set up appropriate traffic areas, the dwarf might see the traffic cost of leaving through the east door to get the item to be 35 'points'. Leaving through the west door and going right around the room to get to the item might still cost 36+ points and so the dwarf will still leave through the east door because it's still considered to be cheaper/easier than going through the west door and right around.